First of all, get well soon Pinprick. — Tobias

Thank.

No. The difference is in the legitimacy. — Tobias

Ok, I’m not getting this. Let’s say the amount stolen/taxed is $100. If I need that $100 to survive (for food, rent, whatever), I will suffer due to not having it, regardless of the reason why I don’t have it. Starving to death is starving to death. It’s not like my suffering will be alleviated or lessened somehow because I was taxed legitimately. I’M STILL STARVING TO DEATH!

Hmm, do you take antibiotics when you are ill? And if you do, do you take them indefinitely? You might say 'ahh but antibiotics is not a good thing, but a necessary evil'. — Tobias

I’d actually say taking antibiotics isn’t a moral issue, but I see what you’re saying. You probably have a point here.

Why would that one 'actually make a difference' and the other one would not? — Tobias

Because one’s relevant to the requirements of the job. I’m sure you’re not suggesting certain races are better at certain tasks or possess certain skills that others do not, are you?

It is all a matter of the goals you wish to attain. — Tobias

Yes, but why would your goal be to promote one race over another? The goal should be to find a good SCOTUS justice, right?

competence' may well be perspectival, bringing a dfferent perspective to the table may make the institution as a hole more competent. — Tobias

That makes sense, but I don’t believe being black, or white, necessarily means you have a “different” perspective. I mean, technically no two perspectives are alike, but it isn’t like only a black person can be just regarding issues of race.

It harms you more because you already have less options to begin with. — Tobias

Right, but what’s the point? That discriminating against marginalized groups is worse than discriminating against non-marginalized groups?

Cutting someone’s hand off would not be as bad as drowning them, but that doesn’t mean we should overlook it. It’s still bad.

This…

some people thought they were superior to others and thought up this whole classification of peoples they subjugated, based on things like skin color, facial and bodily features etc. — Tobias

Lead to this…

preferential treatment policies — Tobias

Policies/practices like refusing to hire minorities caused minorities to become marginalized. If these types of policies/practices would not have existed, then things would not have been as bad, even if the racist ideologies continued.

I just mean power-sharing doesn’t justify racial discrimination — Pinprick

In the abstract, maybe not; you're objection, however, is both ahistorical and politically obtuse. Biden's selection of a well-qualified Black Woman jurist only begins to redress centuries-long legacy of state-sanctioned racial and gender exclusion. As I've pointed already, no harm is being done except maybe to fragile egos of entitled (mostly comparatively less or unqualifed) White Men who may feel slighted by not even being considered. Tell me, 'prick, how should substantive equality be achieved in 21st c. America without White Men power-sharing with (therefore deselecting other White Men in favor of) historically excluded Non-White Women & Men. :brow:

The reason why there's so little representation of black women on the supreme court is centuries of removal of opportunity at each step necessary to get there (school, college, network, selection), redressing it requires both the equitable return of those opportunities and reparation for the damage caused by the years over which they were absent.

The first is in progress. Discrimination in theory is illegal, discrimination in practice is lessening. It's the second that positive discrimination seeks to address, the idea that the lack of back women on the supreme court is a harm resulting from prior (and to a lesser extent, continued) inequality.

So to whom has this harm accrued? Is it, by and large, black women who find themselves sufficiently qualified and experienced to be in the running for a supreme court placement? I can't see how. If she's got so far as to be considered, then the one barrier remaining is Biden's choice. Unless were making a claim that Biden is racist, then there seems, self evidently, to be no substantial harm having accrued to this particular person. Thus offering her a benefit by way of reparation is unnecessary.

The people who need benefits by way of reparation for the effects of past (and present) wrongs are, by definition, those suffering the specified harms. In terms of supreme court nomination, it would be those who, for example, couldn't even get a place at college because of systematicaly racist income inequality. That, by definition, is not any current supreme court nominee.

I don't think the accusation of political expediency is therefore misplaced. Nor do I agree that it "does no harm". Anything which is politically expedient does harm by allowing a token gesture to take heat off any real-world reparation for the harms systematic racism has caused.

As seems de rigueur these days for identity politics, some beneficiary is found who already belongs to the class of beneficiaries capitalism allows (the already privileged), and attention is drawn away from the class who actually suffer.

Since when is it a matter of mere "political expedience" for a duely elected politician to keep a campaign promise to the greater share of his or her constituents?

And how is anyone harmed to whom the campaign promise wasn't promised and who largely did not vote for said politician?

History matters. Political context matters. Ahistorical, decontextualized, hypothetical objections to POTUS keeping this particular campaign promise are vacuous exercises in rationalizing the status quo (aka "White grievence identity politics"). :mask:

Since when is it a matter of mere "political expedience" for a duely elected politician to keep a campaign promise to the greater share of his or her constituents? — 180 Proof

The nature of the promise is the political expedience, not the keeping of it.

