Numbers! :lol:

Numerology is more like it.

One notes you consistently claim to know what people are thinking, feeling, doing. and how and why, and tell them. When you grow up, you will realize that is always a mistake, except and until you get it right. Which does not happen very often, nor are you a judge of it. — tim wood

One certainly asserts such a thing (you), yet provides no evience for such an acusation. You provided no evidence of this acusation, because there is none. In fact, I stated quite the opposite:

to conclude that your primary factor of selection is race, as well as gender, is the kind of cognitive processing that escapes any rational description. — Garrett Travers

I have no idea what anyone is thinking. But, I can rationally concluded that if someone is chosen for position that requires adept erudition within that given domain in the basis of immutable characteristics, that such a person is motivated by, at bare minimum, not the seat being fill by someone competent. And again, there's this issue you people seem to continuosly display in this "philosophy" forum. Instead of addressing my argument, I am insulted by you, as if that constituted either an argument, or something I give a shit about. Present an opposing argument to be assessed and discussed, or fuck right off.

And of course you may be guilty of exactly what you seem to object to. If Biden cares to choose a Black woman for the USSC, and you object on the basis of her color/gender/whatever, then you're the one discriminating. He merely thinks such a person, if qualified, deserves a fair chance — tim wood

And of course I'm not, and I didn't object to anything, I analyzed the situation. Learn to read, your insults are getting annoying. I don't care if black women serve on the court. It is without a doubt racist to hire someone on that basis, no if's and's or but's. "He merely thinks such a person..." This sentence is inconsistent with your previous insults. You don't know what he thinks. And if he claims that the immmutable characteristic of skin color is a predicate for selection, first and before competence, you would have no reason to assume he was highering for qualification, you made it up entirely.

"no one is suggesting appointing anyone who is incompetent, except maybe Republicans."

I see, you're a partisan. Let me tell you something, dude. In the modern world there a two groups of people that deserve neither your favor, nor your comparative assessment. That would be democrats and republicans, who are fundamentally the same people in practice, that wish to do different things with their power. And the ones actually in power, make the ones you meet in public look like angels. But, as far as can be assessed rationally, it would be impossible for you, I, or anyone to accurately detect which of these two groups of people lie to us more often than the other. But, by all means, keep dick-riding for democrats if that's your wish.

And he's willing to give her/them that chance. And given the history, that and more like it seem a mighty good and fine thing to do. — tim wood

There is just her, there is no them, and I'm not connected to any such history in any manner. It would seem a mighty good and fine thing to do for any of the people involved in the history you reference, which I guess in this case, includes racist ass "You ain't black," Joe Biden. So, sure. But, I base my predilections on content of character, because that's rational, logically consistent, and universally applicable.

That's something neither her age, nor her color would be able to disclose to anyone.

How's that? At what point did you determine there was racism within the Supreme Court solely on the basis that the men on the Court, who aren't Clarence Thomas I'll assume, are white..? What informs this notion?

Right? I mean, as long as competence IS a factor and is properly vetted for, then there's simply no problem. The only issue here is the stated objective of Joe. That's pretty much all that gives me pause. I already hate the state, I don't want anymore activist Judges determing laws for me, and selecting on this basis is not really a good sign. But, again, no real big deal in the end. Nothing like the outrageous brouhaha made over Barrett needs to be initiated. We'll see.

The single most under-represented and abused demographic in history, who deserve political power to wield over the ignorant huddled masses, if only for payback, is beyond any shadow of any doubt... Nerds...

:nerd:

:nerd:

I already hate the state.... — Garrett Travers

I will guess you like the rest of us are a great consumer of all that the state provides, however. And likely would be among the ones who would scream loudest if ever that flow of beneficence were shut off or even reduced. You have the luxury of "hating" because the state has afforded it to you.

As to the rest of your comment, I take it that you have zero problem with any competent candidate, for so long as he or she is appropriately competent, yes?

I will guess you like the rest of us are a great consumer of all that the state provides, however. And likely would be among the ones who would scream loudest if ever that flow of beneficence were shut off or even reduced. You have the luxury of "hating" because the state has afforded it to you. — tim wood

It provides less than what it takes. The state steals at least 25% of my labor-earnings (labor), while providing very few benefits to me, of which I do not want and did not ask for and have nope hope of recourse to deny. I accept the illusion of largesse, because I am not allowed to do otherwise. It is foisted upon me, not afforded. If the state were to afford me one favor, it would to never contact me involuntarily, or without the utmost urgency of need. Everything I need is provided by the market, not the state. In fact, I cannot think of even a single thing at this moment that is not actually produced and provided to me by the market, even that which is traditionally understood as provided by the state, but I can see with every pay-stub I get who is taking from me every single pay-period. I have the luxury of hating the state because I have executive function the exceeds the average capacity for apprehension of things like reason, which includes the ability to evaluate the history of states and their actions, and doing so makes one thing quite clear: The single greatest source of unjustified, flagitious mass murder, destruction, regression, and misery is beyond any plausible domain of deniability is the state as an institutionalized concept.

