The Ornery American Forums

General Category => General Comments => Topic started by: msquared on January 27, 2022, 09:56:00 AM

Title: Biden's choice for the SC
Post by: msquared on January 27, 2022, 09:56:00 AM
So before he has actually nominated anyone some Republicans are calling his nominee a ultra liberal who wants to kill babies, punish white people and take away your guns.

Well that may be a bit of hyperbole at this time but it is going to happen.

So who do you think he is going to choose? And how easily will this nominee get through the process?
Title: Re: Biden's choice for the SC
Post by: Lloyd Perna on January 27, 2022, 10:08:28 AM
I expect him to appoint Kamela Harris.
Title: Re: Biden's choice for the SC
Post by: ScottF on January 27, 2022, 11:08:04 AM
So before he has actually nominated anyone some Republicans are calling his nominee a ultra liberal who wants to kill babies, punish white people and take away your guns.

Well that may be a bit of hyperbole at this time but it is going to happen.

So who do you think he is going to choose? And how easily will this nominee get through the process?

Hasn't he already said his decision would be based on the person's race and sex? That should narrow the potential choices down a bit.
Title: Re: Biden's choice for the SC
Post by: TheDrake on January 27, 2022, 11:09:45 AM
Nominee will get railroaded through, following the playbook of the Republicans with Barrett. No matter who they are. All they have to do is appease Joe Manchin, who will demand a moderate and a pony and a king cake.
Title: Re: Biden's choice for the SC
Post by: Lloyd Perna on January 27, 2022, 12:25:35 PM
Nominee will get railroaded through, following the playbook of the Republicans with Barrett. No matter who they are. All they have to do is appease Joe Manchin, who will demand a moderate and a pony and a king cake.

I'm sure Democrat Leadership will completely ignore this but, It was Lawrence Tribe, Advisor to Joe Biden, who argued just a bit more than a year ago under Trump that the Senate President could not break a 50/50 tie for a Supreme Court Nomination.

https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/notable-quotable-tribe-voting-vice-president-supreme-court-justice-breyer-retirement-biden-appointment-harris-11643236691 (https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/notable-quotable-tribe-voting-vice-president-supreme-court-justice-breyer-retirement-biden-appointment-harris-11643236691)
Title: Re: Biden's choice for the SC
Post by: rightleft22 on January 27, 2022, 12:33:10 PM
Nominee will get railroaded through, following the playbook of the Republicans with Barrett. No matter who they are. All they have to do is appease Joe Manchin, who will demand a moderate and a pony and a king cake.

I'm sure Democrat Leadership will completely ignore this but, It was Lawrence Tribe, Advisor to Joe Biden, who argued just a bit more than a year ago under Trump that the Senate President could not break a 50/50 tie for a Supreme Court Nomination.

https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/notable-quotable-tribe-voting-vice-president-supreme-court-justice-breyer-retirement-biden-appointment-harris-11643236691 (https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/notable-quotable-tribe-voting-vice-president-supreme-court-justice-breyer-retirement-biden-appointment-harris-11643236691)


Oh my! Can anyone image a politician changing thier views on something when it suites them or worrying about being seen as a hypocrite....
Were only 'outraged' when it happens against a issue we care about.  Not like we hold the politician accountable for being a hypocrite.... if we did we might have to look at ourselves. Better to avoid looking in a mirror, especially in my case, as its not a pretty sight.
Title: Re: Biden's choice for the SC
Post by: Ephrem Moseley on January 27, 2022, 12:36:51 PM
I expect him to appoint Kamela Harris.
That is who Trump should have appointed just to screw with everyone.
Title: Re: Biden's choice for the SC
Post by: TheDrake on January 27, 2022, 12:39:00 PM
Nominee will get railroaded through, following the playbook of the Republicans with Barrett. No matter who they are. All they have to do is appease Joe Manchin, who will demand a moderate and a pony and a king cake.

