What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

******Official SCOTUS Thread****** (1 Viewer)

That's not what's going on here.

This is a media optics decision at it's core. No one will ever see a confirmation process like David Souter ever again. Never. While everyone has something buried away and a scandal somewhere, no one knew what to do with Souter. The guy redefined the "No One Is Teflon" trope in professional politics. I'm not even sure the guy is actually human. No computer, no email, no cell phone, no fanfare, nothing. No marriage, no kids, I'm not sure guy ever went on a date in his life. He was in the right place and the right time after Bush needed some kind of counter narrative to Bork.

Which brings up the Nikki Haley problem. With full Party support from the GOP, no one can beat her in 2024. She has a backstory that would fit into the American Idol marketing formula and she has no open scandal.

What the establishment Democrats want is a black woman candidate who would not spotlessly push through hard vetting. They want someone who create just enough bumps where there are avenues for the GOP to oppose the nominee. This is so the activist complicit MSM can further drive the White Nationalist/White Supremacist/Cops Are Looking To Execute Black People/Fear Wonderbread Themed Militias narrative.

This administration needs a "win" and it needs to support it's continued attack on poor white rural Christian America. Too many of them vote now and they can't control those votes.

I have property in some now expensive areas. Pacific Heights, Medina, Beacon Hill, River Oaks, Cobble Hill, etc, etc. I'm old enough to have bought in when prices aren't what they are right now. And if I look at the range of blacks, Asians and Hispanics/Latinos over time in my personal life and work and where I've lived, you'll find a trend of socioeconomic tiers at work. Occasionally you'll see someone breakthrough but it's not that often. Meaning just because someone is black or Asian or Hispanic/Latino doesn't account for their background. Jaden Smith is not growing up like most other black kids. And while there aren't tons of Jaden Smiths in the world, there are plenty of wealthy black families several rungs down the ladder status wise from Will Smith but still 50 rungs above the average American.

The idea that just because someone is black, that they automatically have a massive amount of "diverse" experiences contradicts the reality of individual narratives over media driven agendas.

The current Democratic Party and their drive for identity politics would have some serious issues with Martin Luther King Jr if he was alive today. Peaceful protest? Not the color of the skin but the content of one's character? And what would MLK say about all the minority owned small businesses burned out and looted and destroyed so so the heads of BLM could fundraise their way to millions?

Joe Biden - Wrote every major crime bill in American political history that punished young black men. Was mentored by known racist and segregationists in Congress, including a KKK Exalted Cyclops. Lied about his relationship with Nelson Mandela, and lied about his role in protesting/marching/advocating for Civil Rights. Pathological liar who literally said he wanted his kids nowhere near "racial jungles" and opposed busing.

Kamala Harris - As CA Attorney General, suppressed evidence to keep young black men in prison and made sure the for profit prison system could continue to have it's essentially slave labor, comprised mostly of young black inmates. Is also known for sleeping with a married black man ( Willie Brown) to get ahead politically. Is playing a part in destabilizing another black family going to help Harris' image here?

Susan Rice - Known best for enabling genocide in Rwanda during the Clinton Adminstration

Anyone think MLK would want to break bread with these people?

"Diversity" is a political dog whistle to avoid the issue that billions of our tax dollars were spent to arm terrorists with high tech weaponry so they can kill generations of future Americans. Those are you children and your grandchildren and your grandchildren's children who are at stake. And they are simply waiting to come kill all of us while they gang rape and sodomize up to 19 million "women" ( most of them actually children) as war brides and as the spoils of war.

Nothing is more ridiculous than quite possibly the largest collection of current elected officials whom have done the most to punish black people and said diversity pushing this intersectional agenda as if they are saving the entire world, when all they are doing is trying to change the conversation points in the national daily media cycle.

Race is a problem in America. But it doesn't change the issue of known racists at the top in this current administration beating everyone else down with gaslighting purity tests to provide soft cover for their own incompetence and crimes.
All this wisdom, and dispensed for free.

