Stephen Breyer to retire at the end of this court session.

[Copernicus]

Jimmy had an antecedent ambiguity in his post. I think what he meant was that most of the Democrats who get angry when their property leaves became Republicans; I don't think he meant the people they consider their property became Republicans.

I don't see the ambiguity. I think he meant that Democrats considered southern Democrats to be their "property"--like slaves were property of plantation owners--and that they left the "plantation" to become Republicans. They gained their freedom. (Ironically, many former slaves did become actual Republicans, which was the party that gave them emancipation.) And his remark about "Uncle Toms", although a bit muddled, was also meant to convey the impression that these defectors were being treated as members of a minority race that had betrayed their own people. Maybe that wasn't the impression that Jason intended, but I find it hard to interpret his remarks in any other way. Of course, he is free to clarify what he meant.

 

[Patooka]

Jimmy had an antecedent ambiguity in his post. I think what he meant was that most of the Democrats who get angry when their property leaves became Republicans;

I'll bet everything I own, everything I've ever owned and everything I will own that Jimmy was referring to how racist southern Democrats became Republicans almost overnight once the Voting Rights Act was signed. It really wasn't that esoteric or obscure a statement.

 

[Bomb#20]

Apparently, our forum member who seems to equate choosing a Black female with Affirmative Action isn't alone. ... Who would have ever thought that some [ad hominem deleted] from Mississippi would equate a well qualified Black justice with Affirmative Action?

You are committing a massive equivocation fallacy. Neither the forum member nor the senator from Mississippi "equate choosing a Black female with Affirmative Action". What both of them equated with affirmative action was prejudicially disqualifying non-blacks and non-females from the candidate pool for the defects of being non-black or non-female, regardless of their fitness for the job, so that the black female who will ultimately be selected will have faced fewer competitors and therefore have had a chance of becoming the nominee that was improved by the operation of that prejudice. This is precisely what the phrase "affirmative action" refers to (when it isn't referring merely to targeted outreach efforts). In contrast, if a black female is chosen from among a field of competitors who were selected on the basis of qualifications only, and she wins out on pure merit without being in effect given a bye through the early rounds of the competition, then she is not a beneficiary of affirmative action -- and neither of the people you're talking about said she is. When you called what those two people said "equate choosing a Black female with Affirmative Action", you were implying they categorized people as beneficiaries of affirmative action for being black, female and chosen rather than for being chosen from an artificially restricted pool of competitors. That was a gross misrepresentation of what they said and of what they meant. Don't do that.

It's past time to have a Black woman serve on SCOTUS! The courts should reflect the diversity of the country.

Assuming we're going to limit our Supreme Court justice candidate pool to a certain race, and assuming the justifications for that prejudice are the theory that the courts should reflect the diversity of the country and the theory that the kind of diversity that matters is the trivial diversity of skin pigmentation and facial geometry rather than the substantive diversity of values and thought processes, then I really have to ask: so far, how many black Supreme Court justices have there been, and how many American Indian or Asian Supreme Court justices have there been?

 

[TV and credit cards]

It's past time to have a Black woman serve on SCOTUS! The courts should reflect the diversity of the country.

Assuming we're going to limit our Supreme Court justice candidate pool to a certain race, and assuming the justifications for that prejudice are the theory that the courts should reflect the diversity of the country and the theory that the kind of diversity that matters is the trivial diversity of skin pigmentation and facial geometry rather than the substantive diversity of values and thought processes, then I really have to ask: so far, how many black Supreme Court justices have there been, and how many American Indian or Asian Supreme Court justices have there been?

I think it’s the life experiences that come from that “trivial diversity” that matter most. Whether or not the president will consider this criterion remains to be seen.
And you make a good argument for expanding the court.

 

[Bomb#20]

Jimmy had an antecedent ambiguity in his post. I think what he meant was that most of the Democrats who get angry when their property leaves became Republicans;

I'll bet everything I own, everything I've ever owned and everything I will own that Jimmy was referring to how racist southern Democrats became Republicans almost overnight once the Voting Rights Act was signed. It really wasn't that esoteric or obscure a statement.