I'm sure Democrat Leadership will completely ignore this but, It was Lawrence Tribe, Advisor to Joe Biden, who argued just a bit more than a year ago under Trump that the Senate President could not break a 50/50 tie for a Supreme Court Nomination.

https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/notable-quotable-tribe-voting-vice-president-supreme-court-justice-breyer-retirement-biden-appointment-harris-11643236691 (https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/notable-quotable-tribe-voting-vice-president-supreme-court-justice-breyer-retirement-biden-appointment-harris-11643236691)

Sure. Just as I'm sure that Republican leadership will forget that Pence cast a tie breaking vote in the appointment of a circuit court judge.
Title: Re: Biden's choice for the SC
Post by: Mynnion on January 27, 2022, 12:44:41 PM
Kamala Harris or Michelle Obama (not that she'd want it)  Which would mess with the GOP more?
Title: Re: Biden's choice for the SC
Post by: Mynnion on January 27, 2022, 12:46:23 PM
Or Maryanne Trump Barry (too old but ironic).
Title: Re: Biden's choice for the SC
Post by: TheDrake on January 27, 2022, 12:54:30 PM
Well, what would mess with the GOP more? Hillary. Their demon nine years after exiting politics, owned by China, committed to the New World Order, abetter of pedophilia, eater of souls.
Title: Re: Biden's choice for the SC
Post by: Lloyd Perna on January 27, 2022, 01:09:56 PM
Well, what would mess with the GOP more? Hillary. Their demon nine years after exiting politics, owned by China, committed to the New World Order, abetter of pedophilia, eater of souls.

No no, the plan is clearly to appoint Harris to SC, then fill the vacant VP slot with Hillary and then Biden will resign making Hillary the first female President of the United States.
Title: Re: Biden's choice for the SC
Post by: Lloyd Perna on January 27, 2022, 01:15:21 PM
If Biden really does follow through with appointing a black female he has really done that person a dis-service.  She would have been nominated because she is black and female, not because she was the best candidate or necessarily even a decent one. 

In fact. if she is the best, Her hard work and accomplishments will have been for nothing.  The only important achievement to the left is possessing a black vagina.
Title: Re: Biden's choice for the SC
Post by: msquared on January 27, 2022, 01:17:51 PM
Is there only one best candidate then?
Title: Re: Biden's choice for the SC
Post by: Lloyd Perna on January 27, 2022, 01:19:01 PM
Objectively, yes, there should be.
Title: Re: Biden's choice for the SC
Post by: msquared on January 27, 2022, 01:25:45 PM
What a load of crap.  If there was always just one objectively obvious choice, we would not even need the Senate to approve them.

Who gets to make the criteria to say "objectively" this person is the best? 

I mean if you do not like how someone decides the law you can say they are not qualified. But that is just you. Other people who agree with the way they decide the law think that they are qualified.

I mean were Kavanaugh and Barret the obvious best choices?
Title: Re: Biden's choice for the SC
Post by: msquared on January 27, 2022, 01:36:08 PM
Donald Trump.  Keeps him out of the 2024 election and he will not live very long.
Title: Re: Biden's choice for the SC
Post by: Lloyd Perna on January 27, 2022, 01:46:27 PM
What a load of crap.  If there was always just one objectively obvious choice, we would not even need the Senate to approve them.

Who gets to make the criteria to say "objectively" this person is the best? 

I mean if you do not like how someone decides the law you can say they are not qualified. But that is just you. Other people who agree with the way they decide the law think that they are qualified.

I mean were Kavanaugh and Barret the obvious best choices?

Nobody said it needs to be obvious who the best candidate is.  But a president appointing a Supreme Court Justice should look at the candidates Legal Opinions, experience and professional qualifications and choose the one that would make the best Justice.  I concede it might not be obvious or even easy to make a distinction between two or three highly qualified candidates.     But that is where the President needs to use his Judgment.
Title: Re: Biden's choice for the SC
Post by: LetterRip on January 27, 2022, 02:16:14 PM
If we limit choice to active Federal Judges then there are a bit less than 1800, if we include law professors, a bit less than 15,000 more.  If we include experienced law practictioners (10+ years experience) probably over 1/2 of US lawyers - about 650,000.