 
Look out, 'cause here comes some free advice

Walk in the sunshine

Watch for the bright sign

Be all the things you're able to be

You got to listen to the heavens You got to try and understand

The greatness of their movement is just as small as it is grand

Try not to hurry It's just not your worry Leave it to those all caught up in time

You got to deep six your wrist watch You got to try and understand

The time it seems to capture is just a movement of its hands

I ain't preaching, I don't know How to make fast things move along slow

I can't stop it, can't make it go Just 'cause I say it, that don't mean that it's so

'Cause folks always say Watch what you hear now Make sure it's clear now

Just 'cause it's said that don't mean that its true

You got to make a revolution You got to help me with my cause

You got to burn down all the buildings and rub out all the laws

I ain't burning Lord, I'm still only learning How to become a man of my own

I ain't crazy, nor am I lazy I just want to find out what's right and what's wrong

I ain't burnin, whole world keeps on turnin' I still tryin' to find out what's right and what's wrong

I ain't crazy

 
This was sort of my point yesterday.    Yes, you're adding someone with a particular sex and skin color, but when it comes down to it you're adding another Harvard educated jurist.   The court's "diversity" consists of 4 Harvard alums, 4 Yale alums and ACB as an outlier from Notre Dame.   You have 9 people with essentially the same education, same experiences from the time they are enrolled in college and the same degree of privilege.   "Diversity" is political theater.   

I'd rather potential justices be considered based on having open and thoughtful minds rather than their preconceived political leanings.  That's far more important than their sex or the color of their skin.  

Brown Jackson:  Harvard undergrad/Harvard law

Leondra Kruger:  Harvard undergrad/Yale law
Yeah, and I have no problem with that.  To be more clear, I personally don't care if everybody on the court comes from the same three law schools, but I can see why a person might.  No objection.

To use a different example, I mentioned yesterday that I would like to see somebody with criminal defense experience on the court.  PD experience in particular would be great.  That's the kind of diversity that I am 100% in favor of.  

Actually, do Yale or Harvard graduates ever practice criminal defense?  I always imagine those law school grads doing more lucrative (big law) or prestigious (con law) stuff, but I honestly have no idea if that's the case or not.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yeah, and I have no problem with that.  To be more clear, I personally don't care if everybody on the court comes from the same three law schools, but I can see why a person might.  No objection.

To use a different example, I mentioned yesterday that I would like to see somebody with criminal defense experience on the court.  PD experience in particular would be great.  That's the kind of diversity that I am 100% in favor of.  

Actually, do Yale or Harvard graduates ever practice criminal defense?  I always imagine those law school grads doing more lucrative (big law) or prestigious (con law) stuff, but I honestly have no idea if that's the case or not.
Brown Jackson was a federal public defender, I think.

 
It's nice to have you visit from time to time, DW.
You are among the intellects I have long enjoyed here.  I will be checking out again shortly.  I have another procedure coming up which will challenge my sight, dexterity, and memory.  Hopefully it will go well and allow some return here before dementia renders me no more capable of following along than ______________(Fill in the blank with your favorite example of a confused poster from this site, but do so at your own peril, you may get banned for non-excellence.)

 
You are among the intellects I have long enjoyed here.  I will be checking out again shortly.  I have another procedure coming up which will challenge my sight, dexterity, and memory.  Hopefully it will go well and allow some return here before dementia renders me no more capable of following along than ______________(Fill in the blank with your favorite example of a confused poster from this site, but do so at your own peril, you may get banned for non-excellence.)
Best of luck.

 
I mentioned yesterday that I would like to see somebody with criminal defense experience on the court.  PD experience in particular would be great. 


I guess that takes @Ditkaless Wonders out of the mix, but leaves @Woz still in the running. I think there are three former prosecutors on the bench now and no one with any criminal defense background. Maybe Biden's non-racist litmus test can be "If given the chance, do you pledge to overturn Whren v. U.S.?"

 
I guess that takes @Ditkaless Wonders out of the mix, but leaves @Woz still in the running. I think there are three former prosecutors on the bench now and no one with any criminal defense background. Maybe Biden's non-racist litmus test can be "If given the chance, do you pledge to overturn Whren v. U.S.?"


That's EXACTLY what I was thinking and just going to post!

I mean, Whren v U.S?  Hello!!!!    :)

 
Brown Jackson was a federal public defender, I think.


She was but it was pretty limited - a couple years doing appellate defense in the DC Circuit. It would be fun to see one of those public defender lifers who've never met a guilty client in their life if you ask them.

 
And they presumably all have the same lived experience to one another right?  That way they can effectively preside over the court from a fully representative viewpoint of the female black american.  