Yes, that's what I said Jimmy was referring to. Jason misunderstood Jimmy's statement because there were two available possible antecedents for the pronoun "them" that Jimmy could have been referring back to. You and I saw that when Jimmy said "them" he was referring to "Democrats", but Jason took the word "them" to be referring to "their property" -- hence his odd response. Jimmy pointed out that Jason's response hadn't made sense, but I felt Jimmy's reply, "Dude, you'll need to see a back specialist if you twist yourself anymore into awkward positions, so desperate to try and score points.", fell a little short in the explanation department. So I was trying to be helpful.

I don't see the ambiguity. I think he meant that Democrats considered southern Democrats to be their "property"--like slaves were property of plantation owners--and that they left the "plantation" to become Republicans. They gained their freedom. (Ironically, many former slaves did become actual Republicans, which was the party that gave them emancipation.) And his remark about "Uncle Toms", although a bit muddled, was also meant to convey the impression that these defectors were being treated as members of a minority race that had betrayed their own people. Maybe that wasn't the impression that Jason intended, but I find it hard to interpret his remarks in any other way. Of course, he is free to clarify what he meant.

You've got an antecedent problem of your own. You say "he" and "his", but the person who meant Democrats consider other Democrats their property and who made a remark about "Uncle Toms" was Jason. So your pronouns evidently refer to Jason, so you are arguing with me by telling me what Jason meant. That' changing the subject -- when I said "he" and "his", I was referring to Jimmy. My point was to explain to Jason what Jimmy meant. Jason does not need an explanation of what Jason meant.

 

[Bomb#20]

I don't see the ambiguity. I think he meant that Democrats considered southern Democrats to be their "property"--like slaves were property of plantation owners--and that they left the "plantation" to become Republicans. They gained their freedom. ... And his remark about "Uncle Toms", although a bit muddled, was also meant to convey the impression that these defectors were being treated as members of a minority race that had betrayed their own people. Maybe that wasn't the impression that Jason intended, but I find it hard to interpret his remarks in any other way. Of course, he is free to clarify what he meant.

I should add, by the way, that your theory of what Jason meant is pretty implausible; I'm surprised the other way to interpret his remarks didn't occur to you. Jason appears to have meant that Democrats consider black people to be their property.

 

[southernhybrid]

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/30/us/politics/supreme-court-ketanji-brown-jackson.html

Can we move on and talk about some of the highly qualified women being considered for the job? Last night, I heard that there are over 12 candidates being considered. The NYTimes had an article about one of them. I tried to gift it, but I'm not sure it worked, so I'll quote a little bit in case, you can't access the entire thing.

Ketanji Brown Jackson does not much talk about it, but when she was a college freshman, an uncle was sentenced to life in prison — a Black man, like so many others, handed a severe punishment during the war-on-drugs era.
The story of Thomas Brown’s cocaine conviction in the rough-and-tumble Miami of the 1980s formed only part of her early understanding of the criminal justice system’s complexities. Another uncle was Miami’s police chief. A third, a sex crimes detective. Her younger brother worked for the Baltimore police in undercover drug stings.
And then there is Judge Jackson, 51, whose peripatetic legal career, guided by the needs of marriage and motherhood, led her to big law firms, a federal public defender’s office, the United States Sentencing Commission and the federal bench, where she is widely seen as a contender to fulfill President Biden’s pledge to nominate the first Black woman to the Supreme Court.
The man she would succeed, Justice Stephen G. Breyer, who announced his retirement last week, once hired her as a clerk and alluded during her 2013 swearing-in ceremony to how her background strengthened her legal foundation.

As a judge, she is known more for being detailed and thorough, sometimes to a fault, than for crisp and succinct rulings. Her high-profile opinion in 2018 invalidating Mr. Trump’s executive orders that sought to undermine labor protections for public employees sprawled over 119 pages and peaked with an 84-word sentence.

She tends to assert lively command during arguments and hearings, displaying the skills of a national oratory champion in high school. And on a bench that would have more women than ever, Judge Jackson would bring particular knowledge of criminal law and sentencing legal policy.