As to the rest of your comment, I take it that you have zero problem with any competent candidate, for so long as he or she is appropriately competent, yes? — tim wood

That is correct. Some of the most competent people I have ever worked with were black, or otherwise of separate race. I had a Nigerian co-worker once who was the single most successful, intelligent human I've ever met. Taught me about elctro-magnetics and the beauty of construction. I'd give anything for him to come work with me again. I love competence, not form, intelligence and aptitude, not phenotype. The mere idea that there is a different standard than the one I just described is anathema to me.

It provides less than what it takes. The state steals at least 25% of my labor-earnings (labor), while providing very few benefits to me, of which I do not want — Garrett Travers

Perhaps this is so, but extremely unlikely. My guess is that you are simply blind to all that the state provides. Take a moment and reflect. Is there anything at all that you do that is not conditioned or affected by the state, usually for the better or intended to be?

And in as much as your committed to competence, what do you care about incidentals?

The single greatest source of unjustified, flagitious mass murder, destruction, regression, and misery is beyond any plausible domain of deniability is the state as an institutionalized concept. — Garrett Travers

Coherence? I don't think concepts kill too many people. As to substance, try some Hobbes. If you had said that some states seem to be bad, no argument. But who or what has your back when a bad state comes knocking?

Perhaps this is so, but extremely unlikely. My guess is that you are simply blind to all that the state provides. Take a moment and reflect. Is there anything at all that you do that is not conditioned or affected by the state, usually for the better or intended to be? — tim wood

Just put it to the test privately. Think about all of the things you use for survival on a daily basis that is provided to you by the market, including the things the state pays for with your money in transaction on your behalf, and tally that up against what the state actively provides that you use to survive. And yes, almost evrything I do has nothing to do with the state beyond securing sovereign borders to keep outside tyrants out, for which I'm thankful, even if we're not being threatened by any. That's all you get.

I don't think concepts kill too many people. As to substance, try some Hobbes. If you had said that some states seem to be bad, no argument. But who or what has your back when a bad state comes knocking? — tim wood

I'm familiar with Hobbes, you study him extensively in rudimentary philosophy courses. Concepts that have been institutionalized and are characterized by having the sole monopoly on the application of lethal violence is the single greatest killer in history, not even questionable.

Think about all of the things you use for survival on a daily basis that is provided to you by the market, — Garrett Travers

And just how do you suppose the market exists?

And just how do you suppose the market exists? — tim wood

As a result of the sovereignty of individual boundaries being recognized between people, predominantly. Which implies people accruing property and trading it, or employing people to help create, or sell it for an agreed upon wage.

How's that? At what point did you determine there was racism within the Supreme Court solely on the basis that the men on the Court, who aren't Clarence Thomas I'll assume, are white..? What informs this notion? — Garrett Travers

I make no such claim. I made some jokes to @Banno. I simply believe that this nomination is justified on the basis of potentially making this institution more diverse.

I make no such claim. I made some jokes to Banno. — Tom Storm

Very well, my apologies, must have misunderstood.

I simply believe that this nomination is justified on the basis of potentially making this institution more diverse. — Tom Storm

Diversity as a standard for filling a Court seat with the responsibility of interpreting the law, and perhaps changing it? Skin color is a standard the supercedes competance? Supercedes honesty? Or, perhaps is on par with those standards?

Diversity as a standard for filling a Court seat with the responsibility of interpreting the law, and perhaps changing it? Skin color is a standard the supercedes competance? Supercedes honesty? Or, perhaps is on par with those standards? — Garrett Travers

No.

:100:

Diversity as a standard for filling a Court seat with the responsibility of interpreting the law, and perhaps changing it? Skin color is a standard the supercedes competance? Supercedes honesty? Or, perhaps is on par with those standards? — Garrett Travers

Very good, had me kind of worried. I like to think at least a good portion of my fellow man have some sense in their, at that at last this may be one place to find them all concentrated.

wrong — god must be atheist

Don't bore me with mere reality!

