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****** (2 Viewers)

BladeRunner said:
So racism is okay if you're losing an election?  Interesting.
Click to expand...
I think it makes it understandable.

First, it might be a stretch to call it racism. It might even be a stretch to call it racial discrimination. Admittedly, Biden said he'd consider only African-Americans, which seems like obvious racial discrimination on its face. But I think there's a huge difference between, on the one hand, "I'll consider only African-Americans because people of other races lack the right temperament," and, on the other hand, "I'll consider only African-Americans at the moment because they're currently so underrepresented." The former is discrimination based on a fixed racial preference -- i.e., it's just flat out racism. The latter, though, is discrimination based not on race itself, but on contingent representational status that could favor or disfavor people of any particular race at any given time. Quite different, IMO.

The pro-diversity rationale is somewhat disingenuous in this instance since, if we're seriously going by representational status, it ought to favor an Asian hire rather than another African-American hire.

But I think it's understandable, when you're trying to win the South Carolina Democratic Primary, not to pander to Asians. According to Wikipedia, literally zero Asians have ever even been to South Carolina.

When nominating a Supreme Court Justice, I think it's always a bad look, in any context, to explicitly disqualify 90% of the population based on race and gender -- in large part because I think it degrades the nominee. It says "This is the best African-American female I could find" when the message should really be "This is the most qualified person I could find in light of every factor I thought it appropriate to consider." But in a sense, that's just semantics. When making campaign promises, using the wording that gives you the best chance of winning an election isn't necessarily right ... but it is understandable.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Maurile Tremblay said:
I think it makes it understandable.

First, it might be a stretch to call it racism. It might even be a stretch to call it racial discrimination. Admittedly, Biden said he'd consider only African-Americans, which seems like obvious racial discrimination on its face. But I think there's a huge difference between, on the one hand, "I'll consider only African-Americans because people of other races lack the right temperament," and, on the other hand, "I'll consider only African-Americans at the moment because they're currently so underrepresented." The former is racial discrimination based on a fixed racial preference -- i.e., it's just flat out racism. The latter, though, is discrimination based not on race itself, but based on contingent representational status that could favor or disfavor people of any particular race at any given time. Quite different, IMO.

The pro-diversity rationale is somewhat disingenuous in this instance since, if we're seriously going by representational status, it ought to favor an Asian hire rather than another African-American hire.

But I think it's understandable, when you're trying to win the South Carolina Democratic Primary, not to pander Asians. According to Wikipedia, literally zero Asians have ever even been to South Carolina.

When nominating a Supreme Court Justice, I think it's always a bad look, in any context, to explicitly disqualify 90% of the population based on race and gender -- in large part because I think it degrades the nominee. It says "This is the best African-American female I could find" when the message should really be "This is the most qualified person I could find in light of every factor I thought it appropriate to consider." But in a sense, that's just semantics. When making campaign promises, using the wording that gives you the best chance of winning an election isn't necessarily right ... but it's understandable.
Click to expand...
Clarence Thomas retires during Biden’s second term and Joe can select an Asian to address this. 

 
fatguyinalittlecoat said:
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.
Click to expand...
Been like this for forever, though.  

 
dkp993 said:
So why the need to make it an issue?  Just nominate the qualified black women of choice when the time comes.  Talking about it prior too is completely pointless and changes the narrative to something it doesn’t need to be.  Race.  
Click to expand...
because politics...

Trump saying back in the day that he would only appoint "strict constructionists" is a similar political move bc what he means is "Evangelical justices" but you can't say that either.  

Let's not nitpick here.  Perhaps the highest court in the land should represent those people who live in that land. Adding a black woman who is qualified to the mix is not a bad thing.  If you were so concerned with qualifications then Merrick Garland should be seated on the high court over Gorsuch...

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
I think it makes it understandable.

First, it might be a stretch to call it racism. It might even be a stretch to call it racial discrimination. Admittedly, Biden said he'd consider only African-Americans, which seems like obvious racial discrimination on its face. But I think there's a huge difference between, on the one hand, "I'll consider only African-Americans because people of other races lack the right temperament," and, on the other hand, "I'll consider only African-Americans at the moment because they're currently so underrepresented." The former is discrimination based on a fixed racial preference -- i.e., it's just flat out racism. The latter, though, is discrimination based not on race itself, but on contingent representational status that could favor or disfavor people of any particular race at any given time. Quite different, IMO.

The pro-diversity rationale is somewhat disingenuous in this instance since, if we're seriously going by representational status, it ought to favor an Asian hire rather than another African-American hire.

But I think it's understandable, when you're trying to win the South Carolina Democratic Primary, not to pander to Asians. According to Wikipedia, literally zero Asians have ever even been to South Carolina.

