The Supreme Court of the United States Thread

#2,826
#2,826
LouderVol said:
Your break down of work history seemed limited to just did they work in the industry. But didnt account for how or what they did during that time.
Click to expand...

What I actually said was:
There are probably 750-1000 people in the US that are as qualified as the people currently on the court were, on average, when they got appointed.

Such a small number reflects an extremely high bar of professional achievement. I also made another post stating my belief that Kamala Harris wasn’t qualified despite having an impressive resume relative to most people in the industry.

I don’t think the post is misleading or confusing.
 
#2,827
#2,827
lawgator1 said:
Unethical? Black women make up about 14 pct of the population and none has ever been on the Court. So long as the nominee is qualified, why is it "unethical' to think they ought to have their perspective (which you have to admit is going to be unique) taken into account?
Click to expand...

The entire black/African American population makes up 14.5% of the US population.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and SpaceCoastVol
#2,828
#2,828
lawgator1 said:
Unethical? Black women make up about 14 pct of the population and none has ever been on the Court. So long as the nominee is qualified, why is it "unethical' to think they ought to have their perspective (which you have to admit is going to be unique) taken into account?
Click to expand...
I'm sure a Harvard law graduated black woman who has been living as an elitist circuit court judge for the last 8-10 years has the exact same life perspective as any single black mom living in the Bronx.

Identity politics, nothing more.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64, whodeycin85, Rickyvol77 and 1 other person
#2,829
#2,829
OrangeTsar said:
Oh the President has the LEGAL right to nominate whom ever he wishes. Not arguing the legality of it at all. I AM arguing that using race and gender to filter your candidate list is extremely unethical and hypocritical through
Click to expand...
Nothing says we've arrived like all others need not apply.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#2,830
#2,830
lawgator1 said:
The President can use whatever criteria he chooses. People are free to vote against him or criticize him if they disagree with that criteria.

No federal white judge is going to sue the POTUS claiming reverse discrimination over this.
Click to expand...

Name Kamala Harris to the court and he can save her the embarrassment of not being picked to run with him in 2024
 
  • Like
Reactions: headhunter15 and W.TN.Orange Blood
#2,832
#2,832
lawgator1 said:
Unethical? Black women make up about 14 pct of the population and none has ever been on the Court. So long as the nominee is qualified, why is it "unethical' to think they ought to have their perspective (which you have to admit is going to be unique) taken into account?
Click to expand...
Because you are saying a whole 86 percent of the population “need not apply”. THAT is the textbook definition of bigotry.
Why is it ethical to say “blacks only” when saying “whites only” would (rightfully) be deemed unethical? Justice is blind i thought. That includes color blindness as well
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and tbh
#2,835
#2,835
VOLS INC. said:
Let’s acknowledge that the ABA considering someone unqualified is a legitimate reason for removing that judge from consideration.

How does someone’s race or sex somehow qualify them for consideration and disqualify everyone else who does not possess those same qualifications?

Or this illustration.

Slow Joe gets a list of 100 qualified judges in an excel spreadsheet. Included in the data is first/last name, sex, race, current position, school, place of residents, etc. The basics.

( I realize this seems extremely far-fetched. There is no way Joe can open excel, or an email with an excel spreadsheet attached, or a door, or his eyes half the time. Not the point)

Anyway, immediately he sets filters and unchecks every race but Black. Every sex but Female. Leaving him only black and female candidates.

Now is that anyway to choose someone for a job? Much less the highest court in the land?
Click to expand...
Mostly agree, except the only candidates on any list or in any spreadsheet presented to Biden will be black and female.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#2,837
#2,837
VOLS INC. said:
Let’s acknowledge that the ABA considering someone unqualified is a legitimate reason for removing that judge from consideration.

How does someone’s race or sex somehow qualify them for consideration and disqualify everyone else who does not possess those same qualifications?

Or this illustration.

Slow Joe gets a list of 100 qualified judges in an excel spreadsheet. Included in the data is first/last name, sex, race, current position, school, place of residents, etc. The basics.

( I realize this seems extremely far-fetched. There is no way Joe can open excel, or an email with an excel spreadsheet attached, or a door, or his eyes half the time. Not the point)

Anyway, immediately he sets filters and unchecks every race but Black. Every sex but Female. Leaving him only black and female candidates.

Now is that anyway to choose someone for a job? Much less the highest court in the land?
Click to expand...
It's precisely what Democrats do for every position regardless of other qualifications. But you for got the gay and trans filters.
 
