Replacement SCOTUS Justice no males and no whites need apply

[Couchpotato]

What makes one the most qualified? Looking at the list Trump had can you really say that ACB was the most qualified even from that list and that his list only had the most qualified people on it?

That's a fair statement. The person who's "most qualified" has to want the job and go through the process to get it as well. I assume every admin asks the person before announcing the nomination, it would be pretty embarrassing to have someone publicly turn you down.

The admin should have just nominated a black woman if that's what they think is the right thing to do. Frankly, to say you're going to do it before you do it is just pandering to a constituency and really puts whoever they nominate in a less than favorable position. Regardless of how qualified the person is there will always be the stigma that they didn't win competing against all the best competitors (even if she would have). Only the black and female ones. Every decision she makes will be scrutinized based on that fact. Had they just nominated a well-qualified candidate who happened to be black and female 99% of the uproar about it would go away/never materialize. At least not any more than the typical uproar we always get from the other side of the political spectrum when a SCOTUS justice is nominated. You are always going to have small percentage of morons who will object based on skin color/gender but by making this about those immutable characteristics only plays into those folks' hands. And maybe that's the point. Now the D's get the cast the R's as racists and sexists who hate black people and women. And the R's get to say the D's are just pandering to a constituency and where does it end, blah blah. It's happening in real time on this board.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Let's think this through a bit.

The job of a Supreme Court justice is to interpret existing law and the Constitution. The idea behind hiring a candidate of a specific race and gender is for representation on the court, but that is not the job of an SCJ. They aren't supposed to be representative of any one group, they are supposed to impartially interpret the law regardless of race and gender. If we appoint an SCJ on the premise that they should be representative of their particular race or gender, we are purposely interjecting bias into the court. That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. This position is not the same as an elected official meant to represent their constituency.

Bias is always part of the court, it cannot be removed it is part of the human condition.

That is why there are "liberal" justices and "conservatives" justices.

There is nothing wrong with having different perspectives on the court, in fact it is a good thing

 

[SweetTea]

That mindset resulted in White males for 200 years

So the job of the Supreme Court should now be that of a Congressman which is to interpret the law in such a way that it helps their constituency? Wow, talk about putting the destruction of our country on the fast track.

 

[Couchpotato]

That mindset resulted in White males for 200 years

No it isnt. The mindset that skin color and gender matter is what resulted in white males dominating the court isnt it?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

The admin should have just nominated a black woman if that's what they think is the right thing to do. Frankly, to say you're going to do it before you do it is just pandering to a constituency and really puts whoever they nominate in a less than favorable position. Regardless of how qualified the person is there will always be the stigma that they didn't win competing against all the best competitors (even if she would have). Only the black and female ones. Every decision she makes will be scrutinized based on that fact. Had they just nominated a well-qualified candidate who happened to be black and female 99% of the uproar about it would go away/never materialize.

I cannot disagree with this.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

So the job of the Supreme Court should now be that of a Congressman which is to interpret the law in such a way that it helps their constituency? Wow, talk about putting the destruction of our country on the fast track.

When the Repubs were clamoring for Trump to put people on the bench that would get rid of RvW, is that not what they were doing?

 

[Couchpotato]

When the Repubs were clamoring for Trump to put people on the bench that would get rid of RvW, is that not what they were doing?

Maybe. Many think Roe was a wrong decision based on the law. I am one of those people.

 

[SweetTea]

Bias is always part of the court, it cannot be removed it is part of the human condition.

That is why there are "liberal" justices and "conservatives" justices.

There is nothing wrong with having different perspectives on the court, in fact it is a good thing

So it is fine by you to have an NBA team be forced to sign some white guys so there would be equal representation?

Think about what is happening here. Biden is essentially looking at race and gender at the top of a resume. He throws away any that are not black and female and never even bothers to look at the achievements or qualifications of those that don't meet those criteria...a criteria of which a person has no control. That is the absolute polar opposite of everything the left supposedly fights to protect.

 

[postman]

The admin should have just nominated a black woman if that's what they think is the right thing to do. Frankly, to say you're going to do it before you do it is just pandering to a constituency and really puts whoever they nominate in a less than favorable position. Regardless of how qualified the person is there will always be the stigma that they didn't win competing against all the best competitors (even if she would have). Only the black and female ones.

First, when you're dealing with "well qualified" candidates, you run off the end of the grade curve. And what you're left with is a pool of several people, who are on paper equally "well qualified". You can see the ABA ratings board for that one.

