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

[TomC]

So yes. Her being black is sufficient to suspect her of being a beneficiary of racist admission policies.

Yes, it is.
Not just black. Also female. A twofer.

So what?
Gorsuch is a white male. Should he have been disqualified for having those advantages?
I don't think so.

The question in my mind is performance.

So tell me, why did McConnell refuse to even hold a hearing or vote concerning Merrick Garland? I'm pretty sure that it was because Garland had been presented as the Republican alternative for SCOTUS. But when Obama nominated him the TeaPartier hypocrites didn't want to explain why they opposed him. They just wanted to ignore the Constitution, ignore their own statements about Garland, and continue to undermine basic U.S. institutions for their own partisan purposes.
Tom

 

[Elixir]

(1) To you, is a person being white in a white majority country sufficient for you to suspect him of being a beneficiary of white privilege?

Yes. I am that person and have been an unwitting beneficiary of white privilege for most of my life, and I see it operating to the benefit of every white person I know.

(2) I went to a big name university that practices legacy admissions, and I'm a legacy. Is that sufficient for you to suspect me of being a beneficiary of legacy admissions?

Yes. No way to be absolutely sure, but … my father went to Yale, was a star rower for them back in the day. So my older brother got in, no questions asked and graduated magma cum laude. I dropped out of high school, but found out later that I had been offered an entry path to Yale WITHOUT SO MUCH AS A GED. No other qualifications than family member alumni.

I wonder how many black or Hispanics were offered any such thing … even as legacy applicants.
But to your question - YES.

 

[Derec]

Maybe it’s the fact that you never express any real “issues” with white cop killing domestic terrorists.

Of course I do. I had an issue when David Gilbert, Kathy Boudin etc. were released. I also have an issue with white communist terrorists who bombed the Senate and whose sentences were commuted by Bill Clinton.

But I guess you don't consider these "domestic terrorists".

Which is really odd, since you are well aware that the people and entities that study such things consider right wing white domestic terrorists to be the greatest threat we face as a nation …

I guess I was right. You only care about right-wing terrorists.

All terrorists should be condemned and belong in prison. However, the difference between left-wing and right-wing domestic terrorists is that the latter do not usually become international celebrities like Wesley Cook or get released early like WU and M19CO terrorists have been.

 

[Derec]

Oh-sorry. I forgot.
Conservos Progressos don’t complain about their leaders.

FIFY. My point was about NAACP supporting Wesley Cook alias Mumia Abu Jamal. Your attempt at whataboutism is transparent.

 

[Derec]

And there you have it.

I didn't know what I was expecting when I exposed the cut there but holy shit..
It might not be often that the mask slips, but when it does, oh boy does it ever.

There you have what? What mask?

It is well-known that Harvard practices racial preferences and that KBJ is part of the group of applicants who benefits from those preferences.
It is therefore quite reasonable to expect her to recuse herself. Why are you two so hostile to that idea?

 

[Derec]

Yes, it is.
Not just black. Also female. A twofer.

It was Biden who pledged not too consider anyone who wasn't black and female.

So what?
Gorsuch is a white male. Should he have been disqualified for having those advantages?
I don't think so.

Being a white male is not an advantage when it comes to college/law school admissions. He needed better SAT/LSAT/GPA than applicants who had more politically correct skin color and ethnicity.

The question in my mind is performance.

Exactly. Which is why it was wrong for Biden to restrict himself to a particular race and gender.
But my point was not about Biden nominating her (we already went over it) but specifically about the point that she should recuse herself from the Harvard racial preference case because she went to Harvard and is part of the racial group who is being given these preferences that are the subject of the case before SCOTUS.

So tell me, why did McConnell refuse to even hold a hearing or vote concerning Merrick Garland?

It was political maneuvering. He bet that Hillary would lose. It was a risky tactic, but it worked out for him.

I'm pretty sure that it was because Garland had been presented as the Republican alternative for SCOTUS.

What are you talking about?

They just wanted to ignore the Constitution, ignore their own statements about Garland, and continue to undermine basic U.S. institutions for their own partisan purposes.

I think what GOP did to block Garland was wrong, but it was not unconstitutional.

 

[Derec]

Yes. I am that person and have been an unwitting beneficiary of white privilege for most of my life, and I see it operating to the benefit of every white person I know.

So-called "white privilege" is way overblown, especially today. There is certainly no white privilege when it comes to college admissions or hiring, as so-called "affirmative action" policies actively discriminate against white applicants.
So where is white privilege? Criminal justice system perhaps? Did Derek Chauvin have white privilege for getting 25 years? How about Mohammed Noor getting his sentence reduced to mere five years? Is that black Muslim privilege? Note that MN AG is a black Muslim.

