i read where biden is going to try and get a black woman on the supreme court

[aubiefifty 17,478]

if she is qualified how many would support her? i think we need more women on the supreme court and i think it is time for a black woman. i personally hope she is more center than left or right. i am convinced we need more color on the court. so  again, if she is qualified how many would stand behind it?

[SLAG-91 1,520]

Qualified is typically interpreted through the lens of one's politics, so one person's "qualified" could be another person's "dilettante".

Like you, I don't want a "conservative" justice or a "liberal" justice.  The more a judge resembles a politician, the more nervous I get.

My $0.02 is that a SC justice (or any judge at any level, honestly) needs to be able to check their politics at the door and thoughtfully craft decisions/opinions that they may personally disagree with, but are just from a legal standpoint. If someone is able to do that, be it a black woman, white man or yellow-bellied woodpecker, then I'm good.

[aubearcat 2,143]

Why would race/sex be a qualifier? If the candidate is white, black, Hispanic, Asian, or whatever then they are qualified and should be considered. Qualified is qualified regardless…right?

Edited July 31, 2021 by aubearcat

[homersapien 11,672]

4 hours ago, aubearcat said:

Why would race/sex be a qualifier? If the candidate is white, black, Hispanic, Asian, or whatever then they are qualified and should be considered. Qualified is qualified regardless…right?

Yes.  But Fifty didn't suggest race or sex was qualifying. 

[jj3jordan 2,104]

If you say you are looking for a black woman then everybody else is in effect not qualified. They don’t get on the list. If a black woman is at least tied with other candidates then fine appoint her using whatever tiebreaker system you choose. Joe has eliminated 90% of the population with his declaration.

[SaltyTiger 8,101]

7 hours ago, aubiefifty said:

 i think we need more women on the supreme court

So you think like Trump it that respect. I mean he did I nominate ACB

[homersapien 11,672]

9 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

So you think like Trump it that respect. I mean he did I nominate ACB

Yeah, Trump is such a supporter of feminism and respecter of women in general.  No doubt that was his motivation.  

[aubearcat 2,143]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

Yes.  But Fifty didn't suggest race or sex was qualifying. 

Okay, nor did I. I was asking why race/sexwould be a qualifier which is what the article and title of the thread seem to imply. If that’s correct and the President’s intentions are to appoint a “black female “ as a Supreme Court judge, then many people of all races that are qualified are eliminated without consideration. 

Edited July 31, 2021 by aubearcat

[homersapien 11,672]

2 hours ago, aubearcat said:

Okay, nor did I. I was asking why race/sexwould be a qualifier which is what the article and title of the thread seem to imply. If that’s correct and the President’s intentions are to appoint a “black female “ as a Supreme Court judge, then many people of all races that are qualified are eliminated without consideration. 

Yep. 

If a given POTUS is determined to appoint a woman (for example), all men are eliminated for consideration.  That's naturally inherent to the process of creating - or maintaining - diversity in the SCOTUS. 

Trump undoubtedly replaced a woman with a  woman to maintain the current representation of women on the court.  A black woman would represent both women and blacks, essentially a two-fer.  It's best for the county to have a court that roughly reflects its citizenry, IMO. 

Representation by political philosophy is a different issue, but I feel the same in terms of representing the country. (That's why having the last 3 judges appointed by a minority political party is not good.)

 

 

 

 

Edited July 31, 2021 by homersapien

[aubearcat 2,143]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

Yep. 

If a given POTUS is determined to appoint a woman (for example), all men are eliminated for consideration.  That's naturally inherent to the process of creating - or maintaining - diversity in the SCOTUS. 

Trump undoubtedly replaced a woman with a  woman to maintain the current representation of women on the court.  A black woman would represent both women and blacks, essentially a two-fer.  It's best for the county to have a court that roughly reflects its citizenry, IMO. 

Representation by political philosophy is a different issue, but I feel the same in terms of representing the country. (That's why having the last 3 judges appointed by a minority political party is not good.)

 

 

 

 

I’m of the opinion that the best person should be appointed regardless of qualifiers. If it happens to be a female of color that’s great. 

[homersapien 11,672]

1 minute ago, aubearcat said:

I’m of the opinion that the best person should be appointed regardless of qualifiers. If it happens to be a female of color that’s great. 

I think the idea of a single "best person" in a country of over 330 million people is fanciful. 

 

[aubearcat 2,143]

Just now, homersapien said:

I think the idea of a single "best person" in a country of over 330 million people is fanciful. 

 

I suppose. However, I just don’t think it’s a good idea to set out to appoint a person based on qualifiers such race/sex. 

[SaturdayGT 719]

If she was center, who could complain? Its ideal!

[SaturdayGT 719]

....any chance anyone agrees on what "center" is tho?..

[aubiefifty 17,478]

13 hours ago, aubearcat said:

I suppose. However, I just don’t think it’s a good idea to set out to appoint a person based on qualifiers such race/sex. 

not ready for a fuss this morning but has the right ever picked one that was not a christian? is that not the same thing?

[DKW 86 7,550]

22 hours ago, aubearcat said:

Why would race/sex be a qualifier? If the candidate is white, black, Hispanic, Asian, or whatever then they are qualified and should be considered. Qualified is qualified regardless…right?

Ask SOTO-MAYOR, she is there because she is a Latina, and that perspective is better than all the others.

Sonia Sotomayor Quotes

I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.

