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

[aubearcat 2,144]

31 minutes ago, aubiefifty said:

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.

You’re right. Thousands of good b/f as well as as Asian females, Hispanic females and so on. It’d be like choosing between Simone and Suni and telling Suni she wouldn’t be considered because she doesn’t fit the “Criteria”. Both are super badass but because one doesn’t fit the criteria…well, thanks but no thanks. That’s just one take friend. 

[homersapien 11,677]

4 hours 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 properly considered because of uncontrolled factors qualified though they may be. 

There is always going to be someone who is just as qualified as the person a given POTUS prefers.  Again, in a country of 330 million that's always going to be the case.  Arguing that a nominee should be the "most" qualified in the country is fanciful.

It's a president's prerogative to choose a woman or black to maintain or promote diversity on the SCOTUS as he sees fit. The only thing that's important is whether or not that individual is qualified.  Again, the fact there will be others - say white men - who are equally qualified is a given. But do we really want an all white male SCOTUS?  What would that say about our system of government?

Again, in a country of 330 million there is no such thing as a single person being uniquely qualified.   

Edited August 1, 2021 by homersapien

[DKW 86 7,579]

7 hours ago, AUDub said:

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."

Soto-Mayor said it plainly that her opinion would be superior to others. more often than not.
Thanks for that word salad. 

Edited August 1, 2021 by DKW 86

[AUDub 11,301]

3 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

Soto-Mayor said it plainly that her opinion would be superior to others. more often than not.
Thanks for that word salad. 

Are you obfuscating stupidity or simply a liar?

Of course you call it a word salad. You can't read. 

[aubiefifty 17,487]

10 hours 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 supreme court should reflect all people of the land. men and women of all colors and races. i also think we need a gay man or woman on the court and i doubt you would be up for that. there are a ton of gays in the country and do they have anyone representing them? what about a muslim?you have a musilim that loves america and is the absolute smartest person in the country would you vote for them? my opinion is you would not want a gay or muslim on the court but i could be wrong.do you still stand by what you said? just curious

[aubiefifty 17,487]

and of course there is that case where the white house buried almost a thousand complaints against kavanaugh so the public and vetting committee did not get that info to investigate the claims. they were trying to hurry him through because they want to load the supreme court up with anti abortion folks.so basically they did not care that the process was not done right as long as they got their person in there. this is why i am still not understanding really what this is about. i just find it odd.

[aubearcat 2,144]

51 minutes ago, aubiefifty said:

the supreme court should reflect all people of the land. men and women of all colors and races. i also think we need a gay man or woman on the court and i doubt you would be up for that. there are a ton of gays in the country and do they have anyone representing them? what about a muslim?you have a musilim that loves america and is the absolute smartest person in the country would you vote for them? my opinion is you would not want a gay or muslim on the court but i could be wrong.do you still stand by what you said? just curious

I would as long as they are fair. 

[SaltyTiger 8,105]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackbrewster/2021/04/15/progressives-want-breyer-to-retire-but-supreme-court-justices-are-sticking-around-longer-than-ever/?sh=4ae228404ac1
 

CHIEF CRITIC 

“The only responsible choice for Justice Breyer is to immediately announce his retirement so President Biden can quickly nominate the first-ever Black woman Supreme Court justice,” Brian Fallon, executive director of the liberal advocacy group Demand Justice, said in a statement earlier this month. “We cannot afford to risk Democrats losing control of the Senate before a Biden nominee can be confirmed. Justice Breyer is not entitled to the benefit of the doubt at this point.”

[AUDub 11,301]

15 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackbrewster/2021/04/15/progressives-want-breyer-to-retire-but-supreme-court-justices-are-sticking-around-longer-than-ever/?sh=4ae228404ac1
 

CHIEF CRITIC 

“The only responsible choice for Justice Breyer is to immediately announce his retirement so President Biden can quickly nominate the first-ever Black woman Supreme Court justice,” Brian Fallon, executive director of the liberal advocacy group Demand Justice, said in a statement earlier this month. “We cannot afford to risk Democrats losing control of the Senate before a Biden nominee can be confirmed. Justice Breyer is not entitled to the benefit of the doubt at this point.”

What happened with Ginsburg obviously scares the s*** out of the left. 

[aubearcat 2,144]

20 hours ago, homersapien said:

There is always going to be someone who is just as qualified as the person a given POTUS prefers.  Again, in a country of 330 million that's always going to be the case.  Arguing that a nominee should be the "most" qualified in the country is fanciful.

It's a president's prerogative to choose a woman or black to maintain or promote diversity on the SCOTUS as he sees fit. The only thing that's important is whether or not that individual is qualified.  Again, the fact there will be others - say white men - who are equally qualified is a given. But do we really want an all white male SCOTUS?  What would that say about our system of government?

Again, in a country of 330 million there is no such thing as a single person being uniquely qualified.   

I think in a way we’re somewhat saying the same thing. I believe I did say most qualified in a previous post and that was erroneous on my part.  The point I have attempted to make is that the group of qualified people is greatly reduced if a candidate is considered based on race/sex. I agree diversity and representation should be considered, however, the court would have to be expanded exponentially to represent every cultural experience in this country, as you’ve pointed out with the 330 million example.  I would be, as would most, if a president would’ve said he/she was definitely going to appoint mainly if not only, WASP men because that’s who his/her electorate is largely made from and it’s his/her prerogative to do so.