Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer will retire

[natepro]

I never said there wasn't racism in the past.

No I didn't. I just don't think MORE discrimination is how you fix past discrimination. If Racial Animus and Discrimination are bad things, and unfortunately I think I'm the only one in this conversation who believes that's true, I don't see how more of it will solve our problems.

There is this weird fixture on the Social Left, that representation is how you fix past discrimination as if putting an X person in a position of power somehow makes a difference in the lives of other people from that same demographic.
Obama was the first president of African descent, the share of black wealth in this country SHRANK during his presidency.
Elite Tokenism does nothing to ameliorate society's problems, but it does HEAVILY benefit the winners of that tokenism.
It's mostly just a tool to make progressives feel morally superior and feel like "they're making a difference" without concerning any real power.

Yes, you did, and you are continuing to here.

I would be interested to hear the solution to no black women ever being appointed to SCOTUS that doesn't involve appointing a black woman to SCOTUS though.

[valade16]

I PERSONALLY didn't get anything via racial bias, did other white guys 100 years ago, in a country that was founded by white guys get their's through racial bias, sure, but I personally didn't get anything.

Of course you did. You don’t think racial bias has positively affected you in any way?

[valade16]

What do you mean most wouldn't trust a 36-year-old brain surgeon, how old do you think someone has to be to be a brain surgeon?
18:Start Undergrad
22:Start Medical School
27: Graduate Med School start residency
30:Finish Residency
Individual results may vary, but 36 isn't too young or inexperienced to be a brain surgeon.

For reference 36 was the age when Ben Carson led a team of 70 surgeons on separating conjoined twins. (This is the surgery that made him famous)


I through Cameron in there not as seriously, it was mostly because people were banding about young age as a qualifier and I knew that he was someone on Trumps shortlist who is young, btw your still ignoring Munioz, I would say the people I recommended are strong textualists (conservatives tend to favor that philosophy) I'd say Amal Tharpaur is a good example of the kind of legal scholar I like. He was another person considered for Kennedy's spot that when to Kavenaugh.

I'd say between the two women you mentioned, I dislike that Kruger is an incrementalist, the job of SCOTUS is to interpret the law not write it. Also, she's more conservative on criminal justice issues than I would like.
You didn't mention her, but I like that Eunice Lee was a public defender. Though she probably hasn't been on the court of appels long enough.

Ben Carson was an exceptional neurosurgeon, he is certainly not the norm, but let me rephrase. Most are not the lead surgeon at 36.

I am not ignoring Munoz, he has good qualifications, Cameron does not. Hence me focusing on why you would claim he’s a good choice, but you now acknowledge he shouldn’t be considered one.

Thus far your main criteria is that they be a textualist and not an incrementalist, which again is not a qualification; it is an opinion. There are bad textualists. This is my point, you guys keep talking about selecting the most qualified and claim that limiting it to a black female precludes the possibility of selecting them, but then you cannot give any criteria for what makes a candidate qualified other than your don’t like their judicial opinion. Because someone is an incrementalist doesn’t make them unqualified to sit on the court.

[valade16]

I never said there wasn't racism in the past.

No I didn't. I just don't think MORE discrimination is how you fix past discrimination. If Racial Animus and Discrimination are bad things, and unfortunately I think I'm the only one in this conversation who believes that's true, I don't see how more of it will solve our problems.

There is this weird fixture on the Social Left, that representation is how you fix past discrimination as if putting an X person in a position of power somehow makes a difference in the lives of other people from that same demographic.
Obama was the first president of African descent, the share of black wealth in this country SHRANK during his presidency.
Elite Tokenism does nothing to ameliorate society's problems, but it does HEAVILY benefit the winners of that tokenism.
It's mostly just a tool to make progressives feel morally superior and feel like "they're making a difference" without concerning any real power.

We’re not trying to fix past discrimination, we’re trying to fix continued and current discrimination. There are currently zero black females on the Supreme Court. There are currently a litany of instances of discrimination occurring this very moment.