I wonder how many black or Hispanics were offered any such thing … even as legacy applicants.

Schools like Harvard and Yale give racial preferences to these groups. Why do you not think this extends to legacies from those preferentially treated racial and ethnic groups?

To bring it back to recusal. If legacy admissions at a particular school were a matter before SCOTUS, do you not think a justice who was a legacy at that school should recuse him or herself?

 

[laughing dog]

And there you have it.

I didn't know what I was expecting when I exposed the cut there but holy shit..
It might not be often that the mask slips, but when it does, oh boy does it ever.

There you have what? What mask?

It is well-known that Harvard practices racial preferences and that KBJ is part of the group of applicants who benefits from those preferences.
It is therefore quite reasonable to expect her to recuse herself. Why are you two so hostile to that idea?

Do you think it is also reasonable to expect Neil Gorsuch, Elena Kagan and John Roberts to recuse themselves as well? They are all Harvard Law graduates.

Yes. I am that person and have been an unwitting beneficiary of white privilege for most of my life, and I see it operating to the benefit of every white person I know.

So-called "white privilege" is way overblown, especially today. There is certainly no white privilege when it comes to college admissions or hiring, as so-called "affirmative action" policies actively discriminate against white applicants.
So where is white privilege? Criminal justice system perhaps? Did Derek Chauvin have white privilege for getting 25 years? How about Mohammed Noor getting his sentence reduced to mere five years? Is that black Muslim privilege? Note that MN AG is a black Muslim.

FFS, Dereck Chauvin was an experienced officer who showed extreme brutality and excessive use of force over 8 minutes. Mr. Noor acted in a split second. There is no reasonable parallel between the two cases. And your insinuation that the Mn AG (who did not prosecute either case) somehow went soft on Mr. Noor because he is a black Muslim is pure racist bullshit.

 

[Rhea]

And there you have it.

I didn't know what I was expecting when I exposed the cut there but holy shit..
It might not be often that the mask slips, but when it does, oh boy does it ever.

There you have what? What mask?

It is well-known that Harvard practices racial preferences and that KBJ is part of the group of applicants who benefits from those preferences.
It is therefore quite reasonable to expect her to recuse herself. Why are you two so hostile to that idea?

You said, “ beneficiary of racist admission policies.”

My position is that it is not “racist” to want a diverse student body, and to value background in addition to grades.
I know that you think it is; that an all-Asian school, or an all-white school should be forced upon an institution that doesn’t want one. And that if an institution values something besides a score on a single test, it must be somehow “unfair”. You’ve said it enough times, I get what you think.

But you (should, by now) know that others think that valuing cultures and desiring a mix of cultural representation and attaining it by demonstrating that more than a single grade is valued, is not a “racist policy.”

We disagree. I get that. You get that. We both read Harvard’s statements that they value more than a single grade as a measure of worth.

Now you’ve changed from “racist admission policies” to “racial preferences” and you’re still not accurately stating Harvard’s position. It is not a “racial preference,” it is a part of an overall picture.

Interestingly, you claim they are discriminating against Asian students, yet for this year’s freshman class they admitted a higher percentage than before. Go figure.

Of the admitted students, more than 27 percent are Asian Americans (up from 24.5 percent in 2020) and 18 percent are Black (up from nearly 15 percent in 2020). Harvard admitted slightly more Latino students, 13.3 percent, up from 12.7 percent in 2020. The share of students of who identified as Native Americans fell by 1 percent point to 1.2 percent.

So you called it a racist policy, and said that the fact that she was black was “sufficient to suspect her of being a beneficiary” of these “racist” admission policies.

Bomb’s question is an interesting one for you to answer. Is the fact that you are white sufficient to suspect that you are a beneficiary of racist policies? (Note I have changed his question slightly so that it is appropriately hyperbolic)

 

[Bomb#20]

My position is that it is not “racist” to want a diverse student body, and to value background in addition to grades.
I know that you think it is; that an all-Asian school, or an all-white school should be forced upon an institution that doesn’t want one. And that if an institution values something besides a score on a single test, it must be somehow “unfair”. You’ve said it enough times, I get what you think.

If Derec's said what he thinks enough times that you get what he thinks, then you know perfectly well that he does not think an all-Asian school, or an all-white school should be forced upon an institution that doesn’t want one. You made that up about him. A school that practices color-blind admissions is not an all-Asian school or an all-white school, or even an all-Asian-and-white school, and you know it. Some non-Asian/non-white people perform at a high enough academic level to get into a top-tier school without needing a racial thumb on the scale, and you know it. Derec does not advocate that institutions exclude those non-Asian/non-white students, and you know it. You are guilty of deliberately using a strawman argument. Shame on you.