When nominating a Supreme Court Justice, I think it's always a bad look, in any context, to explicitly disqualify 90% of the population based on race and gender -- in large part because I think it degrades the nominee. It says "This is the best African-American female I could find" when the message should really be "This is the most qualified person I could find in light of every factor I thought it appropriate to consider." But in a sense, that's just semantics. When making campaign promises, using the wording that gives you the best chance of winning an election isn't necessarily right ... but it is understandable.
Click to expand...
Agreed, but also if you say "this is the most qualified of all" someone is going to poke holes in it bc that is supremely subjective.  Might as well get the "she's black" argument out of the way before the nomination than make "are you the most qualified human" to take the post the whole nominating process.  I'd say likely 4 / 9 justices on the court are likely not the most qualified human to sit on it.

 
Gatorman said:
because politics...

Trump saying back in the day that he would only appoint "strict constructionists" is a similar political move bc what he means is "Evangelical justices" but you can't say that either.  

Let's not nitpick here.  Perhaps the highest court in the land should represent those people who live in that land. Adding a black woman who is qualified to the mix is not a bad thing.  If you were so concerned with qualifications then Merrick Garland should be seated on the high court over Gorsuch...
Click to expand...
If you read any of my other posts in here you would clearly know my feelings about the first 3/4’s of the bolded.  As for Garland vs Gorsuch that is a very different conversation, and qualifications was never what I was discussing.   

Its almost like you jumped into the middle of the conversation not hearing everything else that was said and cherry picked a post to call out.  Because, well, you did.  

 
dkp993 said:
If you read any of my other posts in here you would clearly know my feelings about the first 3/4’s of the bolded.  As for Garland vs Gorsuch that is a very different conversation, and qualifications was never what I was discussing.   

Its almost like you jumped into the middle of the conversation not hearing everything else that was said and cherry picked a post to call out.  Because, well, you did.  
Click to expand...
Don't have time to follow the whole thread.  Only what is responding to me.  Sorry. (Busy)

 
I wouldn't trust Sen Graham any further than I could throw him ( and I just back from a chiropractor session for my back) but here are some of his remarks this weekend regard J Michelle Childs one of the Black women candidates from S.C. on Biden's list.

“I can’t think of a better person for President Biden to consider for the supreme court than Michelle Childs,” Graham, a member of the Senate judiciary committee that will consider Biden’s pick, told CBS’s Face the Nation on Sunday.

“She has wide support in our state. She’s considered to be a fair-minded, highly gifted jurist. She’s one of the most decent people I’ve ever met.”

 
Last edited by a moderator:
lazyike said:
I would trust Sen Graham any further than I could throw him ( and I just back from a chiropractor session for my back) but here are some of his remarks this weekend regard J Michelle Childs one of the Black women candidates from S.C. on Biden's list.

“I can’t think of a better person for President Biden to consider for the supreme court than Michelle Childs,” Graham, a member of the Senate judiciary committee that will consider Biden’s pick, told CBS’s Face the Nation on Sunday.

“She has wide support in our state. She’s considered to be a fair-minded, highly gifted jurist. She’s one of the most decent people I’ve ever met.”
Click to expand...
I remember when Orrin Hatch was like “If only Obama would pick a moderate judge like Merrick Garland we could confirm but if course he’s gonna choose some far-left radical.”

 
Last edited by a moderator:
fatguyinalittlecoat said:
I remember when Orrin Hatch was like “If only Obama would pick a moderate judge like Merrick Garland we could confirm but if course he’s gonna choose some far-left radical.”
Click to expand...
Yes.I wouldn't doubt that Graham would vote against her one bit. Has to be one of the biggest t#### in Congress

 
lazyike said:
Yes.I wouldn't doubt that Graham would vote against her one bit. Has to be one of the biggest t#### in Congress
Click to expand...
For whatever his faults, Graham is one of the few Republicans to have voted for Sotomayor and Kagan, and recently voted to confirm Jackson to the DC Circuit knowing she was a Supreme Court front runner. 

 
lazyike said:
I wouldn't trust Sen Graham any further than I could throw him ( and I just back from a chiropractor session for my back) but here are some of his remarks this weekend regard J Michelle Childs one of the Black women candidates from S.C. on Biden's list.

“I can’t think of a better person for President Biden to consider for the supreme court than Michelle Childs,” Graham, a member of the Senate judiciary committee that will consider Biden’s pick, told CBS’s Face the Nation on Sunday.

“She has wide support in our state. She’s considered to be a fair-minded, highly gifted jurist. She’s one of the most decent people I’ve ever met.”
Click to expand...
It should be abundantly clear at this point that nothing Graham says matters.  His actions are all that matter.  Been beating this drum since the early 2000s

 
Last edited by a moderator:
From Jake Tapper - 

According to a source who has been notified about the decision, President Biden has decided to nominate to the Supreme Court Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

---

Based on her credentials, it seems like a great choice.