Probably a list of 100's is provided and narrowed down to 20 or so, and then those get major background checks and 2 or 3 finalists are considered.
Title: Re: Biden's choice for the SC
Post by: Mynnion on January 27, 2022, 02:23:29 PM
Quote
But a president appointing a Supreme Court Justice should look at the candidates Legal Opinions, experience and professional qualifications and choose the one that would make the best Justice.

Sounds great but this is totally subjective.  Biden's best choice is obviously not the same as Trump's choice.  Legal opinions and experience are also unequal.  Anyone who has ever hired someone from a large pool of applicants knows that there are times when your choice is a guess between several great candidates.
Title: Re: Biden's choice for the SC
Post by: TheDrake on January 27, 2022, 03:10:35 PM
Quote
But a president appointing a Supreme Court Justice should look at the candidates Legal Opinions, experience and professional qualifications and choose the one that would make the best Justice.

Sounds great but this is totally subjective.  Biden's best choice is obviously not the same as Trump's choice.  Legal opinions and experience are also unequal.  Anyone who has ever hired someone from a large pool of applicants knows that there are times when your choice is a guess between several great candidates.

You left out a whole bunch of stuff. How long will the person be able to serve, for one thing. The objective most experienced legal minds are probably the oldest. Lately things have been trending to nominate judges who have participated in fewer opinions rather than more. How it will boost your party's support. The knock on effects of how the judiciary is viewed, particularly by people of color. Someone who will be able to introduce a different perspective into what questions are asked of petitioners.
Title: Re: Biden's choice for the SC
Post by: ScottF on January 27, 2022, 05:04:05 PM
But a president appointing a Supreme Court Justice should look at the candidates Legal Opinions, experience and professional qualifications and choose the one that would make the best Justice. 

Or alternatively, start with the color of their skin and genitalia!
Title: Re: Biden's choice for the SC
Post by: rightleft22 on January 27, 2022, 05:10:00 PM
The medium is the message

so board - I need to get a life
Title: Re: Biden's choice for the SC
Post by: NobleHunter on January 27, 2022, 07:58:59 PM
Or alternatively, start with the color of their skin and genitalia!

That has been the usual practice.
Title: Re: Biden's choice for the SC
Post by: ScottF on January 27, 2022, 08:09:39 PM
Maybe. I do give Biden credit for being the only one with the stones to say it out loud tho.
Title: Re: Biden's choice for the SC
Post by: alai on January 27, 2022, 08:45:27 PM
As left as possible, and as young as possible!

The right long since stopped pretending appointments to the SC were anything other than a naked power grab.  Just a matter if the left -- and centre, and centre-right, frankly -- trouble to show up to try and stay in the game.
Title: Re: Biden's choice for the SC
Post by: TheDrake on January 28, 2022, 10:18:46 AM
As left as possible, and as young as possible!

The right long since stopped pretending appointments to the SC were anything other than a naked power grab.  Just a matter if the left -- and centre, and centre-right, frankly -- trouble to show up to try and stay in the game.

Did you miss the part about Joe Manchin? He's not going to accept some kind of ultra-lib.
Title: Re: Biden's choice for the SC
Post by: rightleft22 on January 28, 2022, 10:55:34 AM
Funny sad that when the other Men were selected its assumed that they were the best qualified without any other bias involved.

Representation and being qualified are not mutually exclusive 

Then again the left does love the symbolic gesture over substance so I understand the concern.
Then again the right does love winning over substance so I understand the concern.
Title: Re: Biden's choice for the SC
Post by: LetterRip on January 28, 2022, 11:21:43 AM
In reality, Biden likely had Supreme Court picks largely decided before he was elected.  It was almost certain that Breyer would be retiring and so planning ahead would be expected.

So if he knew already who his pick(s) were - then stating the race and gender would just be stating something he already knows about his pre-screened candidates, rather than setting them as a criteria.
Title: Re: Biden's choice for the SC
Post by: rightleft22 on January 28, 2022, 11:51:24 AM
As usual its poor commination by the Dem's as they just don't get it.  Their is no need to qualify the selection statement other then we determined that Person X is best qualified for the position.
That in thier deliberations representation was given weight to best qualified didn't have to be communicated in the way they did.     
They could have just named the name and let the press do the rest, but then virtue signaling - look how good we are. The Dem's just don't get it.
Title: Re: Biden's choice for the SC
Post by: Fenring on January 28, 2022, 12:32:50 PM
In reality, Biden likely had Supreme Court picks largely decided before he was elected.  It was almost certain that Breyer would be retiring and so planning ahead would be expected.