[aubiefifty 17,478]

16 hours ago, aubearcat said:

Okay, nor did I. I was asking why race/sexwould be a qualifier which is what the article and title of the thread seem to imply. If that’s correct and the President’s intentions are to appoint a “black female “ as a Supreme Court judge, then many people of all races that are qualified are eliminated without consideration. 

and again, how many non christians would the right appoint to the supreme court? and i am not bashing christians but the principle.

[AUDub 11,295]

10 minutes ago, aubiefifty said:

not ready for a fuss this morning but has the right ever picked one that was not a christian? is that not the same thing?

Hoover put Cardozo, a Jew, on the court. 

[AUDub 11,295]

16 minutes ago, DKW 86 said:

Ask SOTO-MAYOR, she is there because she is a Latina, and that perspective is better than all the others.

Sonia Sotomayor Quotes

I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.

That's a pretty deceptive quote mine

Full context:

"In our private conversations, Judge Cedarbaum has pointed out to me that seminal decisions in race and sex discrimination cases have come from Supreme Courts composed exclusively of white males. I agree that this is significant but I also choose to emphasize that the people who argued those cases before the Supreme Court which changed the legal landscape ultimately were largely people of color and women. I recall that Justice Thurgood Marshall, Judge Connie Baker Motley, the first black woman appointed to the federal bench, and others of the NAACP argued Brown v. Board of Education. Similarly, Justice Ginsburg, with other women attorneys, was instrumental in advocating and convincing the Court that equality of work required equality in terms and conditions of employment.

Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O'Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.

Let us not forget that wise men like Oliver Wendell Holmes and Justice Cardozo voted on cases which upheld both sex and race discrimination in our society. Until 1972, no Supreme Court case ever upheld the claim of a woman in a gender discrimination case. I, like Professor Carter, believe that we should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group. Many are so capable. As Judge Cedarbaum pointed out to me, nine white men on the Supreme Court in the past have done so on many occasions and on many issues including Brown.

However, to understand takes time and effort, something that not all people are willing to give. For others, their experiences limit their ability to understand the experiences of others. Other simply do not care. Hence, one must accept the proposition that a difference there will be by the presence of women and people of color on the bench. Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see."

Edited August 1, 2021 by AUDub

[aubearcat 2,143]

34 minutes ago, aubiefifty said:

not ready for a fuss this morning but has the right ever picked one that was not a christian? is that not the same thing?

I ain’t trying to fuss. It seems like a legitimate question. If the President said he was looking to appoint a Catholic (be it any race/sex), would you feel that that qualifier is okay? The point I’m making is perhaps there is a black man, Hispanic man/woman, Asian…etc that’s also as qualified as whatever black woman that (hypothetically) is going to be appointed. Those people are automatically eliminated because of their race and sex without consideration because of those things. That doesn’t seem like the pool of candidates are being properly considered because of uncontrolled factors qualified though they may be. 

Edited August 1, 2021 by aubearcat

[aubearcat 2,143]

25 minutes ago, aubiefifty said:

and again, how many non christians would the right appoint to the supreme court? and i am not bashing christians but the principle.

And without being adversarial, do two “wrongs” equal a right?  If I go before the Supreme Court and all 9 justices are atheists ( most know I’m a Catholic) as long as I get a fair trial, I am okay with that. The only point I’m attempting to make in all of this is that the only qualifier that should be considered is the ability to be an impartial arbiter of the laws and Constitution regardless of your religious affliction, race, sex/sexual preference…etc

[aubiefifty 17,478]

5 minutes ago, aubearcat said:

I ain’t trying to fuss. It seems like a legitimate question. If the President said he was looking to appoint a Catholic (be it any race/sex), would you feel that that qualifier is okay? The point I’m making is perhaps there is a black man, Hispanic man/woman, Asian…etc that’s also as qualified as whatever black woman that (hypothetically) is going to be appointed. Those people are automatically eliminated because of their race and sex without consideration because of those things. That doesn’t seem like the pool of candidates are being drastically eliminated because of uncontrolled factors qualified though they may be? 

i want someone that is qualified but also look after the trampled on and discarded. ideally in a perfect world the best qualified would be enough but some folks would not vote for a black dem because they are assumed to be dems. see how that works?

[aubearcat 2,143]

1 minute ago, aubiefifty said:

i want someone that is qualified but also look after the trampled on and discarded. ideally in a perfect world the best qualified would be enough but some folks would not vote for a black dem because they are assumed to be dems. see how that works?

Sure, but it seems by making a proclamation of appointing a “black female” , it’s pandering.   

[aubiefifty 17,478]

1 minute ago, aubearcat said:

And without being adversarial, do two “wrongs” equal a right?  If I go before the Supreme Court and all 9 justices are atheists ( most know I’m a Catholic) as long as I get a fair trial, I am okay with that. The only point I’m attempting to make in all of this is that the only qualifier that should be considered is the ability to be an impartial arbiter of the laws and Constitution regardless of your religious affliction, race, sex/sexual preference…etc

the truth in my eyes is it has all become partison. ol kav had thousands of complaints that were hidden from public view. why? what were they hiding? and of course all the talking points were poor kav when most candidates are put through the grinder. i am afraid we are too far gone anymore for the best mind to be put on there.

[aubiefifty 17,478]

Just now, aubearcat said:

Sure, but it seems by making a proclamation of appointing a “black female” , it’s pandering.   

of course he is as the black female vote helped him get elected. my point is i bet there are thousands of qualified black females so in my mind i say whey not? any good discussion.