Jen Psaki reaffirmed President Biden's promise to nominate a Black woman to serve on the Supreme Court but refused to rule out whether Vice President Kamala Harris would be the nominee.
Another reason to vote for Pubs, especially for President and Senate. These people clearly do not need the responsibility of nominating and confirming Supreme Court Justices.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Pub.L. 88–352, 78 Stat. 241, enacted July 2, 1964) is a landmark civil rights and labor law in the United States that outlaws discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, and later sexual orientation and gender identity.[a][4] It prohibits unequal application of voter registration requirements, racial segregation in schools and public accommodations, and employment discrimination.
Re: There has never been a black woman on the Supreme Court
Jan 27, 2022, 10:21 AM
It's pretty easy and clear to understand. The mind of the leftist is so warped that they believe discrimination is the solve for discrimination. They then have to set up a 'Racist Bogeyman', to reinforce this way of "thinking". But clear minded people are able to see this for what it is... pure racism.
but my main gripe with this, and many situations like it (appointing the first whatever race / gender to a position) is that by limiting the applicants by the color of their skin, or by the genitalia that sits between their legs, immediately cuts off a significant portion of eligible candidates for reasons that have nothing to do with performing their job.
I don't have time to dig into the data from the latest census to illustrate the % reduction of eligible candidates, but I assume it'd be a fairly easy exercise to help quantify the impact here. Last numbers I read, the country is roughly 14% AA. For you math wizards out there, that takes a pool of 100 eligible candidates down to 14, based on nothing but the color of their skin. Assume we're 50/50 male/female - so now we're down to 7. This assumes the sample size reflects the demographics of the country obviously, so the number of eligible candidates could be further minimized based on our starting point.
Anyways...How is that not racism?
Case in point - look how they selected the VP candidate. AA Female. Putting that parameter above what the candidate can actually do, how the candidate could actually lead - ya know...important #### to do your job successfully - seemed to work out great.
This is a strategy to make people feel good. This is not a strategy to put the best person in the position to make critical decisions for citizens of this country for the next couple decades.
Only if you assume there is just one best candidate instead
Jan 27, 2022, 10:29 AM
of multiple qualified candidates from which to choose. I don't think anybody felt Amy Coney Barrett was THE ONLY qualified candidate to serve on the Supreme Court when she was chosen in part because of her genitalia and skin color.
When you consider that there has never been a black woman on the Supreme Court and then to suggest that a black woman should NOT be chosen because you feel there are too few to chose from makes no sense to me and seems to be more of the same kind of "logic" that has kept them off the court.
There are many qualified candidates out there. Choosing someone who is qualified and adds a different perspective to the court seems like a noble endeavor to me no matter how hard you try to make it some sort of evil effort.
You keep suggesting that there are no qualified black women
Jan 27, 2022, 12:56 PM
who want to do their job well and that their only qualification is their skin color and genitalia.
You also said this: "This is a strategy to make people feel good. This is not a strategy to put the best person in the position to make critical decisions for citizens of this country for the next couple decades."
That is simply not true. Implied in this statement is the suggestion that there are no highly qualified black women who would make excellent Supreme Court Justices.
Choosing a highly qualified individual who is also a black women when there has never been one on the court to bring diversity, experience, and an evenhanded approach to the court is an admirable effort, not a racist effort to keep the white man down.
Re: You keep suggesting that there are no qualified black women
Jan 27, 2022, 1:11 PM
"Implied in this statement is the suggestion that there are no highly qualified black women who would make excellent Supreme Court Justices."
No it's not. That is in no way implied. That is you making stuff up. There may be plenty of highly qualified black women, as there are probably plenty of highly qualified people of all sorts of ethnic backgrounds. Nobody is questioning that, or even hinting at it. The problem is that a particular skin color and ethnicity is being sought, which may indeed result in a very highly qualified candidate, but most likely won't result in the best, most qualified candidate, if criteria other than skin color and ethnicity is more important. For you, and many others, obviously skin color is the most important factor. Many of us feel that other factors are more important. It's that simple.
Was Amy Coney Barrett "the best, most qualified candidate?"
Jan 27, 2022, 1:37 PM
You could make that argument. You could also make the argument that she absolutely definitely was not. She's never tried a case or sat as a judge prior to being appointed. Of course she was highly qualified, but "the best, most qualified candidate?" The only highly qualified candidate? Absolutely not. It's a matter of opinion that you will not find unanimity on. You would probably find a majority of experts who would say she was not.
There are many highly qualified candidates for the Supreme Court. The suggestion that choosing a highly qualified person who is also a black woman to be a Supreme Court Justice will result not result in "the best, most qualified candidate," seems an oddly hypocritical suggestion, at best.
That's why this thread was started. You guys are not only implying it, you are openly stating it.
Re: Was Amy Coney Barrett "the best, most qualified candidate?"
Jan 27, 2022, 1:58 PM
The problem, and why it is racist and sexist, is that Biden has predetermined the race and sex of his nominee which has excluded others based on their race and sex. No, racism and sexism is never noble.
Given that there has never been a black woman Supreme Court
Jan 27, 2022, 2:14 PM
Justice in the near 250 year history of our country, appointing a highly qualified individual(far more so than Amy Coney Barrett), trained in the law, experienced in its application as both a lawyer and a judge, to serve as a Supreme Court Justice who also happens to be black is noble.
To assume that a black woman cannot be highly qualified and quite likely more highly qualified than the white woman most recently appointed Justice is not noble. It's something else entirely.