Not only this, given its importance I'm sure both parties have extensive flowcharts and lists of who could move to the SC, with plans years ahead.
Title: Re: Biden's choice for the SC
Post by: cherrypoptart on January 28, 2022, 02:03:01 PM
On the one hand I'm sure a lot of qualified people who are not black women are a bit disappointed that they won't even be considered for the job, but on the other hand they must all be just a little bit happy that they won't have their time wasted under false pretenses that they have snowball's chance down under of getting it.

There's an awful lot of that in the workplace and especially with government jobs where they already know who they will hire, often the specific person but even when not the person by name they already know generally what that person will look like, or as often as not what that person will not look like, but by law they are required to go through the motions of considering all qualified candidates. It's so refreshingly honest of Biden to dispense with all of that formality and just tell America that if you are not a black woman then don't even think about because it's not going to happen.
Title: Re: Biden's choice for the SC
Post by: msquared on January 28, 2022, 02:09:56 PM
Except they are not applying for a job opening. They are being selected. And Biden can use whatever criteria he wants in his selection.
Title: Re: Biden's choice for the SC
Post by: TheDrake on January 28, 2022, 02:17:03 PM
Do we really think anybody's cabinet picks, ambassador picks, or really any appointments are about MERIT?!!

It seems they are usually about who donated a lot of cash, who endorsed them, who will agree with them, and who they can control.

Do we think that Ben Carson was the top person available to run HUD? Or that Xavier Becerra was best qualified to run HHS?
Title: Re: Biden's choice for the SC
Post by: cherrypoptart on January 28, 2022, 02:26:13 PM
Well I agree. A lot of times there is the illusion in government and the corporate world too that people are applying for job openings when the reality is that somebody has already been selected for that position and none of those others should have been basically lied to so as to have gotten their hopes up as if they ever had a chance.

So it's nice in this case that it's put out in the open by President Biden in no uncertain terms that the selection criteria is very well established to be based first and foremost on genitalia and skin color.
Title: Re: Biden's choice for the SC
Post by: Lloyd Perna on January 28, 2022, 02:35:22 PM
Do we really think anybody's cabinet picks, ambassador picks, or really any appointments are about MERIT?!!

It seems they are usually about who donated a lot of cash, who endorsed them, who will agree with them, and who they can control.

Do we think that Ben Carson was the top person available to run HUD? Or that Xavier Becerra was best qualified to run HHS?

The Supreme Court is very different from those other appointed positions.   As far as I can tell, Merit has always been of high importance when appointing federal judges and especially Supreme Court Justices.  Got help us if that ceases to be true.

Title: Re: Biden's choice for the SC
Post by: TheDrake on January 28, 2022, 03:00:40 PM
Barrett was the most qualified jurist. Got it.  ;D
Title: Re: Biden's choice for the SC
Post by: msquared on January 28, 2022, 03:03:12 PM
And Kavanaugh.  Oh right, even Trump thinks he was not qualified when he rules against Trump.
Title: Re: Biden's choice for the SC
Post by: TheDrake on January 28, 2022, 03:34:24 PM
Barrett was the most qualified jurist. Got it.  ;D

Oh, and lest I be branded a partisan, Kagan was exceedingly unqualified in my opinion. She had NO judicial experience prior to her appointment. But then, neither was Rehnquist. I think generally it is probably good to have been a judge before being appointed for life to the highest court.
Title: Re: Biden's choice for the SC
Post by: alai on January 28, 2022, 04:41:28 PM
So if he knew already who his pick(s) were - then stating the race and gender would just be stating something he already knows about his pre-screened candidates, rather than setting them as a criteria.
Probably.  But I don't understand the logic of announcing it in those terms either.  Unless they calculation is that it outrages the right so much -- OMG REVERSE RACISM AND MISANDRY -- that it pops some veins or ups covid risk factors sufficiently to swing some close midterms, even before he gets to the name.  Or conversely, it's a "breaking the sticker shock to them gently" consideration, if you want to read it entirely the other way.