Btw, the idea that there is a "most highly qualified" person is pure nonsense, imo. There are many well qualified women to take on this position. The difficult part will be choosing just one.

 

[Gospel]

The selection should be the most qualified person who is willing to do the job.

Yeah, historically it would appear that old white men fit that description. But that's really because the odds are in their favor since America is filled with them.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Proper:

Select Name from People Order by Qualification asc limit 1

So, wait, we’re saying that a Black woman has to be the most qualified possible but for white men it’s fucking Bret Kavanagh??

Wait, are you telling me that potentially threatening the interviewers during a job interview isn't a good thing?

And as we all know, in the United States political system of the early 2000s, what goes around comes around. I am an optimistic guy. I always try to be on the sunrise side of the mountain, to be optimistic about the day that is coming. But today, I have to say that I fear for the future.

 

[Toni]

The selection should be the most qualified person who is willing to do the job.

Yeah, historically it would appear that old white men fit that description. But that's really because the odds are in their favor since America is filled with them.

To be fair, numbers aren't the only advantage. Tradition is also an advantage. People are more comfortable with the familiar.

The real advantage is that white men have made most of the rules since before this country was a country.

 

[Swammerdami]

The truth is, the Democrat and Republican Parties have almost ideologically swapped stances on every position over a period from the later 19th Century into about the late 20th Century....

This is not really true. For well over a century the Republicans have been the party of big business, while the Democrats have been the party that pushes for human rights and the economic interests of the common man. And even before the civil rights movements of the 1960's it was the D's outside the South, rather than the R's anywhere, who pushed strongly for civil rights.

Given that their relative stances on the most important issues have changed so little since the end of Reconstruction, it is rather startling how white blue-collar workers have switched in droves from the party trying to help low-income Americans to the party actively working to increase income inequality. Spoiler alert: The average American is neither intelligent nor well-informed, and 49% of Americans are even stupider than that.

 

[lpetrich]

By the standards of present-day right-wing Republicans, Abraham Lincoln was a RINO.

• Raising taxes
• Aggression against the south
• Freeing the slaves -- theft by redefinition
• Homestead Act -- free stuff
• Land-grant colleges -- free stuff
• The Transcontinental Railroad -- free stuff and crony capitalism

 

[Gospel]

The selection should be the most qualified person who is willing to do the job.

Yeah, historically it would appear that old white men fit that description. But that's really because the odds are in their favor since America is filled with them.

To be fair, numbers aren't the only advantage. Tradition is also an advantage. People are more comfortable with the familiar.

The real advantage is that white men have made most of the rules since before this country was a country.

Honestly, I was joking at the same time eluding to the population of the US. White people are just over half the population as well as half the pool of talent to pull from these days. I personally don't see an issue with the current makeup of the Nine Justices (even politically) when looking back towards the 1900s and beyond. Checking that history of justices I can see a pattern of diversity happening in lockstep (ever so slowly) with the changes in population and laws leading to women and non-whites as whole gaining access to this position. It's inevitable that we will see more Justices of all races and sexes on that historical list of Justices at some point. I wouldn't put too much stock in folks arguing that picks are being chosen on the basis of race or sex as a deterrent. Aint shit they can do about it.

EDIT: I meant 1900's and further back, not 1800's.

 

[thebeave]

A new ABC poll shows most Americans (76%), and in fact, most Democrats (54%) are not in favor of Biden's plan to automatically nominate a black woman (as opposed to considering candidates of all races and genders) to fill the Court vacancy. Only 28% of non-white Americans want him to automatically nominate a black woman.

Majority of Americans want Biden to consider 'all possible nominees' for Supreme Court vacancy: POLL

A new ABC News/Ipsos poll finds that a plurality of Americans view the Supreme Court as motivated by partisanship, while President Joe Biden's campaign trail vow to select a Black woman to fill a high-court vacancy without reviewing all potential candidates evokes a sharply negative reaction from voters.

The ABC News/Ipsos poll, which was conducted by Ipsos in partnership with ABC News using Ipsos' KnowledgePanel, comes days after the most senior member of the Supreme Court, Justice Stephen G. Breyer, announced his retirement at the end of the current term. Breyer's announcement provides Biden the opportunity to change the demographic makeup of the conservative-leaning bench.