 

[southernhybrid]

So now we wait to see if the Republicans all act like lickspittles and deny consent to a perfectly well qualified judge.

I think it's obvious that they will. At least a lot of them will, but just maybe a couple of the women or least obnoxious Republicans will do the right thing and approve of this highly qualified nominee.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

In case people were curious about what the Judicial Committee is likely to bring up, but don't have time for the "hearings".

*starts tearing up*

And it is sad, a tragedy. I'm thinking of all those hard working White judges who spent all that effort going to those institutions we usually mock as being elitist. Those poor judges who served on benches researching and penning decisions we typically mocked as judicial activism. That after all of that work, trying to assert their best, to only be deprived of a chance of being named to the Supreme Court because of the color of their skin. It makes me want to give each and every one of them a hug... to let them know that they are loved and appreciated in this country... and that there are those willing to fight for their rights to be recognized as equals. Even after the President started this all when he said he was disqualifying White and Latino and Asian judges from consideration. We aren't supposed to nominate people to the Supreme Court based on their identity, but based on their qualifications. Which is why we were so quick to confirm Amy Comey Barrett. We didn't let the color of her skin impact our decision to quickly insert her on the Supreme Court... and she had only been a judge for three years.

Now, my question is simple. I want to know why Justice Brown has yet to even remark on whether she intends to eat one of the remaining copies of the US Constitution. We've been hearing from the Democrats about her *air quotes* qualifications, we've been hearing about how he perspective is needed on the Supreme Court. But I can't help but notice that since she was announcement by President Biden as the nominee, not one Democrat or the Justice herself.... and you can look this up, you won't find it... has spoken a single moment as to her intention on whether she'd ingest and presumably crap out a copy of the Constitution.

Because firstly, we only have so many copies of this founding document. Secondly, while we have been politely invited to peruse her decisions while serving as a judge or actions as an attorney, not a single one of them included any incite as to whether she'd have any interest in eating a copy of the Constitution. And this is merely from a preservation perspective. I mean the bigger issue is how do we feel as elected officials with approving the appointment of someone that could potentially disgrace our founding document by eating it, digesting it, and... I'm sorry to be so graphic... but we need to have this conversation (!)... let's say evacuate it and flush it down the toilet.

What sort of message does this give to America, our military, those that have fought for our rights? I don't think it is a good message, and so I can not support a nominee that clearly has decided to hide such a devious intention.

 

[Elixir]

Derec does not advocate that institutions exclude those non-Asian/non-white students, and you know it. You are guilty of deliberately using a strawman argument. Shame on you.

Ah yes, Derec is a shining light of objectivity. He would like a totally colorblind society where a black female person would actually have to be QUALIFIED for a position for which they were nominated.
Oh, wait … never mind. That’s never gonna happen!

 

[Elixir]

Suppose Biden did not nominate say and do this and instead nominated some qualified white male to the Supremes, would Republicans block him like they've been blocking nominees against Democratic Presidents?

Ask Merrick Garland...

Yeah, the obstruction would just have different language.

Yah, they’d likely be condemning the hated Dems for failure to promote diversity on The Court.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

So yes. Her being black is sufficient to suspect her of being a beneficiary of racist admission policies.

Yes, it is.
Not just black. Also female. A twofer.

So what?
Gorsuch is a white male. Should he have been disqualified for having those advantages?
I don't think so.

The question in my mind is performance.

What's interesting is that they're saying she performed TOO WELL when she was defending terrorists. So they're attacking her as undeserving and an affirmative action beneficiary for admission to college and then saying she was too good when she was a defense attorney. Of course, it doesn't make any sense because all they do is scream and attack. How is it possible to figurative hide the bodies after such a bizarrely illogical display? Well, just go on the attack with a tu quoque fallacy by attacking her defenders, "Well, you would say the same thing about a legacy admission, wouldn't you?" So many layers of shit hitting the wall that one does forget the crux of the issue, just what you wrote--"performance," is she qualified or not, apparently it is a yes.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Yes, it is.
Not just black. Also female. A twofer.

It was Biden who pledged not too consider anyone who wasn't black and female.

So what?
Gorsuch is a white male. Should he have been disqualified for having those advantages?
I don't think so.

Being a white male is not an advantage when it comes to college/law school admissions. He needed better SAT/LSAT/GPA than applicants who had more politically correct skin color and ethnicity.

The question in my mind is performance.

Exactly. Which is why it was wrong for Biden to restrict himself to a particular race and gender.

As long as we look at it in a bubble, you are absolutely right. If we act like adults, recognize a black person has been nominated twice in the history of the Supreme Court, a woman has been nominated 5 times for the Supreme Court, and a black woman has never been nominated for the Supreme Court, we realize that concentrating on a slate of highly qualified black women is hardly anything to get angry about.