As left as possible, and as young as possible!

The right long since stopped pretending appointments to the SC were anything other than a naked power grab.  Just a matter if the left -- and centre, and centre-right, frankly -- trouble to show up to try and stay in the game.

Did you miss the part about Joe Manchin? He's not going to accept some kind of ultra-lib.
Did you miss "as possible", even while quoting it?  There's a reason I didn't say "as left as imaginable", or "as left as theoretically possible".
Title: Re: Biden's choice for the SC
Post by: TheDrake on January 28, 2022, 04:52:20 PM
Most people don't say "as tall as possible" and then say 5'6" is fine. Dems will be lucky not to wind up right of Roberts.
Title: Re: Biden's choice for the SC
Post by: rightleft22 on January 28, 2022, 04:55:14 PM
Well I agree. A lot of times there is the illusion in government and the corporate world too that people are applying for job openings when the reality is that somebody has already been selected for that position and none of those others should have been basically lied to so as to have gotten their hopes up as if they ever had a chance.

So it's nice in this case that it's put out in the open by President Biden in no uncertain terms that the selection criteria is very well established to be based first and foremost on genitalia and skin color.

Actually the criteria was about representation. that a organization that reflects current society make  is better able to make decisions good for everyone. That the foolish Dems use the language of gender and color when they mean is beyond me.  IMO when that language is used it comes off as racist even if with the best intentions, They ought to know better but I have serious doubt they will, not when the immediate gratification of virtue signaling is so pleasing to the ego. So out of touch, the majority of those leaning to the left hate that crap...

The debate could have been if representation should have the weight its given in determining best choice.
Title: Re: Biden's choice for the SC
Post by: alai on January 28, 2022, 05:53:04 PM
Most people don't say "as tall as possible" and then say 5'6" is fine. Dems will be lucky not to wind up right of Roberts.
Height is rarely referred to as The Dimension of the Possible.  See Bismarck, LBJ, and countless others.  It should go without saying.  It should especially go after I explicitly did say it, but equally I should have suitably lowered expectations by now.

Talking of expectations, on the likely result I'll freely stipulate I have very little idea.  538 opines that "That means that even Manchin and Sinema have 100 percent track records of supporting Biden’s judicial nominees," and even suggests it's not wildly improbable that up to about three Republicans might.  (Two "moderates", one "throwback", in their analysis.)  But I can catastrophise competitively if need be.  After all, this in the USA in the inter-coup years, and I've watched Homeland, et al.

Mind you, a zygote only a little to the right of Roberts would arguably be to the Democrat's benefit, given the court's track record.  And assuming for these purposes no revolutionary breach of legal continuity for the next half-century or so.
Title: Re: Biden's choice for the SC
Post by: Seriati on February 01, 2022, 11:39:11 AM
First the minor elephant in the room.  Biden is a racist, so it is not surprising that he believes that it's okay to announce racist criteria for selection of a candidate.  The worst part of the implication is the endorsement of the idea that race really does matter and that only someone with the correct skin color can be trusted to rule fairly for people of the same skin color.  Where does that leave our Asian citizens?  What this says about Biden is that he thinks he can use racism for good (or that by virtue signaling he is "protected" as good from his own racism), and that he believes that only through preference could a black woman become a Supreme Court Justice.  Racism is evil and is not capable of being used as tool for good, the indirect consequences will always outweigh the supposed benefits.  However, we shouldn't let Biden's racism cloud the selection. 

There are far more than enough qualified black women to provide an ample pool for selecting a Supreme Court justice.  We are almost certain to receive a pick that is more than qualified.  It's a poor argument against a candidate that SC Justices have to be the "most" qualified person.  There is no such thing in this context, only a large pool of qualified people with different strengths and weaknesses.  Honest, occasionally there really is a Michael Jordan out there, but in a field like law there is no easy way to identify an MJ versus any other NBA worthy player.  I have every confidence that there are worthy candidates available. 