Re: Given that there has never been a black woman Supreme Court
Jan 27, 2022, 2:20 PM
"who happens to be black". We both know that is not the case in this situation. It has been predetermined that all other races will be excluded from consideration.
to serve as a Supreme Court Justice, not that they be a black woman. That is secondary. There are many highly qualified black women who would make excellent Supreme Court Justices, in spite of the protestations of a certain segment of people.
candidate that gets passed over because they don't meet the qualifications of a black female? Why are you OK discriminating against them? I guess black females are the only minority group you want to help?
now. Those SOB's can be hard to pander to, so #### em and their grievances. Remember when everyone got all upset over Asians getting randomly beaten, then everyone realized it was mainly black people attacking them so we didn't get upset anymore? There's a hierarchy to this stuff man.
They've definitely got a hybrid Chinese authoritarian/Indian
Jan 27, 2022, 3:32 PM
caste system ideology going on these days. Half of Democrats embrace it, the other half denies it exists. For all the #### they give Republicans, some of it deserved, they've got quite the hodge-podge of insanity going on under their tent.
Re: They've definitely got a hybrid Chinese authoritarian/Indian
Jan 27, 2022, 3:43 PM
I'm a registered Independent. Typically lean more pub, even though I do vote Dem at times. My thought process in the most recent elections was I'll vote for who is least crazy. Nuts thinking to myself during the last two Presidential elections Trump seems the least crazy. But here we are.
would feel, but to a lesser degree because Amy Coney Barrett was not the most qualified by any stretch of the imagination. Never tried a case. Never judged a case. Highly inexperienced, but she got the job for some reason.
Main difference being they weren't explicitly excluded due
Jan 27, 2022, 3:03 PM
to their skin color/race in that instance.
Can you answer why you're OK with other minorities being excluded from consideration now? Do you think black females are better than native american females? Basically you're fine with excluding all black males, asians, hispanics, whites, polynesians, and every other variety of race/gender in the world other than black females. We don't have any nonbinary justices, why do you want to discriminate against the LGBQT community?
Was Amy Coney Barrett "the best, most qualified candidate?
Possibly, as that criteria had not been removed as most important as it has been this time.
The suggestion that choosing a highly qualified person who is also a black woman to be a Supreme Court Justice will result not result in "the best, most qualified candidate," seems an oddly hypocritical suggestion, at best.
Again, that is you projecting. Nobody here has stated or implied that. You are imagining a racist boogeyman where none exists.
That's why this thread was started.
No it's not - you completely fail to grasp what this is about. It's what so many people still ignore or just don't get: Racism, sexism, and discrimination in America isn't/wasn't wrong because white males discriminated against black people and women. Those things are wrong in principle, because it's wrong to use race or sex to discriminate - period. If we haven't learned that lesson, we have learned nothing. It's the principle that matters.
Attempt? The Biden admin is outwardly saying they will be
Jan 27, 2022, 3:10 PM
choosing the next nominee explicitly based on race and gender. Maybe the nominee will end up being the best person since Jesus walked the earth, but that doesn't change the fact they discriminated against every one else based on race and gender. Something progressives have historically been vehemently against, now they conveniently embrace. It's a bizarre turn of events, but nothing should surprise us in clown world.
It's pretty hilarious when you consider they're arguing for
Jan 27, 2022, 3:37 PM
basically the same policies and procedures as the White Nationalists/supremacists that they say pose such a great threat. Maybe one day the light bulb will come on for them and they can start tearing down MLK statues and renaming highways together lulz.
haven't responded to the main point, which is that using race and sex to discriminate is wrong, yet that is exactly what Biden has stated he is doing. You are merely making an excuse for it, and deflecting instead of addressing it.
Nobody is against appointing a black woman - I'm certainly not. I'm just against racial and sexual discrimination. You, JB, and wacko dems however are all for it as long as it helps you reach your goals. That's the difference. Now continue deflecting, ignoring, and excusing.
I'm not suggesting nor implying that there are no qualified black women. How you deduced that is beyond me.
I'm calling out the numbers.
If you have 200 people in a candidate pool, and you say you're only looking at a ~7% subset of that, you now have a 14 person candidate pool. That is not a sound strategy to find the best candidate, unless you can provide empirical evidence that black women are superior legal minds and being a black woman is a required qualification to be a judge.
Since you can't provide that evidence, you're limiting a candidate pool based solely on a genealogical parameter that has absolutely nothing to do with be a judge.
Mathematically speaking, these are facts.
If we open the interview process up to everyone, and the top qualified candidate is a black woman, hell ####### yes, hire her ###. I'm all for it.
get the #### out of here w/ this projection ########. stop putting words in my mouth
Well up until the last few decades, I’d say the requirement/preference to be a white male was simply understood/implied…no need to spell it out.
So, I have some tolerance for initiatives that seek to level the playing field for groups who have historically been underrepresented. Whoever gets the seat will be qualified to be there…and if those who deride minorities for their presumed lack of motivation truly desire a change, they should be happy that young black girls will have another positive example to help provide them proof that their efforts to better themselves need not be in vain.
There has never been a black woman on the Supreme Court in the almost 250 year history of our nation. Is that just racist or discrimination?
Blatant racism and sexism, which led to blatant racial and sexual discrimination, is responsible for keeping black women from being considered for much of those 250 years, for sure. Not so much in the last 30-40 years though. Certainly not in more recent years.
Why does the possibility of a highly qualified black woman on the Supreme Court upset so many of you white Republicans?
I like her…always have. She’s a moderate Republican, pro-choice, even-keeled, common sense, and someone who holds to her conservative values while showing empathy/understanding for those holding different views…you know, what most of you would call a RINO.
As far as whether she would make a good justice, she probably would…but as extremely qualified as she is in many areas, I don’t think she has a legal background or has served on the bench…so probably a poor example.
50