 
The timing is bad luck for Biden. I’m sure he was hoping for the news to focus on this and obviously that won’t happen. Seems like a fine pick though. 

 
not surprising Biden did what he said he'd do - using skin color and gender as the #1 qualifications to replace a liberal SC judge with another

I don't think GOP can do anything to stop this nomination and shouldn't .....  let it go through and use the precedence in the future to appoint SC Judges based on same qualification desires of the sitting POTUS at that time. 

 
I still have an issue with the diversity hire aspect of this appointment, but Jackson apparently has PD experience (federal -- not sure how this differs from other jurisdictions but I'm sure it does somehow).  That's a viewpoint that is sorely missing from the current group of justices.  Glad to see this.

 
Stealthycat said:
not surprising Biden did what he said he'd do - using skin color and gender as the #1 qualifications to replace a liberal SC judge with another

I don't think GOP can do anything to stop this nomination and shouldn't .....  let it go through and use the precedence in the future to appoint SC Judges based on same qualification desires of the sitting POTUS at that time. 
Click to expand...


Yeah, like that didn't happen with He who shall not be named.

 
squistion said:
Fun Fact:

If confirmed, Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson would be the first former public defender on the Supreme Court.
Click to expand...
This is the kind of diversity of experience we can use on SCOTUS.  Not terribly happy about yet another Harvard Law grad being picked, though.  There are other law schools besides Harvard and Yale.

 
Stealthycat said:
not surprising Biden did what he said he'd do - using skin color and gender as the #1 qualifications to replace a liberal SC judge with another

I don't think GOP can do anything to stop this nomination and shouldn't .....  let it go through and use the precedence in the future to appoint SC Judges based on same qualification desires of the sitting POTUS at that time. 
Click to expand...
I'm Shocked, SHOCKED To Find There's Gambling Going On In Here!

 
squistion said:
https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1497232487491248136

Leader Schumer: "

Judge Jackson will receive a prompt hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee in the coming weeks. After the Judiciary Committee finishes their work I will ask the Senate to move immediately to confirm her to the Supreme Court."
Click to expand...


Good choice.  Jackson is black, married to a white man, has 2 children that are half-white, half black.

This should give her a well rounded view for decision making.  :thumbup:

 
IvanKaramazov said:
I still have an issue with the diversity hire aspect of this appointment, but Jackson apparently has PD experience (federal -- not sure how this differs from other jurisdictions but I'm sure it does somehow).  That's a viewpoint that is sorely missing from the current group of justices.  Glad to see this.
Click to expand...
That's where I am. Perfectly fine with the nomination and appointment if nothing comes out.

Just how we got here leaves a lousy taste in my mouth.

 
Amused to Death said:
"I will be putting forth a nominee next week. It will be a woman," Mr Trump said at a campaign rally in Fayetteville, North Carolina on Saturday. "I think it should be a woman because I actually like women much more than men."
Click to expand...


a gaffe 😁

I knew Reagan said similar, didn't know Trump did too

I guess when quotes like this come up, we all come to realize that skin color, gender, etc always matters - nobody can ever call sexist or racist etc anymore 

Good - its about time

 
Stealthycat said:
a gaffe 😁

I knew Reagan said similar, didn't know Trump did too

I guess when quotes like this come up, we all come to realize that skin color, gender, etc always matters - nobody can ever call sexist or racist etc anymore 

Good - its about time
Click to expand...
I think it matters for diverse opinions and experiences. Like not having a panel of men make life altering decisions for women.

 
Biden said what he said because he was campaigning and it was politically expedient.   I don't like it, but I understand why it happened.   If it was the difference of him getting elected or another term of Trump, so be it.   Pre-committing to a specific sex or skin color bothers me, but overall I want to see a diverse court.  

I don't think 8 judges from Harvard or Yale is particularly diverse, regardless of sex or skin color.   I do like that she has some federal PD experience, but I understand it's pretty limited.   Better than nothing, I guess.  I haven't seen anything out of her rulings to date that particularly concerns me, and since she was recently confirmed I hope for a routine confirmation that falls along party lines with the same 3-4 republicans actually doing their job of advise and consent.

 
Everything in our life has to be so politically driven anymore.  I’m sure the nominee is just as good as the previous ones, but this is obviously a political stunt to do it now with the Russia tension in the air to push her through in an idea that we should all be united in a time like this or whatever. It never stops, and yes the other nominees under Trump had the same political timing, but it’s tiresome. 

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

GordonGekko
How The Activist MSM Is Burying Alleged SCOTUS Kavanaugh Assassination Attempt (5/12/22 6:22 PST)
Replies
47
Views
2K
Boston
Boston
Max Power
Eric Swalwell tweets thread
2 3
Replies
132
Views
4K
Max Power
Max Power
(HULK)
Non-Partisan Funny Things in Politics
Replies
4
Views
654
dgreen
dgreen

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top