Now it's a separate question of whether Biden's criteria will cause him to avoid competent liberal (or even progressive) choices in favor of an activist.  I don't credit - at all - that he'll pick a moderate to appease Manchin.  He's going to pick a radical and there will be enough cover for Manchin to back the choice.  Honestly, we still have the same media that claimed Merrick Garland was a moderate choice (Ha!) and that Kavanaugh was a rapist (Shame on them), there's no way they'll allow any information that's negative to get much airtime (even if it's 100% true and relevant) and a 100% chance that they'll attack people that raise reasonable objections as evil racists.

Despite what has been implied above, the court's swing voters are the moderate conservatives.  The left liberal Justices almost never broke ranks, and the progressive justices never break ranks.  Breyer is the last of the left liberal justices, and there's little chance he'll be replaced with a true liberal, so we'll have 3 progressives that vote in lock step on the Court.  The court is at it's best when the Justices are classic liberals and believe in the rule of law and limited government.  Both left progressives and religious conservatives place a strain on fundamental rights.

At the moment, the court is a bit of mess.  Roberts is terrible.  I don't think he has a guiding principal of law, he seems to make decisions based on some kind of meta analysis of how he thinks the decisions will be accepted by society and impact the stature of the court.  It may be the most useless judicial philosophy I've ever seen.  It leads to stupid, inconsistent decisions and horse trading (see the 2 recent opinions on vaccine mandate for an example - overturning 100 employer, upholding for medical facilities receiving medicare benefits) and it backfires constantly because the mushy opinions lead to more legal aggression. 

Gorsuch is an odd mix of extreme conservatism and almost whimsical radical leftism.  I'm left with the impression that he's easily confused by overly fixated on something.  He's generally not a friend to the left, but he wrote the opinion that declared discrimination against trans people to be sex discrimination (and opened the door to the largely unresolvable conflict between born women and trans-women in sports competition).

Thomas is an interesting read.  He often comes across as conservative but his legal conclusions are more strict interpretations than any kind of activism.  I have a harder time figuring Alito out, he seems more conservative, less rule of law, and less notable than Thomas, but often in a similar vein.

That leaves Kavanaugh and Barrett.  It's a bit early to have a strong opinion on Barrett, but so far her questions in oral arguments are few but usually pretty good.  I don't think that's she is the radical conservative the left feared, but time will tell.  Kavanaugh on the other hand, is probably going to be the left's best friend, at least to the extent the left returns to classic liberalism.  A lot his stuff is really well thought out, respects the rule of law but also the rights of the people involved.

The biggest problem distorting opinions about the court is of course abortion rights.  No one is really rational when it comes to the issue, not even the courts.  The literal truth is the court created it's own mess.  They choose to step into politics when they entered the frey, and its clear they'd like to be out of the game but haven't found a way to get out without opening the field to bans on abortions by the states.  It's actually a tough puzzle for a country that purports to be a democracy or a republic, and it's one that has parallels all over the place in modern politics.   For example, you may believe that a ban on abortions is absolutely unconstitutional and can never be allowed, at the same time you believe that a ban on "hate speech" and criminal prosecution of that is acceptable, and never realize the logical and legal inconsistency in holding those positions.

So in summary, Biden is a racist and his announcement demonstrates that, but there is no reason to believe that his racism is going to result in a pick that is any less qualified than a pick would have been without the overtly racist approach.  We are very likely to get a very progressive pick, which automatically means they will be outcome focused with little overall regard to the rule of law or legal consistency.   
Title: Re: Biden's choice for the SC
Post by: cherrypoptart on February 01, 2022, 12:13:49 PM
> rightleft22

"Actually the criteria was about representation."

> Seriati

"Where does that leave our Asian citizens?"

---------------------------------------------------

Good point.

If it was about representation then Asian Americans would be getting their first Supreme Court justice ever, and only one on the Supreme Court. Biden is racist against Asian Americans because he won't ever consider any for the position even though they are under-represented, actually have no representation at all.

