Replacement SCOTUS Justice no males and no whites need apply

[Couchpotato]

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.

Which Constitutional amendment (the only way the Constitution changes) was passed that made Roe make sense legally.

 

[SweetTea]

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.

The man went to Yale, which is a very well-respected law school. He received a unanimous qualified rating from the ABA. Are you saying Thomas achieved these qualifications because he was black? Was he appointed because he was black? Was this AA in action? What a tangled web we weave.

Here is an idea. Stop using race and gender altogether. Novel concept I know.

 

[postman]

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.

Now that statement is just ignorant.

Supreme Court Justices Ginsburg and Scalia in Rare Dissent Agreement

They are the legal equivalent of the Odd Couple on the U.S. Supreme Court: Liberal Ruth Bader Ginsburg and conservative Antonin Scalia. Rarely do these justices agree on much, but recently they found themselves on the same side in criticizing a decision by the court’s majority. Scalia and...

www.allgov.com

They then petitioned the Supreme Court to hear their case. But the petition was rejected, which didn’t sit well with Scalia and Ginsburg, who were joined by Justice Clarence Thomas in their dissent.

Scalia wrote in dissent. “We have held that a substantively unreasonable penalty is illegal and must be set aside. It unavoidably follows that any fact necessary to prevent a sentence from being substantively unreasonable—thereby exposing the defendant to the longer sentence—is an element that must be either admitted by the defendant or found by the jury. It may not be found by a judge.”

Are you going to admit you were wrong?

 

[FA_Q2]

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.

It does mean that you should avoid doing so unless there was a massive error in reasoning though.

For the most part, once the SCOTUS has spoken the law should mostly stand as is until a change in the constitution is made. At least that is how our system is supposed to work and one of the crowning achievements that the western legal system has managed.

 

[reconmark]

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.

Please include the cite where the Black guy gets extra points?

 

[postman]

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.

It's more like a free throw in basketball. It's to give somebody an opportunity to make up for a past wrong. The person still has to perform to get the benefit. It's not just automatically awarded.

 

[SweetTea]

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

This is not at all the way AA works. In college admissions, particularly in prestigious universities, black applicants are put in an entirely different pool along with other black applicants. They are not in any way compared to applicants of other races for admissions. A black candidate will be admitted if they are in the top x percent of their peers, based on race, not the entire group of applicants. That is racial discrimination at its finest.

 

[postman]

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

You confuse being "A" factor, with being "THE" factor. We're talking a case of "all else being equal"

 

[justoffal]

How many minority Judges did Trump consider in his THREE picks?

Trump only looked at whites

Trump looked at qualifications...neither skin color or gender rise to that genre.

 

[FA_Q2]

Now that statement is just ignorant.

Supreme Court Justices Ginsburg and Scalia in Rare Dissent Agreement

They are the legal equivalent of the Odd Couple on the U.S. Supreme Court: Liberal Ruth Bader Ginsburg and conservative Antonin Scalia. Rarely do these justices agree on much, but recently they found themselves on the same side in criticizing a decision by the court’s majority. Scalia and...

www.allgov.com

They then petitioned the Supreme Court to hear their case. But the petition was rejected, which didn’t sit well with Scalia and Ginsburg, who were joined by Justice Clarence Thomas in their dissent.

Scalia wrote in dissent. “We have held that a substantively unreasonable penalty is illegal and must be set aside. It unavoidably follows that any fact necessary to prevent a sentence from being substantively unreasonable—thereby exposing the defendant to the longer sentence—is an element that must be either admitted by the defendant or found by the jury. It may not be found by a judge.”

Are you going to admit you were wrong?

This is an odd case. I would have expected more of the liberals to dissent here. I do not see why they did not.

 

[postman]

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.

You can overturn previous cases when there is a change in law that mandates it.

 

[reconmark]

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.

Your flawed reasoning may be due to ignorance, racism or a combination thereof. We are picking the best qualified to now include those that were routinely denied the opportunity while being imminently qualified. We are choosing the "best candidate" to correct hundreds of years of racism. This system was created by people like you and now you have a problem with the solution. Too bad.

 

[SweetTea]

It's more like a free throw in basketball. It's to give somebody an opportunity to make up for a past wrong. The person still has to perform to get the benefit. It's not just automatically awarded.

First off, that is a terrible analogy.

Why would a black person today get the opportunity to benefit from a past wrong that was committed against their great grandfather? If we apply this to your analogy, that is like the referee calling a foul at the end of the game and awarding free throws based on a no-call from a game in 1960. Hey, I know there was no foul, but we need to make up for past wrongs. Ridiculous.

 

[SweetTea]

You confuse being "A" factor, with being "THE" factor. We're talking a case of "all else being equal"

But that isn't the issue here if the candidate pool is being limited, first and foremost, to be a black female. Do you think it is possible that a better candidate may be available that is not black and female or is that simply implausible?