There is this weird fixture on the social right, that how you fix discrimination is by ignoring it, as if not thinking about it makes it go away. It doesn’t. Discrimination persists precisely because we ignore it. For example, the share of black wealth shrank because people like you insist they are not experiencing any discrimination or factors that disproportionately negatively affect them. You use that statistic m, but don’t actually think anything should be done about it. Ironically, your use of that statistic is tokenism.

So no, you are not the only person who thinks racial animus and discrimination are bad, you are the only person who thinks they are bad but thinks the results are good. You don’t see how more of it will solve our problems, but you also don’t think it’s a problem that many obtained power through racism and now are ahead as a result of that racism. You certainly don’t think anything should be done to help those who were precludes from obtaining that power via racism achieve it, you think that the person precludes form that power is somehow on even footing with the person in power because starting now they won’t get anything else from racism, but again, there’s no need; they already have the power.

Like I said, your proposal to someone getting a ten mile head start to a marathon is to just let the other guy start racing thinking now that they’re both racing it’s fair without acknowledging the guy who has the 10 mile head start will always be in the lead as a result of his head start…

[Crovash]

I mean he said it to earn votes before the election from the black community

Chicken or egg? The right thing to do or the politically expedient thing to do? (HINT: sometimes they are the same thing).

[dbroncos78087]

We’re not trying to fix past discrimination, we’re trying to fix continued and current discrimination. There are currently zero black females on the Supreme Court. There are currently a litany of instances of discrimination occurring this very moment.

There is this weird fixture on the social right, that how you fix discrimination is by ignoring it, as if not thinking about it makes it go away. It doesn’t. Discrimination persists precisely because we ignore it. For example, the share of black wealth shrank because people like you insist they are not experiencing any discrimination or factors that disproportionately negatively affect them. You use that statistic m, but don’t actually think anything should be done about it. Ironically, your use of that statistic is tokenism.

So no, you are not the only person who thinks racial animus and discrimination are bad, you are the only person who thinks they are bad but thinks the results are good. You don’t see how more of it will solve our problems, but you also don’t think it’s a problem that many obtained power through racism and now are ahead as a result of that racism. You certainly don’t think anything should be done to help those who were precludes from obtaining that power via racism achieve it, you think that the person precludes form that power is somehow on even footing with the person in power because starting now they won’t get anything else from racism, but again, there’s no need; they already have the power.

Like I said, your proposal to someone getting a ten mile head start to a marathon is to just let the other guy start racing thinking now that they’re both racing it’s fair without acknowledging the guy who has the 10 mile head start will always be in the lead as a result of his head start…

Yep and when you ignore it, the discrimination moves from seen to unseen and is even harder to combat. It goes from explicitly pointed out racism to more insidious things. A great example is the crack/cocaine sentencing. Technically speaking there is nothing about white or black people that causes them to use a different type (for lack of a better word) of cocaine and yet there is a discrepancy between the communities where white and black people live. People who wanted to continue discrimination took note of this and changed laws on sentencing to ensure that people in black communities would be punished more harshly. They didn't write a law that says that black people will be punished X times more harshly. That law isn't facially racist. But it is racist all the same. We see less obvious examples all over the country and pulling them out and pointing them out brings up unpleasant truths about our criminal justice system.

[SpecialFNK]

And you are upset about them being a black female first.

Again, because apparently you need things repeated to you ad nauseam, there is no such thing as "the best candidate."

Get back to me when you have this same energy the next time a white guy is up for the same role white guys have been holding for 200 years.

don't be ignorant.

I would gladly support a black Conservative judge, but we all known damn well there is no chance that Joe Biden would do that.

[SpecialFNK]

I don't think he should have explicitly said that's what he was going to do. But I also think that had he not said it and simply picked a black female justice everyone complaining now would still be saying the person was only chosen because of their race and gender.

just like he did with Kamala Harris. that shouldn't have been said either.


is anyone of another race even being considered? no. that is discrimination.

if going through everyone qualified and then picking someone that happened to be black (description) people would or should not be able to complain, but it didn't happen that way, it's black female first, and then only going through those candidates to see who is the better choice.