-----------------------------------------------------

"Roberts is terrible.  I don't think he has a guiding principal of law, he seems to make decisions based on some kind of meta analysis of how he thinks the decisions will be accepted by society and impact the stature of the court.  It may be the most useless judicial philosophy I've ever seen.  It leads to stupid, inconsistent decisions..."

QFT

His Obamacare decision fit this mold precisely.
Title: Re: Biden's choice for the SC
Post by: msquared on February 01, 2022, 12:35:49 PM
 
Quote
Biden is racist against Asian Americans because he won't ever consider any for the position even though they are under-represented, actually have no representation at all.

We could test this.  Thomas could resign and we could see who Biden nominates then.

Title: Re: Biden's choice for the SC
Post by: TheDrake on February 01, 2022, 12:44:24 PM
Quote
Biden pick Pan confirmed as first Asian American woman on D.C. federal court

Just the sort of thing you'd expect a racist to do, make a groundbreaking nomination.
Title: Re: Biden's choice for the SC
Post by: Mynnion on February 01, 2022, 12:48:34 PM
Asian Americans make up ~ 4% of the population.

African Americans make up 14%.

Currently 12.7% of Federal judges are African American and only 2.7 Asian American.

It certainly looks like we need to look at adding Asian American Federal judges and eventually add representative members to the Supreme Court. 

Selecting qualified individuals who represent various ethnicities and schools of thought is critical for interpreting the law.  Nine members is probably too small to be truly representative.
Title: Re: Biden's choice for the SC
Post by: TheDrake on February 01, 2022, 01:28:41 PM
I came across a few articles that talk about lack of Asian-American representation in judge, DA, and private sector partner roles. Some interesting background, but I didn't expect anyone was interested in going too deep. For judge roles, it isn't just federal. There is also underrepresentation in state supreme courts, etc.
Title: Re: Biden's choice for the SC
Post by: Seriati on February 01, 2022, 03:26:41 PM
Quote
Biden pick Pan confirmed as first Asian American woman on D.C. federal court

Just the sort of thing you'd expect a racist to do, make a groundbreaking nomination.

Actually its exactly what I expect a woke racist to do.  There are tons of them in my community and they are all fans of giant virtue signaling gestures and standing up for minority rights, while referring to their lawn people by racial terms in private, setting "neutral" town policies to exclude people of color from nearby communities and flipping out when their kids come out.  Virtue signaling is the safe way to "prove" you're not a racist without actually walking the walk.

If Biden picked a nominee because of their skin color he's a racist.

Asian Americans make up ~ 4% of the population.

African Americans make up 14%.

Currently 12.7% of Federal judges are African American and only 2.7 Asian American.

Per the ABA, in 2020 5% of all lawyers are African American and 2% Asian.  When you consider that the number of lawyers of color has generally been on a sharp incline for a while, it means that lawyers of color are generally under-represented, even against those low percentages, in the population of older lawyers, which is the population from which most judges are selected.   https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/news/2020/07/potlp2020.pdf (https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/news/2020/07/potlp2020.pdf)

Quote
It certainly looks like we need to look at adding Asian American Federal judges and eventually add representative members to the Supreme Court. 

Selecting qualified individuals who represent various ethnicities and schools of thought is critical for interpreting the law.  Nine members is probably too small to be truly representative.

The point of having 9 members is not to have token representatives from all races, it's to have 9 members who are capable of applying the law without regard to race and ethnicity.  Skin color is  not critical for interpreting the law, to imply that it is, is also racist thinking.  I agree that having people of different backgrounds is something that is useful, but skin color is only a poor (and offensive) proxy for the actual relevant characteristics.

Statistically, it is interesting that Biden promised to appoint a black woman.  The court's current make up, is 1 of 9 members are black (or about 11% versus 14% of the population, but only 5% of the nation's attorneys).  The court currently has 3 women out of 9 (or about 33% versus about 51% of the population, but only 37% of nation's attorneys).  Having two black members "over represents" the population percentage and is more than 4 times the percentage versus the actual practicing attorneys.  But again, other than Biden's racist thinking, there's no reason we shouldn't have 2, 3, 4 or 9 black or female justices, or Asian justices, for that matter.
Title: Re: Biden's choice for the SC
Post by: cherrypoptart on February 01, 2022, 04:25:39 PM
"If Biden picked a nominee because of their skin color he's a racist."