I've been in front of many judges. The terrible truth is that they're just lawyers who get to wear black robes and sit on chairs placed higher that those of the other lawyers in the room. There's no reason to think they'll be any more or less qualified in the law than any other lawyer, regardless of who or what they are. If you're lucky, they've read the pleadings, listened to the evidence and argument, perhaps done some research or had someone do it for them, take the job seriously and try to make an honest judgment. That's the best you can expect from any of them.

If Biden meant that he will automatically exclude anyone who isn’t a black woman from consideration for the appointment, then that is both racist and sexist, as it is discriminating on the basis of both. The best person should get the job regardless of race, sex, etc.

News flash: that's not how this process is designed to work (certainly it hasn't in two and a third centuries). The only thing "racist and sexist" is the 95% white male quota for SCOTUS. Who says "who the best person for the job" is? Besides, a black woman professional is far more likely than not to be "more qualified" than her white male peers because she has had to be (even expected to be) every step of the way throughout her career due to systemic discrimination against her on account of both gender and race. I don't care as much about the appointee's demographic profile nearly as much as I'm concerned about whether s/he applies the 18th c. Constitution in a manner which reduces 21st c. injustices equitably (re: pro-Stakeholders) or whether s/he hog-ties 21st c. jurisprudence in the 18th c. Constitution's straitjacket (re: pro-Shareholders). So far, at this preliminary stage, none of Biden's candidates are partisans to 'the 18th c. straitjacket.' :up: :mask:

Jews make up about 2.4% of the American population but there have been eight Jews on the Supreme Court. Hell, 33% of the Supreme Court was Jewish up until Ginsberg's death. So do we think right-wingers are sincerely concerned about aligning political make-up (particularly non-electable positions) with demographic make-up (a stupid argument regardless), or are they just being racist fucks with bad faith concerns as is their M.O.

Nicely put, I appreciate your perspective. :pray:

Legal interpretation is conceived of by many, including some legal theorists as a strictly logical, syllogistic enterprise. One applies general rules to a concrete state of affairs and the outcome follows: it is either conforming to the general rule or it is not and if it is not it should conform to another general rule, or not. If not we have a problem and according to HLA Hart it is up to the judge's discretion nd if so the general rule applies.

In practice though the matter is far more complex. The law may be contradictory, judges have biases, there are certain legal principles that function not as hard and fast rules, but as 'rules of thumb', markers for the right direction without indicating some sort of outcome automatically. There may still be some kind of super judge, judge Hercules (Dworkin) who reaches the best legal outcome, but this judge has to be able to know all of the law, be versed in its principles and history and free from bias. In practice we do not have a judge Hercules, that is why there are more judges in a court than one usually.

Most legal scholars that I know of see legal interpretation more as a hermeneutic practice. One enters into legal interpretation from a range of presuppositions and assumptions one is only dimly aware. Textual interpretation, historical interpretation, systematic and teleological interpretation (the exact terminology is different in US systems but is not different in its operation) will result in an an outcome that seems the right interpretation in the case at hand and may bring one's own assumptions to light. However, if this picture is accurate, the integrity of the legal process is aided by the inclusion of multiple perspectives in order to make the background from which the law is interpreted as broad as possible. These different perspectives may inform one another. Now every lawyer is versed in the legal system and certainly a supreme court justice is. However, we cannot exclude the notion that a black woman may bring slightly different assumptions to the table enriching the process.

In conclusion Biden's preference is defendable from a legal point of view I would say, not primarily from the point of view of equal representation but because it enriches the background horizon from which the judges operate. @Ciceronianus point is well taken, they are not Herculeses, they are lawyers aka people with knowledge of the law. their task is still human all too human.

By the way welcome back @Benkei :p

The best person should get the job regardless of race, sex, etc. — Pinprick

That's true in some situations; in others, it isn't. Race and gender do not matter when you are hiring a hundred teachers; just got the best you can. The best person to be Pope, however, will be a Catholic male.

The Supremes are a special group. They generally will not answer in advance how they would rule on potential cases, so some other criteria has to be used for selection. If you want anti-abortion anti-gay justices, pick a conservative Catholic male. If you want more moderate views, pick a liberal Protestant or a Jew. If you want someone sensitive to the issues inherent in cases concerning race and gender, a black woman would be the best person.

:up:

:fire:

:cool:

Don't bore me with mere reality! — unenlightened

Okay. I won't do it again.

Yeah, you really need more old white men. Been working for hundreds of years, why change. — Banno

Gotta love how non-Americans bash America for lack of diversity when they only need to look at their own country's High Court (of Australia) to see that the lack of diversity is much worse.