I find it a little odd that we have white people here who seem to think and feel they are supporting the desires of non-whites by agreeing with Biden's plan, but in fact they are largely in direct opposition to their desires, according the polls. If you are going to claim you are supportive of the needs and desires of non-whites, shouldn't you change your tune and instead advocate for Biden to consider all races and sexes for the nomination, as the majority of non-whites would prefer?

 

[Elixir]

Yawn.
Sleepy Joe sometimes seems to lack self awareness almost as badly as the former Whitehouse idiot.
He could have come out and just flat announced that he was going to pick the most qualified candidate.
When the backlash came for picking a black woman, he could just stick to his guns and say she was the most qualified. Is not "making the court more representative of the American public", a qualification?
Who, besides the usual RW suspects who will always react apoplectically to a black person in higher office, is going to complain?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

People want the President to tell the truth. Biden told the truth.

*gasps at the truth*

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

A new ABC poll shows most Americans (76%), and in fact, most Democrats (54%) are not in favor of Biden's plan to automatically nominate a black woman (as opposed to considering candidates of all races and genders) to fill the Court vacancy. Only 28% of non-white Americans want him to automatically nominate a black woman.

Majority of Americans want Biden to consider 'all possible nominees' for Supreme Court vacancy: POLL

A new ABC News/Ipsos poll finds that a plurality of Americans view the Supreme Court as motivated by partisanship, while President Joe Biden's campaign trail vow to select a Black woman to fill a high-court vacancy without reviewing all potential candidates evokes a sharply negative reaction from voters.

The ABC News/Ipsos poll, which was conducted by Ipsos in partnership with ABC News using Ipsos' KnowledgePanel, comes days after the most senior member of the Supreme Court, Justice Stephen G. Breyer, announced his retirement at the end of the current term. Breyer's announcement provides Biden the opportunity to change the demographic makeup of the conservative-leaning bench.

I find it a little odd that we have white people here who seem to think and feel they are supporting the desires of non-whites by agreeing with Biden's plan, but in fact they are largely in direct opposition to their desires, according the polls.

What now? I was supporting the appointment of a Supreme Court Justice. That Biden has defaulted to choosing a black female in no way bothers me seeing 0 black females have ever been nominated. I personally don't give a darn what other people think. I'm no one's caretaker.

The nominee will be heavily qualified, and the only reason people will have to reject the nominee will be because of gender and race.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

In an effort to make conservative talking heads have strokes and to hasten Clarence Thomas's retirement, he should nominate Anita Hill.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

In an effort to make conservative talking heads have strokes and to hasten Clarence Thomas's retirement, he should nominate Anita Hill.

I'd prefer Al Sharpton. The intensity of the strokes would be lethal and much more widespread and we could get our country back.

 

[Toni]

Yawn.
Sleepy Joe sometimes seems to lack self awareness almost as badly as the former Whitehouse idiot.
He could have come out and just flat announced that he was going to pick the most qualified candidate.
When the backlash came for picking a black woman, he could just stick to his guns and say she was the most qualified. Is not "making the court more representative of the American public", a qualification?
Who, besides the usual RW suspects who will always react apoplectically to a black person in higher office, is going to complain?

I don’t think it’s a lack of self awareness. I think he’s a pretty genuine person without a lot of pretense. And I think he’s genuinely a good person, with human flaws as all humans have. That is his big appeal.

I think that Trump is also, in his own way, genuine. But all of his impulses, thoughts, ideas and ideals are of self aggrandizement and self enrichment. You can believe what he says: he feels entitled to grab whatever he wants. I think he’s a thoroughly bad human being who may have an occasional lapse into something approximating not thoroughly narcissistic behavior but those are rare.

Both men have reputations for being ‘straight shooters.’ One is clearly a better human being than the other.

Also I’m trying to remember all the outrage when Trump promised to replace Ginsberg with another woman. Sure plenty are disgusted with his choice, and the fact that her confirmation was rammed through. But zero outrage that Trump openly stated he would replace Ginsberg with another woman.

Why?