When you select on things like race or gender you're engaging in racism or sexism. Period. At things like SCOTUS there would be adequate candidates available of any group so it doesn't harm the selection process but it's still wrong.
But no one was chosen because of their race or gender.
When you refuse to acknowledge that there are a lot of women and a lot of people of color who are exceptionally well qualified, you are engaging in racism and sexism.
Nobody was??? No. Harris was no doubt chosen for her race and gender. Vance was no doubt chosen for his race, gender and religion. I'm pretty sure Amy Coney Barrett was chosen on gender, I'm sure all The Felon's appointees were chose on race.
To say that Harris was chosen for her race and gender ignores the fact that she had many excellent professional qualifications as well as being a nationally recognized political figure. She was in the 2020 primaries, which one dies not normally ruse to without significant backing.
Doesn't make her not a diversity pick.
All VPs are diversity picks! Doesn't mean they aren't qualified, just that diversity comes above qualification.
I mean, what other qualification does Trump have? What has he accomplished? What does he offer?
That's not a defense. Being a white (and should he even be called white rather than orange??) male isn't an indication that someone is qualified.
When Affirmative Action was implemented it was ugly but probably the best solution for the very reason you give. However, once the general social issue not wanting to be a company that employed blacks was gone that reason goes away. Sure, there are some who won't hire someone because they're black--but unless the comprise a substantial portion of people who are hiring for that job skill it's simply not going to matter. If they were passing over qualified candidates in large enough numbers that would drive down the price of black workers--and make them a good deal for someone who recognized the issue. Yet we don't see anyone stepping up to snap up the deals--which leaves the only reasonable conclusion being that things are close enough to balanced that nobody can exploit the difference.
Affirmative Action worked, it did what it could. What it could do was done long ago, now we have only costs without benefits.
Wow.
Once again, a complete failure to actually address the point.
Markets are usually very good at correcting mispriced generic goods--yet we do not see that happening in this case. Yet you reject the obvious conclusion that we aren't looking at a case of mispriced goods.