Political context matters. Ahistorical, decontextualized, hypothetical objections to POTUS keeping this particular campaign promise are vacuous exercises in rationalizing the status quo (aka "White grievence identity politics"). :mask: — 180 Proof

Agreed. Now show that what I've said is such a thing. Otherwise your comment is, to use some buzzwords I've recently learnt, decontextualized and hypothetical.

You stretch the notion of "political expedience" so far to include campaigning when it usually refers to governing that you've rendered it meaningless.

The "politically expedient" thing to do would have been not to announce he intended to keep his campaign promise and leak out a list of men women white & nonwhite candidates, giving himself the cover of "credentials" to later nominate someone who'd be much easier to get through Senate confirmation with as many Repucblican votes as possible. Wtf are you high on, man?

You ducked the question of who's being harmed.

You also mention "reparations" which isn't remotely relevant to the issue at hand.

Then, in effect, you accuse POTUS, an old White Man, of "identity politics" when his candidacy and Administration is a repudiation of White Identity Politics. :shade:

You stretch the notion of "political expedience" so far to include campaigning when it usually refers to governing that you've rendered it meaningless. — 180 Proof

I get...

Expediency means doing what is convenient rather than what is morally right.
[formal]
Political expediency, rather than economic need, will determine who gains from the conflict.
This was a matter less of morals than of expediency.

...which is the sense in which I meant it. Making such a promise being aimed at maintaining the status quo (appearing to address reparation for systematic racism whilst avoiding taking the necessary steps), ie "...doing what is convenient rather than what is morally right"

You ducked the question of who's being harmed. — 180 Proof

No, I addressed that...

Anything which is politically expedient does harm by allowing a token gesture to take heat off any real-world reparation for the harms systematic racism has caused. — Isaac

Then, in effect, you accuse POTUS, an old White Man, of "identity politics" when his candidacy and Administration is a repudiation of White Identity Politics. — 180 Proof

I didn't accuse him of identity politics, I accused him of taking advantage of identity politics to avoid having to give reparation to those who actually suffer.

It's really not that complicated. There's only one front page, only one policy headliner, only one top slot in the political briefing agenda, only one keynote in the town hall speech, only one top question at the press conference...at any one time.

One of those slots can be given at any one time to reparation for systematic racism. The more slots taken up with meaningless token gestures, the fewer are taken up with advocating real change.

When kids are no longer working up to their waists in our fucking shit to pay for your next fucking iPhone, then I'll start giving a shit about which individuals in a group of extremely privileged individuals are slightly less privileged than some of the others.

Simply then, is it your position that, all things considered, POTUS should not appoint a well-qualified Black woman jurist to SCOTUS? (No further explanation needed either way.)

Simply then, is it your position that POTUS should not appoint a well-qualified Black woman jurist to SCOTUS? — 180 Proof

No, that would be perverse. I'm talking about what he should have done. Passing commentary on his actions, as us without the power to influence decisions are wont to do.

What he should do from now is probably go ahead and appoint one of the preselected candidates, anything else would be shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted.

Next time, if he wants to tick something off his "tackle systemic racism" to do list, perhaps he could stop American companies using child labour in Africa, write off their crippling debt, lower the unfair trade sanctions that hobble African farmers in the world markets...

...and just keep doing that until it's an ugly blot in our history books.

Then, maybe then, he could look back and check if black women are still underrepresented in the supreme court. My guess is he'll find they're not.

Agreed, but the issue at hand (this thread topic) is far narrower than your/our legitimate broader concerns.

Well, you may be right. What I considered myself to be addressing was the issue of...

if kind of artificially adding diversity is a thing we do, isn't that making an assumption of the courts being politically biased — TiredThinker

...the answer being, no. It's nothing to do with re-balancing the court and everything to do with picking an easy token gesture to fill a front page with something which sounds like it's tackling systemic racism whilst being nothing more than papering over the cracks.

The ugly frontline of systematic racism is not an imbalance of skin tone in a few privileged institutions, it the systematic oppression of the poor (a massively disproportionate number of whom are people of color). Anything which is not directly tackling that issue is therefore deeply suspect in intent and at best an unhelpful distraction.

But maybe I should have taken the presumptions of the OP (that the selection was done out of a desire to re-balance the make up of the court) unchallenged and answered within the framework they set. You might have a point there. In that case, though, I've nothing to say.

If not to comment on its role as a distraction, who in their right mind could possibly raise a concern? They're all qualified, right? If we assume honorable intent on Biden's part, and If we assume other more serious actions against systematic racism were never on the cards, then I don't see a problem, but those two 'ifs' seem like the real issue to me.

Tell me, 'prick, how should substantive equality be achieved in 21st c. America without White Men power-sharing with (therefore deselecting other White Men in favor of) historically excluded Non-White Women & Men — 180 Proof

Ideally it should start with equal opportunity, meaning access to quality education, healthcare, and so on. This would eliminate circumstantial (dis)advantages such as being born in poverty or of a particular race, gender, etc. A more equal playing field from which the best in a particular field can excel and advance through competition.