#2,838
#2,838
VOLS INC. said:
Let’s acknowledge that the ABA considering someone unqualified is a legitimate reason for removing that judge from consideration.

How does someone’s race or sex somehow qualify them for consideration and disqualify everyone else who does not possess those same qualifications?

Or this illustration.

Slow Joe gets a list of 100 qualified judges in an excel spreadsheet. Included in the data is first/last name, sex, race, current position, school, place of residents, etc. The basics.

( I realize this seems extremely far-fetched. There is no way Joe can open excel, or an email with an excel spreadsheet attached, or a door, or his eyes half the time. Not the point)

Anyway, immediately he sets filters and unchecks every race but Black. Every sex but Female. Leaving him only black and female candidates.

Now is that anyway to choose someone for a job? Much less the highest court in the land?
Click to expand...
It's precisely what Democrats do for every position regardless of other qualifications. But you for got the gay and trans filters.
 
#2,841
#2,841
lawgator1 said:
The President can use whatever criteria he chooses. People are free to vote against him or criticize him if they disagree with that criteria.

No federal white judge is going to sue the POTUS claiming reverse discrimination over this.
Click to expand...

There’s no such thing as “reverse discrimination”. It’s just discrimination.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tnslim1, AM64, OrangeTsar and 2 others
#2,842
#2,842
Heard a black commentator opining about the announcement you plan to hire a "insert minority". His point was just do it without the pre announcement. The pre announcement in effect tells the world the pool was considerably smaller; you are the best of this subset of candidates vs no pre announcement that you are the best of the total set of candidates. It adds the label of Affirmative Action hire which results in questioning if the chosen was really chosen for qualifications. He called it polite racism.

Makes sense to me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64, SoonerVol, Majors and 5 others
#2,843
#2,843
volinbham said:
An interesting question that will surely see people switching their view on the matter depending on their party

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/a...over_breyer_replacement_is_vp_vote_legit.html
Click to expand...
Well, the Vice President gets to pick the President so surely they can pick the Supreme Court, too.

It’s a pretty tough sell for originalists:
“The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.”

Pretty sure that’s all it says.

Credit to Josh Blackman for sticking to positions I’m sure they’d both rather go the other way. I haven’t read his article, but I’ll be shocked if Larry Tribe sticks by it.
 
#2,844
#2,844
volinbham said:
An interesting question that will surely see people switching their view on the matter depending on their party

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/a...over_breyer_replacement_is_vp_vote_legit.html
Click to expand...
Well, the Vice President gets to pick the President so surely they can pick the Supreme Court, too.

It’s a pretty tough sell for originalists:
“The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.”

Pretty sure that’s all it says.

Credit to Josh Blackman for sticking to a position that I’m sure he’s rather go the other way. I haven’t read his article, but I’ll be shocked if Larry Tribe sticks by it.
 
#2,845
#2,845
RockyTop85 said:
Well, the Vice President gets to pick the President so surely they can pick the Supreme Court, too.

It’s a pretty tough sell for originalists:
“The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.”

Pretty sure that’s all it says.

Credit to Josh Blackman for sticking to positions I’m sure they’d both rather go the other way. I haven’t read his article, but I’ll be shocked if Larry Tribe sticks by it.
Click to expand...

In the article Tribe suggests he'd likely stick by his argument even though he hasn't really thought about it.
 
#2,847
#2,847
volinbham said:
In the article Tribe suggests he'd likely stick by his argument even though he hasn't really thought about it.
Click to expand...
I didn’t realize that posted. Was having some struggles with my browser.

I saw what he said I just think he’s a hack and I wouldn’t be surprised if he flips his opinion.
 
#2,848
#2,848
  • Like
Reactions: volinbham
#2,849
#2,849
Weezer said:
You're always "Mr. What-about-ism". You seem to hold a firm belief that only you and those you agree with can use whataboutism, and that it's completely wrong for anyone else to do so.
Click to expand...
That is fair criticism of me. I admit that I've been hypocritical when it comes to that.
 
#2,850
#2,850
The most qualified being a black woman far outweighs the most qualified out of black women. Once you start down this road any time someone or this person is replaced it will come down the race of the person. Meaning a man including blacks, a white, etc will never be able to replace this spot without a cultural uproar because the leftists have made this about race and sex. This is the first step in increasing the size of the supreme court as they become the moral authorities of who "deserves" to be on the court. At some point they will not have enough slots for all of their experiments.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top