And a story I like to tell. When Jimmy Carter was given a list of people up for military promotion, he notices that there were few if any blacks on the list. So he sent the list back to become more inclusive.

The next list had several black candidates for military promotion, and Carter promoted one of them. And if you think that was just "affirmative action" promoting some person just because of his race, you should realize that person was Colin Powell, who became a General, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and Secretary of State.

 

[FA_Q2]

No it isnt. The mindset that skin color and gender matter is what resulted in white males dominating the court isnt it?

Exactly.

And perpetuating that evil seems to be what the left thinks is needed to solve it. That mentality is baffling...

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Maybe. Many think Roe was a wrong decision based on the law. I am one of those people.

So it is ok for people to do that since you agree with them?

 

[postman]

Bias is always part of the court, it cannot be removed it is part of the human condition.

You might call it bias, you might call it experience. As you will notice that some on the court, rule as if from an ivory tower, unaware of what's happening in the real world. Like when they struck down the vaccine mandate for businesses with over 100 people, because they said that COVID wasn't a "business" hazard, but a widespread health hazard.

All I can say is, why does OSHA have regulations on businesses when it comes to electrical power, which isn't unique to businesses either.

 

[rightwinger]

When the Repubs were clamoring for Trump to put people on the bench that would get rid of RvW, is that not what they were doing?

Roe v Wade is the law of the land and has 50 years of legal precedent behind it

But the Conservative Court is willing to ignore it

 

[GHook20]

Biden's pledge to appoint Black woman back in spotlight amid Breyer retirement — The Hill

President Biden's pledge to nominate a Black woman to the Supreme Court is receiving renewed attention in the wake of reports [](https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/560353-justice-breyer-announces-retiremen)

apple.news

I think this is the EXACTLY way we should choose jurists. You know: solely on the basis of gender and race.

I suspect Justice William O. Douglas will be spinning in his grave — like a top.

Or no Latino, Indians, Arabs, Asians, or mixed race (unless you look more black like Obama)…

Just imagine if Trump said this… oh the leftist outrage there would be.

And this will tarnish the selection… she will be viewed by even leftist as the affirmative action nominee.

 

[postman]

When the Repubs were clamoring for Trump to put people on the bench that would get rid of RvW, is that not what they were doing?

They've said that the whole idea of putting judges on the federal bench, was to put those on there that would help them overturn Roe v Wade. To put them in as the district court level, elevate them to the courts of appeal, and finally be able to select them for the USSC.

A long term plan in the making. That finally hatched.

 

[postman]

Think about what is happening here. Biden is essentially looking at race and gender at the top of a resume.

Actually he's looking at institutions and asking why they don't look like the populations they serve. For too long the "best candidate" was always a middle aged white guy, even when there were women and people of color equally qualified, save their gender, skin color, national origin etc.

 

[reconmark]

Biden's pledge to appoint Black woman back in spotlight amid Breyer retirement — The Hill

President Biden's pledge to nominate a Black woman to the Supreme Court is receiving renewed attention in the wake of reports [](https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/560353-justice-breyer-announces-retiremen)

apple.news

I think this is the EXACTLY way we should choose jurists. You know: solely on the basis of gender and race.

I suspect Justice William O. Douglas will be spinning in his grave — like a top.

Reagan Pledges He Would Name a Woman to the Supreme Court

"I will also seek out women to appoint to other federal courts in an effort to bring about a better balance on the federal bench."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1980/10/15/reagan-pledges-he-would-name-a-woman-to-the-supreme-court/844817dc-27aa-4f5d-8e4f-0ab3a5e76865/

So as usual, it's okay when a white person is singled out, however, the outrage among ignorant whites can't be contained when the same sentiment is applied to anyone other than whites.

 

[postman]

Exactly.

And perpetuating that evil seems to be what the left thinks is needed to solve it. That mentality is baffling...

The solution isn't to continue the problem.

Look up "bakers dozen" for a historical remedy that's become part of our idioms.

 

[postman]

Roe v Wade is the law of the land and has 50 years of legal precedent behind it

But the Conservative Court is willing to ignore it

Yet when they were being confirmed, they all said that they believed in Stare Decisis.

Latin for: “to stand by things decided"

 

[FA_Q2]

The solution isn't to continue the problem.

Look up "bakers dozen" for a historical remedy that's become part of our idioms.

Explain.