The other side of this is the issue of discrimination which exists now. I’m not naïve enough to believe I’m creative or smart enough to solve this problem, but the solution has to lie with more accountability. We don’t want things to devolve into a situation where anytime a white person hires/appoints another white person their accused of racism, and we also don’t want the difficulty of proving a person discriminated against someone else to be exploited. I think more people being involved in the process could help. It’s easy for one person to quietly dismiss applications from minorities, but having some sort of oversight committee that can question the person why they chose one person over another may help. Or, maybe having an organization similar to the NAACP that can actively promote qualified minorities would help. Or, maybe it wouldn’t, but I think these suggestions are at least more fair than showing favoritism for any specific group.

Ketanji Brown Jackson. #116.

If a black woman takes a seat on the SCOTUS, she shouldn't be voting with the specific aim of helping black women. The notion that she might is really cynical. She should be interpretating the constitution per her theory of interpretation.

If whites only voted for white interests, there'd be no 14th Amendment, and we wouldn't have had the voter rights act that broke down Jim Crow.

Having a black woman on the SCOTUS would be a powerful symbol. Advocates of it are saying we need that symbol in prominence right now (after 4 years of Trump's pandering to white supremacists).

:up:

Ketanji Brown Jackson. #116. — 180 Proof

:cool:

There's an issue both ways as in it's "weird" for either position validly. Until a metric is developed so where sc nominees are picked more "objectively" then it's going to be political.

Which is better?

1. Hey, here's a judge, she's a black woman?

2. Hey, here's a black woman, she's a judge?

Which is better?

1. Hey, here's a judge, she's a black woman?

2. Hey, here's a black woman, she's a judge? — Agent Smith

I don't know but I do find it strange that Mrs. Jackson doesn't seem to have a problem defining "black" but does have a problem defining 'woman". Is Biden sure he picked a black woman for the Supreme Court?

In Jackson's befuddlement when asked the question she seemed at least understand that it has to do with biology as she she said, "I'm not a biologist."

Here is an Associate Justice.

Here is an Associate Justice. — 180 Proof

:up:

On point! I'm not anything! Does that mean I'm nothing? Oh wow!

In Jackson's befuddlement when asked the question she seemed at least understand that it has to do with biology as she she said, "I'm not a biologist. — Harry Hindu

She is well aware of the trap that was laid. It has to do with the Republicans obsession with transgender people.

The biology of gender is not a simple matter of male vs female.

Here is an Associate Justice. — 180 Proof

:up: I really like her.

The Democratic President specifically asked for a woman rather than a man, and yet the nominee cannot explain the difference between a woman and a man.

If the nominee does not know whether they are a woman or a man, then perhaps they should recuse themselves from the nomination, as the President specifically asked for a woman.

The Democratic President specifically asked for a woman rather than a man, and yet the nominee cannot explain the difference between a woman and a man. — RussellA

Political Trap

the nominee cannot explain the difference between a woman and a man. — RussellA

Maybe it's not as easy as we think it is. How can Mrs. Jackson say anything to suggest that Biden was more interested in her vagina and breasts than her brain?

Do brains have sex? :wink:

The Democratic President specifically asked for a woman rather than a man, and yet the nominee cannot explain the difference between a woman and a man.

If the nominee does not know whether they are a woman or a man, then perhaps they should recuse themselves from the nomination, as the President specifically asked for a woman. — RussellA

It's simple really. From the standpoint of a lawyer or judge, a woman is, of course, whatever the law in question says a woman is, just as a man, or anyone or anything is whatever the law says it is. All else is irrelevant in assessing the legal qualifications of a person.

Addendum to ...

The US Senate hearings for US Appellate Judge KBJ this week were a disgraceful spectacle of under-qualified weak men triggered by an over-qualified strong woman for the express purpose of pandering to – soliciting campagn funds from – a Fox Noise audience of bigoted Grand Old Putin-Party base voters. :shade:

Senator, have you no decency; at long last, Sir, have you no sense of decency left? — J. Welsh, Army-McCarthy Hearings 1954

Clearly not.

She is well aware of the trap that was laid. It has to do with the Republicans obsession with transgender people. — Fooloso4

Wrong. It has to do with the extreme left's fetish with sex/gender and using it to make victims out of people to get votes. It also has to do with Republicans, Independents and moderate Democrats concern over how a warped sense of sex/gender is an infringement on the equal representation for women.

The extremists on the left are the ones over-representing trans-people which ends up misrepresenting both men and women. They are the ones that want to promise trans people special rights, not equal rights. And they are the ones that treat people who claim to be the opposite sex/gender differently than someone else claiming to be something that they are not that has nothing to do with sex/gender. When you take trans-people's claims without the same skepticism that you show others that make outlandish claims then you are the one's with an obsession with sex/gender.

The biology of gender is not a simple matter of male vs female. — Fooloso4

It's actually very simple, but in order to maintain the mass delusion, you have to create more lies which makes it seem more complicated than it actually is.