After all, if this woman were so bad, her qualifications would be getting torn apart. Instead we hear a lot of whining about Biden's decision to narrow the pool. Last black nominated to the Supreme Court was Clarence Thomas when modem speed was still provided in Baud, during the George HW Bush Administration!

But my point was not about Biden nominating her (we already went over it) but specifically about the point that she should recuse herself from the Harvard racial preference case because she went to Harvard and is part of the racial group who is being given these preferences that are the subject of the case before SCOTUS.

Man, the shit that you think is so important.

 

[Bomb#20]

Derec does not advocate that institutions exclude those non-Asian/non-white students, and you know it. You are guilty of deliberately using a strawman argument. Shame on you.

Ah yes, Derec is a shining light of objectivity. He would like a totally colorblind society where a black female person would actually have to be QUALIFIED for a position for which they were nominated.
Oh, wait … never mind. That’s never gonna happen!

If you mean a totally colorblind society is never going to happen, that may well be true but it isn't relevant to the issue of that being what Derec would like. If you mean a black female person being qualified for the position is never going to happen, show your work. If you mean a black female person being qualified for the position is something Derec thinks is never going to happen, show your work.

 

[Bomb#20]

(1) To you, is a person being white in a white majority country sufficient for you to suspect him of being a beneficiary of white privilege?

Yes. I am that person and have been an unwitting beneficiary of white privilege for most of my life, and I see it operating to the benefit of every white person I know.

(2) I went to a big name university that practices legacy admissions, and I'm a legacy. Is that sufficient for you to suspect me of being a beneficiary of legacy admissions?

Yes. No way to be absolutely sure, but … my father went to Yale, was a star rower for them back in the day. So my older brother got in, no questions asked and graduated magma cum laude. I dropped out of high school, but found out later that I had been offered an entry path to Yale WITHOUT SO MUCH AS A GED. No other qualifications than family member alumni.

I wonder how many black or Hispanics were offered any such thing … even as legacy applicants.
But to your question - YES.

So I take it you're agreeing with me that it was unreasonable for Rhea and Jarhyn to impute racism to Derec for having applied the exact same inference rule you're endorsing here?

(Incidentally, I'll take your word for what Yale did in your case; but I know a high-school drop-out who was admitted to Caltech without so much as a GED, or even a legacy. No other qualifications than obvious brilliance. It's perfectly normal for schools not to care much about dumb check marks in boxes on forms.)

Finally, I'd like to offer your brother my congratulations -- I love the concept of magma cum laude.

 

[Elixir]

Derec does not advocate that institutions exclude those non-Asian/non-white students, and you know it. You are guilty of deliberately using a strawman argument. Shame on you.

Ah yes, Derec is a shining light of objectivity. He would like a totally colorblind society where a black female person would actually have to be QUALIFIED for a position for which they were nominated.
Oh, wait … never mind. That’s never gonna happen!

If you mean a totally colorblind society is never going to happen, that may well be true but it isn't relevant to the issue of that being what Derec would like. If you mean a black female person being qualified for the position is never going to happen, show your work. If you mean a black female person being qualified for the position is something Derec thinks is never going to happen, show your work.

Sorry for not using the “facetious” tag.
I mean we already have one.

 

[Bomb#20]

So yes. Her being black is sufficient to suspect her of being a beneficiary of racist admission policies.

Yes, it is.
Not just black. Also female. A twofer.

So what?
Gorsuch is a white male. Should he have been disqualified for having those advantages?
I don't think so.

The question in my mind is performance.

What's interesting is that they're saying she performed TOO WELL when she was defending terrorists. So they're attacking her as undeserving and an affirmative action beneficiary for admission to college and then saying she was too good when she was a defense attorney. Of course, it doesn't make any sense because all they do is scream and attack. How is it possible to figurative hide the bodies after such a bizarrely illogical display?

Who are you calling "they"? Nobody here said she was undeserving for being an affirmative action beneficiary. Somebody said if she's confirmed to the court she should recuse herself from an affirmative action case for being an affirmative action beneficiary. How the heck is that inconsistent with thinking she performed too well when she was defending terrorists? Have you considered the merits of reading for content instead of for keywords?

Well, just go on the attack with a tu quoque fallacy by attacking her defenders, "Well, you would say the same thing about a legacy admission, wouldn't you?"

I wasn't attacking "her defenders"; I was attacking somebody for maliciously trumping up a racism charge against another poster even though she herself uses the exact same inference rule she attacked the other poster for using and therefore is evidently well aware that using that inference rule is not racist. That she happens to also be a defender of Jackson is immaterial. Have you considered the merits of reading for content instead of for keywords?