| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
J64TWB
Joined: 24 Dec 2013
Posts: 1685
|
 Posted: Wed Mar 16, 2022 12:59 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Since you didn’t have any problem whatsoever excluding 1/2 the population, but seem to have issues with 1/4, do you mind telling us what fraction is acceptable? Would 9/28 work? 5/14? 13/28? Possibly 1/3?
Please tell us oh great math wizard how this works since 1/4 is unacceptable. What if we go back to your acceptable 1/2 but stipulate it has to be a white male? You cool with that? How about 1/3 black, 2/3 white but open to entire population?
Are you saying that no black woman is or has ever been qualified? Or just today that not a single black woman is qualified? Out of 115 supremes not one has ever been qualified? Since 1790?
What are you saying techno? Are you saying you have a problem nominating a black woman? I think so. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
boggsman1
Joined: 24 Jun 2002
Posts: 9122
Location: at a computer
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 16, 2022 1:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
No, he just wants to see her LSAT scores first...
Reagan said it.
Trump said it.
No biggie
Add "black", and Biden. And let freakout ensue |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
techno900
Joined: 28 Mar 2001
Posts: 4164
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 16, 2022 4:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| J64TWB wrote: |
Since you didn’t have any problem whatsoever excluding 1/2 the population, but seem to have issues with 1/4, do you mind telling us what fraction is acceptable? Would 9/28 work? 5/14? 13/28? Possibly 1/3?
Please tell us oh great math wizard how this works since 1/4 is unacceptable. What if we go back to your acceptable 1/2 but stipulate it has to be a white male? You cool with that? How about 1/3 black, 2/3 white but open to entire population?
Are you saying that no black woman is or has ever been qualified? Or just today that not a single black woman is qualified? Out of 115 supremes not one has ever been qualified? Since 1790?
What are you saying techno? Are you saying you have a problem nominating a black woman? I think so. |
What I said is very, very clear. What you are saying is mystifying. I think any party that narrows the field in order to select a minority is making a mistake. The best candidate should be selected no matter their race or gender. And that goes for both parties. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17751
Location: Berkeley, California
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 16, 2022 4:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
With no sense of irony, Techno said:
| Quote: | | I think any party that narrows the field in order to select a minority is making a mistake. The best candidate should be selected no matter their race or gender. And that goes for both parties. |
Opposition to abortion and a willingness to use religion to discriminate have been requirements for the last 4 or 5 Supreme Court appointees by Republicans. Both of those are minority views. It is only when the minority status involves skin color that Techno and his deep south cohort object. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
coboardhead
Joined: 26 Oct 2009
Posts: 4303
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 16, 2022 5:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I agree Mac.
Abortion has always been a hot button topic in the selection of a SCJ. For both sides really. But, the Justices installed by the Conservatives do hold a minority view on Choice. So, the math does favor your argument that the field of acceptable candidates is narrowed by this single topic.
To be honest. I am OK with nominating a qualified woman of color for the SC. It is my feeling that the SC needs the same level of diversity as the general population. Knowing the law is one thing...and it is very important. Knowing how those laws affect individual populations is also important.
Is this also a political appointment? Of course. But, hearing a Conservative claim the high ground on keeping politics out of the nominating process is entertaining...to say the least. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17751
Location: Berkeley, California
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 16, 2022 6:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| CB--it is unclear whether such comments about "keeping politics out of the nominating process" are made with a straight face--or with an enormous blind spot. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
swchandler
Joined: 08 Nov 1993
Posts: 10588
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 16, 2022 7:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You're right Craig, folks will vote for their own side. But, before McConnell changed the rules, Trump's nominees, which were conservative favorites, would have never been accepted based on the numbers. You have to remember that President Obama's nominees, and all others before, required more bi-partisan support.
In the now, I have to say that I'm OK with selectively nominating a qualified black woman like Ketanji Brown Jackson for the Supreme Court. Her outlook should be be welcomed in the scheme of things in modern America. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
J64TWB
Joined: 24 Dec 2013
Posts: 1685
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 16, 2022 7:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| What are you conservatives afraid of? The Summer of soul? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17751
Location: Berkeley, California
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 16, 2022 9:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| J64TWB wrote: | | What are you conservatives afraid of? The Summer of soul? |
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
boggsman1
Joined: 24 Jun 2002
Posts: 9122
Location: at a computer
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 17, 2022 1:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| techno900 wrote: | | J64TWB wrote: |
Since you didn’t have any problem whatsoever excluding 1/2 the population, but seem to have issues with 1/4, do you mind telling us what fraction is acceptable? Would 9/28 work? 5/14? 13/28? Possibly 1/3?
Please tell us oh great math wizard how this works since 1/4 is unacceptable. What if we go back to your acceptable 1/2 but stipulate it has to be a white male? You cool with that? How about 1/3 black, 2/3 white but open to entire population?
Are you saying that no black woman is or has ever been qualified? Or just today that not a single black woman is qualified? Out of 115 supremes not one has ever been qualified? Since 1790?
What are you saying techno? Are you saying you have a problem nominating a black woman? I think so. |
What I said is very, very clear. What you are saying is mystifying. I think any party that narrows the field in order to select a minority is making a mistake. The best candidate should be selected no matter their race or gender. And that goes for both parties. |
There are many qualified individuals in the field. It is critical to have a representative SCOTUS in my view , one that covers many backgrounds, and experiences. That's more important than having 9 white guys from Harvard Law. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
|
Search
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Register