[valade16]

just like he did with Kamala Harris. that shouldn't have been said either.


is anyone of another race even being considered? no. that is discrimination.

if going through everyone qualified and then picking someone that happened to be black (description) people would or should not be able to complain, but it didn't happen that way, it's black female first, and then only going through those candidates to see who is the better choice.

They would have anyway (and it’d the same people I’d wager).

[catman]

None of this is a reply to what I said.

It was all a reply to what you said. You have said that making demographic quotas is more important than finding the most qualified person for a job.

[valade16]

It was all a reply to what you said. You have said that making demographic quotas is more important than finding the most qualified person for a job.

Perhaps the demographic quotas is necessary to finding the most qualified person because in their absence, we are not electing the most qualified person but instead selecting off of demographics.

[catman]

Perhaps the demographic quotas is necessary to finding the most qualified person because in their absence, we are not electing the most qualified person but instead selecting off of demographics.

If you would expound on this, please do so. I understand that all demographic groups contain qualified people for every job, but to box yourself into a particular demographic group as your "subset" of candidates eliminates a whole lot of qualified candidates for any job.
When Reagan said that he intended to appoint a woman to the supreme court, I felt the same way. His choice -- Sandra Day O'Conner -- did a pretty good job, in my opinion.
As I said, I'm sure Biden and his advisors will find an acceptable black woman to fill Breyer's spot on the court. After reading about the candidates that appear to be on the top of his list, I would not object to either of them.
All of this said, I think that a president should not publicly state that they are going to appoint a member of a particular demographic group initially.

[dbroncos78087]

Perhaps the demographic quotas is necessary to finding the most qualified person because in their absence, we are not electing the most qualified person but instead selecting off of demographics.

They are there to open doors for people who have been long excluded. Everyone knows this but some people aren't intellectually honest about the existence of discrimination.

[valade16]

If you would expound on this, please do so. I understand that all demographic groups contain qualified people for every job, but to box yourself into a particular demographic group as your "subset" of candidates eliminates a whole lot of qualified candidates for any job.
When Reagan said that he intended to appoint a woman to the supreme court, I felt the same way. His choice -- Sandra Day O'Conner -- did a pretty good job, in my opinion.
As I said, I'm sure Biden and his advisors will find an acceptable black woman to fill Breyer's spot on the court. After reading about the candidates that appear to be on the top of his list, I would not object to either of them.
All of this said, I think that a president should not publicly state that they are going to appoint a member of a particular demographic group initially.

Certainly. The idea that we are currently selecting the best candidates because we do not say race is a factor is erroneous, as backed up by numerous studies. In one researchers sent identical resumes to employers, one with a black sounding name and one with a traditional white sounding name and, despite them being identical, the white sounding name received more callbacks and was rated as more educated/experienced/etc.

So this idea that we are picking the best candidates based on their merits is false. We are not. So if white sounding names are picked despite not being any better, a demographic quota requiring a certain amount of black sounding names to be picked actually prevents demographic bias.

[catman]

Certainly. The idea that we are currently selecting the best candidates because we do not say race is a factor is erroneous, as backed up by numerous studies. In one researchers sent identical resumes to employers, one with a black sounding name and one with a traditional white sounding name and, despite them being identical, the white sounding name received more callbacks and was rated as more educated/experienced/etc.

So this idea that we are picking the best candidates based on their merits is false. We are not. So if white sounding names are picked despite not being any better, a demographic quota requiring a certain amount of black sounding names to be picked actually prevents demographic bias.

I agree with this statement. Does the name James Johnson or Divante Jones bring more confidence to you? Just for the record, James Johnson is a Native American and Divante Jones is a white guy. Both are college graduates and are both in similar fields.
This said, I still say that to publicly announce that you are going to fill a position with a certain demographic group is not a good idea. You eliminate entirely too many very qualified people by doing so.