Unlikely that they have the same life experience - personally.  But from an awareness - or perhaps in their family tree - most likely.  

We shall see if the nomination shares that info and if so what experience they had.   

 
Unlikely that they have the same life experience - personally.  But from an awareness - or perhaps in their family tree - most likely.  

We shall see if the nomination shares that info and if so what experience they had.   
Almost certainly not.  Different people are…very different.  It’s why the concept of representation in any job or public office doesn’t really ring true for me.  Two people looking the same has nearly nothing to do with shared viewpoints, experiences, upbringing etc.  it’s quite lazy to suggest otherwise, IMO.  
Neil Gorsuch is similar to me in that we are both white males, married with kids, educated to varying degrees.  He is representative of me  and my life in much the same way I’d expect a five ball to be representative of an orange.  

 
This was sort of my point yesterday.    Yes, you're adding someone with a particular sex and skin color, but when it comes down to it you're adding another Harvard educated jurist.   The court's "diversity" consists of 4 Harvard alums, 4 Yale alums and ACB as an outlier from Notre Dame.   You have 9 people with essentially the same education, same experiences from the time they are enrolled in college and the same degree of privilege.   "Diversity" is political theater.   

I'd rather potential justices be considered based on having open and thoughtful minds rather than their preconceived political leanings.  That's far more important than their sex or the color of their skin.  

Brown Jackson:  Harvard undergrad/Harvard law

Leondra Kruger:  Harvard undergrad/Yale law
Do the first 18 years of life count for alot? Brown-Jackson went to a very good public high school, while the most recent 3 appointees went to Jesuit Prep Schools and an all-girls catholic school. Cavanaugh has made a lasting impression on me about prep schools.

If you think her skin color is political theater, then ask any 50-year old black woman if she's ever been discriminated against based on the color of her skin. More diversity: Brown would also be the first to have interracial children. Her uncle was sentenced to 30 years in jail for a lower level drug crime. 

I respect Biden for keeping his promise. Over time, I think diversity builds more confidence in the judicial system.

 
Almost certainly not.  Different people are…very different.  It’s why the concept of representation in any job or public office doesn’t really ring true for me.  Two people looking the same has nearly nothing to do with shared viewpoints, experiences, upbringing etc.  it’s quite lazy to suggest otherwise, IMO.  
Neil Gorsuch is similar to me in that we are both white males, married with kids, educated to varying degrees.  He is representative of me  and my life in much the same way I’d expect a five ball to be representative of an orange.  
I said an awareness - never said they were the same based on skin color.  70 percent of blacks state they have experienced racism - so there’s a good chance the candidate will have as well - or is aware of the challenge of racism

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I said an awareness - never said they were the same based on skin color.  70 percent of blacks state they have experienced racism - so there’s a good chance the candidate will have as well - or is aware of the challenge of racism
Forgetting for a second the supposition that only black people are aware of the challenge of racism, how important is this specific data point when deciding on a SC justice?  How often is this awareness needed to opine on a case before the Supreme Court and in what ways is this awareness non existent currently and in need of immediate repair?  Obviously, Thomas and Sotomayor have no insight into challenges of dealing with racism as a minority.

 
Forgetting for a second the supposition that only black people are aware of the challenge of racism, how important is this specific data point when deciding on a SC justice?  How often is this awareness needed to opine on a case before the Supreme Court and in what ways is this awareness non existent currently and in need of immediate repair?  Obviously, Thomas and Sotomayor have no insight into challenges of dealing with racism as a minority.


Not what I said - again.

We were talking about representation of black women and I chose prejudice as an example - that someone that had experienced prejudice would probably have a better perspective on it.

I don't pretend to know the perspective of a black woman.  

 
This was sort of my point yesterday.    Yes, you're adding someone with a particular sex and skin color, but when it comes down to it you're adding another Harvard educated jurist.   The court's "diversity" consists of 4 Harvard alums, 4 Yale alums and ACB as an outlier from Notre Dame.   You have 9 people with essentially the same education, same experiences from the time they are enrolled in college and the same degree of privilege.   "Diversity" is political theater.   

I'd rather potential justices be considered based on having open and thoughtful minds rather than their preconceived political leanings.  That's far more important than their sex or the color of their skin.  