 

[reconmark]

This is not at all the way AA works. In college admissions, particularly in prestigious universities, black applicants are put in an entirely different pool along with other black applicants. They are not in any way compared to applicants of other races for admissions. A black candidate will be admitted if they are in the top x percent of their peers, based on race, not the entire group of applicants. That is racial discrimination at its finest.

When racism has created and maintained two separate and unequal school systems in this country, one advantaged and well funded and the other other purposely disadvantaged, the gap will never be closed. AA has benefitted white women more than any other group in this country, there was no separate pool for them and there isn't one for Black People.

Affirmative Action Has Helped White Women More Than Anyone​

While people of color, individually and as groups, have been helped by affirmative action in the subsequent years, data and studies suggest women — white women in particular — have benefited disproportionately. According to one study, in 1995, 6 million women, the majority of whom were white, had jobs they wouldn’t have otherwise held but for affirmative action.
Even in the private sector, the advancements of white women eclipse those of people of color. After IBM established its own affirmative-action program, the numbers of women in management positions more than tripled in less than 10 years. Data from subsequent years show that the number of executives of color at IBM also grew, but not nearly at the same rate.

School districts spend more on predominantly white schools than predominantly black schools. The fact that black workers earn, on average, 35% less than white workers in the same job isn’t erased by the election of an African-American President — one who, by the way, openly praises the role of affirmative action in his life and accomplishments.

As for Fisher, there is ample evidence that she just wasn’t qualified to get into the University of Texas. After all, her grades weren’t that great, and the year she applied for the university, admissions there were actually more competitive than Harvard’s. In its court filings, the university has pointed out that even if Fisher received a point for race, she still wouldn’t have met the threshold for admissions. Yes, it is true that in the same year, the University of Texas made exceptions and admitted some students with lower grades and test scores than Fisher. Five of those students were black or Latino. Forty-two were white.

Affirmative Action Has Helped White Women More Than Anyone

Studies show affirmative action helps white women as much or more than others

time.com

 

[ColonelAngus]

Communists are dumb as shit.

They will claim DIVERSITY is a group of 10 40 year old black women born and raised on the same street in Harlem.

They will claim RACIST AND NOT DIVERSE is a group of 10 white males: an 18 year old soldier from Ukraine, an 80 year old scientist from New Zealand, a 40 year old carpenter from South Dakota, a 31 year old electrical engineer from Sweden, a 55 year old eye surgeon from France, a 25 year old welder from Los Angeles, a 63 year old homeless man from Portland, a 76 year old retired school teacher from Australia, a 45 year old owner of a bar from Portland, and a 33 year old carpenter from Bethlehem.



WHICH GROUP IS MORE DIVERSE???

DERP DERP DERP DERP

 

[postman]

Trump looked at qualifications...neither skin color or gender rise to that genre.

Actually Trump looked at the list from the Heritage Foundation. He didn't look to see their qualifications. But instead trust the Heritage foundation to make the decision for him.

 

[SweetTea]

When racism has created and maintained two separate and unequal school systems in this country, one advantaged and well funded and the other other purposely disadvantaged, the gap will never be closed. AA has benefitted white women more than any other group in this country, there was no separate pool for them and there isn't one for Black People.

Any education gaps are based on wealth, not race or gender, so why is AA based on race and gender? Shouldn't a poor white kid from WV be afforded the opportunity to succeed as well? What about the poor white kid who just happened to grow up in a poor, black neighborhood? Should his classmates get a benefit while he doesn't? How about a black orthopedic surgeon's kid or a black professional athletes kids who grow up in the lap of luxury and go to private schools? Should they get the benefit while a poor white kid who did not have all those advantages does not? What if the poor white kid has better academic credentials than the affluent black kid? Should the black kid take his spot? That does happen you know.

There is obviously a separate pool, it is the only way to achieve the desired results of diversity.

 

[postman]

But that isn't the issue here if the candidate pool is being limited, first and foremost, to be a black female. Do you think it is possible that a better candidate may be available that is not black and female or is that simply implausible?

Nowhere did Biden say that he would chose a black women, even if there were no qualified black women to choose from.

He presumed there is a large pool of qualified candidates, and within that pool, would be a black woman. Biden would (because that's what democrats do) limit his choices to the ONLY the well qualified pool, even if it was devoid of black women.

 

[postman]

Any education gaps are based on wealth, not race or gender, so why is AA based on race and gender?

Because wealth is based on race and gender.

Women earn 82 cents for every dollar a man earns According to Bureau of Labor Statistics data, in 2020, women’s annual earnings were 82.3% of men’s, and the gap is even wider for many women of color.