Replacement SCOTUS Justice no males and no whites need apply

[postman]

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.

Actually where there should be outrage about using skin color to pick a supreme court justice. Look at who George H.W. Bush nominated to replace Justice Thurgood Marshall.

Bush nominated the first conservative black guy he could find. Clarence Thomas, so he wouldn't return the court to "all white" status.

But his decision was clearly based on color, and not on qualification. No serious legal scholar thinks Thomas was qualified to be on the court.

 

[postman]

Explain.

A bakers dozen is to commerce, as affirmative action is to government.

 

[Couchpotato]

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

I would think that one of the boxes you have to check in order to get nominated by the President is that you and he/she agree (for the most part) on major legal issues. You have an issue with that?

 

[Couchpotato]

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.

Am I supposed to now agree that we should put people in limited positions of power based on their skin color because it worked out once? For every instance that you get a Colin Powell you're getting countless people who are otherwise less qualified. And that would be the case regardless of what immutable characteristic you choose to use. Shoe size, gender, skin color, hair color, etc.

 

[postman]

I would think that one of the boxes you have to check in order to get nominated by the President is that you and he/she agree (for the most part) on major legal issues. You have an issue with that?

NOPE. Democratic presidents normally looked to the ABA tribunal on judicial qualifications, and got a list of those rated "highly qualified".

And then picked from among those candidates for their judicial philosophy. Such as did they believe in Stare Decisis. Did they agree with long settled law? Or did they want to "overturn" the court.

 

[FA_Q2]

A bakers dozen is to commerce, as affirmative action is to government.

So a bakers dozen was an inefficiency introduced into commerce because of an asinine law and you think that justifies the same concept in hiring practices? All analogies are flawed but this one is simply a hot mess. I think your point would be better understood, at least by me, if you just articulated the point rather than making a flawed analogy.

 

[reconmark]

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

Latin for: “to stand by things decided"

Everyone on both sides of the aisles knew that they were fos!!!

 

[Couchpotato]

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

Latin for: “to stand by things decided"

And for countless years prior to Roe it was deemed illegal. Did the court then not believe in Stare Decisis? Was it wrong then? Was Brown v Board wrong? I mean Stare Decisis and all....

 

[postman]

Am I supposed to now agree that we should put people in limited positions of power based on their skin color because it worked out once?

That was just one of many examples of how you can have pools of equally "well qualified" candidates.

Affirmative action isn't about elevating unqualified people, but giving a slight edge when everybody eligible is equally qualified, and you're seeking to get a more diverse social-economic representation.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

Of course, today the trumplets are showing us they automatically believe no woman or POC can possibly be qualified.................even before any names are brought forward.

Annnnnnnnnnnnnd......HERE WE GO ON THE THE TRUMP CARD YET AGAIN

Notice that while Lib lemmings can never get Trump out of their heads, the Right rarely mentions Obama anymore.

THAT, my friends, is what a CULT looks like. The rabid lemming Left is the largest most perverted CULT in human history.

 

[Couchpotato]

NOPE. Democratic presidents normally looked to the ABA tribunal on judicial qualifications, and got a list of those rated "highly qualified".

And then picked from among those candidates for their judicial philosophy. Such as did they believe in Stare Decisis. Did they agree with long settled law? Or did they want to "overturn" the court.

What are you smoking? There isn't a Democrat nominated Justice on the court who ever votes with the "other side" on cases of any consequence. And there hasn't been in my lifetime. The only 3 who currently do so are Roberts, Kavanaugh and Gorsuch.

 

[postman]

So a bakers dozen was an inefficiency introduced into commerce because of an asinine law and you think that justifies the same concept in hiring practices? All analogies are flawed but this one is simply a hot mess. I think your point would be better understood, at least by me, if you just articulated the point rather than making a flawed analogy.

A bakers dozen, was a means to make up for short falls. In essence to over-compensate for previous errors. As the easiest and most equitable means of doing so.

The "affirmative action" of commerce.

 

[Couchpotato]

That was just one of many examples of how you can have pools of equally "well qualified" candidates.

Affirmative action isn't about elevating unqualified people, but giving a slight edge when everybody eligible is equally qualified, and you're seeking to get a more diverse social-economic representation.

No, it isn't. If me and a Black guy go take the test to be a mailman, he gets points for being black. I can score better than he did on the test but won't get the job because of those points. That's hiring somone based on their skin color. Otherwise known as discrimination.

 

[reconmark]

Actually where there should be outrage about using skin color to pick a supreme court justice. Look at who George H.W. Bush nominated to replace Justice Thurgood Marshall.

Bush nominated the first conservative black guy he could find. Clarence Thomas, so he wouldn't return the court to "all white" status.

But his decision was clearly based on color, and not on qualification. No serious legal scholar thinks Thomas was qualified to be on the court.

That same criticism should also be aimed at the thousands of unqualified white people that have been given the nod for hundreds of year in this country. I only see "certain" people complaining of this when other groups of people are being considered. I don't believe in making a choice based solely on race, however, this country has made choices mainly based on the exclusion of any other race other than whites.

 

[postman]

Everyone on both sides of the aisles knew that they were fos!!!

They were under oath. A supreme court justice that "lied to congress" is subject to impeachment.
With little "wiggle room" to avoid removal because one side is willing to ignore that particular lie, when it was a red line when the politics were reversed.

 

[SweetTea]

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.

So now we are going to choose the "best candidate" by choosing someone based on their skin color and gender to right the wrongs of the past of choosing someone based on their skin color and gender. Sorry, but it doesn't work that way. The best person for the job should be chosen, regardless of any of that. Period, no discussion. Full stop.

 

[FA_Q2]

So now we are going to choose the "best candidate" by choosing someone based on their skin color and gender to right the wrongs of the past of choosing someone based on their skin color and gender. Sorry, but it doesn't work that way. The best person for the job should be chosen, regardless of any of that. Period, no discussion. Full stop.

That is, quite literally, the perceived solution.

As I stated earlier, the left truly does believe that the solution to racism is more racism.

 

[SweetTea]

The solution isn't to continue the problem.

Exactly, which is why race and gender should not be a factor at all.

 

[postman]

And for countless years prior to Roe it was deemed illegal. Did the court then not believe in Stare Decisis? Was it wrong then? Was Brown v Board wrong? I mean Stare Decisis and all....

First off, the constitution changes. Laws change. Society changes. Dredd Scott didn't have to be overturned by the court, because it was overturned by the Constitution (13th amendment).

And as with every precedent setting case from Marburry V Madison to Lawrence V Texas, to Wickard V Filburn, on and on they were decided by fundamental rights and responsibilities.

 

[Couchpotato]

They were under oath. A supreme court justice that "lied to congress" is subject to impeachment.
With little "wiggle room" to avoid removal because one side is willing to ignore that particular lie, when it was a red line when the politics were reversed.

You're off the rails. Stare Decisis doenst mean you cant overturn prior court rulings. If that were the case Plessy v Fergusson wouldn't have been overturned by Brown v Board.