Brown Jackson:  Harvard undergrad/Harvard law

Leondra Kruger:  Harvard undergrad/Yale law
It’s an interesting perspective, can’t disagree with you.

 
:(

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/dr-ben-carson-slams-biden-for-abominable-identity-politics-on-scotus-pick

Ben Carson slams Biden for 'abominable' identity politics on SCOTUS pick

Former Housing and Urban Development Secretary Dr. Ben Carson blasted President Biden on Thursday for making identity politics a factor in his choice for a Supreme Court justice.

Biden said Thursday that he will announce his nominee to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer before the end of February, and that the candidate will be a Black woman.

"You know, this is America," Carson said during an interview on WMAL's "The Vince Coglianese Show," a local radio show in Washington, D.C.

"Many people fought and gave their lives to bring equality. And now we're reverting back to identity politics. And as we continue to do that, we're bringing more division into our country," Carson continued.

[...]

Carson also warned about the precedent Biden could be setting by choosing a justice based on race and gender.

"If he can do that, then who else can do it in the future using the criteria that they want, and completely ignoring all the progress that's been made? It makes absolutely no sense, and I hope people will be incensed about it," Carson said, expressing his hope that Biden might change his mind.

"We need a Supreme Court where we have the best candidates who understand the Constitution and are not trying to legislate from the bench," he continued, adding that "to create that kind of situation in the highest court in the land is really abominable, and very detrimental to our freedoms."

[...]

 
:(

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/dr-ben-carson-slams-biden-for-abominable-identity-politics-on-scotus-pick

Ben Carson slams Biden for 'abominable' identity politics on SCOTUS pick

Former Housing and Urban Development Secretary Dr. Ben Carson blasted President Biden on Thursday for making identity politics a factor in his choice for a Supreme Court justice.

Biden said Thursday that he will announce his nominee to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer before the end of February, and that the candidate will be a Black woman.

"You know, this is America," Carson said during an interview on WMAL's "The Vince Coglianese Show," a local radio show in Washington, D.C.

"Many people fought and gave their lives to bring equality. And now we're reverting back to identity politics. And as we continue to do that, we're bringing more division into our country," Carson continued.

[...]

Carson also warned about the precedent Biden could be setting by choosing a justice based on race and gender.

"If he can do that, then who else can do it in the future using the criteria that they want, and completely ignoring all the progress that's been made? It makes absolutely no sense, and I hope people will be incensed about it," Carson said, expressing his hope that Biden might change his mind.

"We need a Supreme Court where we have the best candidates who understand the Constitution and are not trying to legislate from the bench," he continued, adding that "to create that kind of situation in the highest court in the land is really abominable, and very detrimental to our freedoms."

[...]
So for Ben there's not one African American woman qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice?

 
I mean eight out of the last nine appointed justices have been white. That far exceeds their relative proportion of the population. 

There is no such thing as "the most qualified candidate" for a Supreme Court justice. There are a wide pool of candidates at any one time that are perfectly capable including any number of people of color. So choosing a white candidate without stating as much is just as purposeful as picking a black one and stating so.  

But no one gets bent then? Because white is the default factory setting. It's evident because no one even thinks about it. White affirmative action is the default setting. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Maybe he is a racist. 
Sure, maybe. But it'd be nice to have some better evidence of that than his statement that we need a Supreme Court made up of the best candidates who understand the Constitution. Because that statement doesn't sound very racist to me.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Not sure if this belongs here but wondering what effect do you think SCOTUS overturning Roe v Wade in June ( if they do) would have on the upcoming elections in the Senate in 2022? Personally I think it would significantly increase Democrat voter turnout. 

 
In the context of the discussion, it seemed like you were using that statement as support for your claim that Ben Carson thinks black women aren't qualified to be Supreme Court Justices.
In the context of Ben talking about Biden appointing a black woman and Ben saying we need SC justices who follow the constitution maybe he doesn't. That's why I ended that statement with a ?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Not sure if this belongs here but wondering what effect do you think SCOTUS overturning Roe v Wade in June ( if they do) would have on the upcoming elections in the Senate in 2022? Personally I think it would significantly increase Democrat voter turnout. 
I think this is the one thing that could derail the 2022 red wave.

 
Sure, maybe he doesn't. But it'd be nice to have some evidence of that.
 That's why I ended my post

"So for Ben there's not one African American woman qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice?" with a ?

Ben's the one who said we need SC justices who follow the constitution when he was talking about Biden appointing a black woman. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
 That's why I ended my post

"So for Ben there's not one African American woman qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice?" with a ?

Ben's the one who said we need SC justices who follow the constitution when he was talking about Biden appointing a black woman. 
If you've ever hired anybody for any position above corn-detasseler, you know how to do this and how not to do it.

What to do: "I am going to cast as broad a net as possible to attract the deepest, most diverse pool of applicants I can find, so that I can select the best possible person for this position."

What not to do: "I am going to hire a white guy, and he will be highly qualified."

A ton of people on this board have tons of experience with the first thing.  Biden did the second thing, admittedly with the race and sex switched up.  The people criticizing Biden are not racist.  Biden is the one who did the racism here.  I get that it's not the same thing as burning a cross in somebody's yard or setting your firehose on protesters, but it's 2022 and we can do better than diet racism.

 
I didn't read the article. But even without reading it, I think it's inherently obvious that Carson's position is not: "We should never put a black woman on the Supreme Court because they are innately unqualified." But rather something more like: "People of any race may be supremely qualified; therefore, we shouldn't automatically exclude anyone from consideration based merely on race."

 
Last edited by a moderator:
FWIW, I fully expect Biden to nominate a normal, conventionally well-qualified justice.  He isn't the kind of guy who does something dumb, like nominating Kamala Harris, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, or whoever.  Bush did something like that, and everybody saw how that worked out for him.  Biden's nominee will probably be somebody who I would vote for if I were a senator.  Not because it's who I would pick, but because I think senators should vote for any qualified nominee.  

He's just an old guy who is a little bit racist and said the quiet part out loud.  We all have or had grandfathers like that.  Not the end of the world.

 
If you've ever hired anybody for any position above corn-detasseler, you know how to do this and how not to do it.

What to do: "I am going to cast as broad a net as possible to attract the deepest, most diverse pool of applicants I can find, so that I can select the best possible person for this position."

What not to do: "I am going to hire a white guy, and he will be highly qualified."

A ton of people on this board have tons of experience with the first thing.  Biden did the second thing, admittedly with the race and sex switched up.  The people criticizing Biden are not racist.  Biden is the one who did the racism here.  I get that it's not the same thing as burning a cross in somebody's yard or setting your firehose on protesters, but it's 2022 and we can do better than diet racism.
I'm sure Biden was advised what to say based on polling.  Arguably, anything a candidate says that is directed to encourage a particular group to vote for them is racist/sexist in that it isn't inclusive of all people.  It's an overly simplistic view and a sort of silly argument; almost as silly as considering Ben Carson's opinion on anything other than brain surgery.

 
If you've ever hired anybody for any position above corn-detasseler, you know how to do this and how not to do it.

What to do: "I am going to cast as broad a net as possible to attract the deepest, most diverse pool of applicants I can find, so that I can select the best possible person for this position."

What not to do: "I am going to hire a white guy, and he will be highly qualified."

A ton of people on this board have tons of experience with the first thing.  Biden did the second thing, admittedly with the race and sex switched up.  The people criticizing Biden are not racist.  Biden is the one who did the racism here.  I get that it's not the same thing as burning a cross in somebody's yard or setting your firehose on protesters, but it's 2022 and we can do better than diet racism.
Not even that. Joe wanted to be president and was losing. Accord to reports he made a promise to Clyburn and in return got his support. As you said Joe will appoint a black woman who is qualified. 

 
Not even that. Joe wanted to be president and was losing. Accord to reports he made a promise to Clyburn and in return got his support. As you said Joe will appoint a black woman who is qualified. 


So racism is okay if you're losing an election?  Interesting.

 
Hey I’m happy Breyer retired because I’m Team Blue but I do want to just acknowledge that the very notion of Justices timing their retirements is antithetical to the whole idea of an apolitical judiciary.  We need term limits for Supreme Court justices, I just have no idea how we ever pass that constitutional amendment.

 
Hey I’m happy Breyer retired because I’m Team Blue but I do want to just acknowledge that the very notion of Justices timing their retirements is antithetical to the whole idea of an apolitical judiciary.  We need term limits for Supreme Court justices, I just have no idea how we ever pass that constitutional amendment.
The timing might have just been coincidence.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top