True enough but the inverse is also true. Not only does he boast about picking the nominee because of their skin color, he is also at the same time saying that he will absolutely not under any circumstances be considering any Asian Americans for the job.

Biden is racist even by the definition of the woke crowd where it is not racist to discriminate against whites, in fact the only way in their minds to not be racist is to be racist against whites, because we need to get diversity and representation but they fail even at that mathematically on the Supreme Court when it comes to Asian American representation which is and always has been one big round goose egg.
Title: Re: Biden's choice for the SC
Post by: Wayward Son on February 01, 2022, 04:37:32 PM
Quote
The point of having 9 members is not to have token representatives from all races, it's to have 9 members who are capable of applying the law without regard to race and ethnicity.  Skin color is  not critical for interpreting the law, to imply that it is, is also racist thinking.  I agree that having people of different backgrounds is something that is useful, but skin color is only a poor (and offensive) proxy for the actual relevant characteristics.

While it is true that skin color is not critical for interpreting the law, it is a factor.  Because in this country, people of different skin color and gender have different experiences.  People simply are not treated the same regardless of their skin color.  So in determining the facts of  a case, especially when it deals with society at large, it is helpful to have members of different skin colors and genders.

And while Biden is limiting himself to only black women for this particular pick, I don't see it as being that big a factor.  There are many excellent choices for him to choose from.  And it's not like Supreme Court justices are chosen purely by their judicial qualifications.  Every one of Trumps three picks for the Supreme Court were from the Heritage Foundation lists.  In fact, Trump promised only to choose from that list when he was campaigning.  If it is entirely acceptable to limit the choices for a justice from a highly-conservative organization list, why is it so, so terrible to limit it to a list of a type of candidate that has never been represented in the High Court in it's entire history, and has only been acceptable to consider in the last 50 years or so?  Why has the nation only thought that white males could interpret the law for most of its history?  ???

Sure, Biden is limiting his choices based on race and gender.  But it's not because he considers any other race to be somehow inferior, which is the real definition of racism.  It's because he wants an representative of that race and gender to finally have a seat at the bench, something that was denied them for over 200 years in this country.
Title: Re: Biden's choice for the SC
Post by: cherrypoptart on February 01, 2022, 04:51:17 PM
"But it's not because he considers any other race to be somehow inferior, which is the real definition of racism."
 
Oh my... I'm pretty sure a lot of Asian Americans would disagree about that being the real definition of racism.

If you consider Asian Americans to be superior in terms of academic achievement, lower incarceration rates, higher income, home and business ownership, greater rates of double parent households, better health and longevity, and so on and then you say well I'm not going to hire any Asians for this job and I'm going to racially discriminate against them in college admissions but don't worry as there is no need for concern and it's not racism at all because I'm not doing it because I think they're somehow inferior. It fact, it's exactly the opposite. I'm going to racially discriminate against all of them because as a whole they are doing quite well for themselves and so not only is that not racism but in fact it'd be racist not to racially discriminate even if for example they are actually under-represented such as at the Supreme Court.
Title: Re: Biden's choice for the SC
Post by: Mynnion on February 01, 2022, 05:05:38 PM
I wouldn't be surprised if his next pick was an Asian American but who knows.  I would certainly not have an issue with Biden specifically choosing one for the next opening (assuming another opening occurs during his presidency).  As I mentioned earlier Asian Americans represent a significantly smaller demographic in our population than African Americans.  Women have been underrepresented and white males over represented.  We live in a diverse country.  Our SC should mimic the nation it represents.
Title: Re: Biden's choice for the SC
Post by: cherrypoptart on February 01, 2022, 06:10:01 PM
"As I mentioned earlier Asian Americans represent a significantly smaller demographic in our population than African Americans."

African Americans make up 14.2 percent of the population and 11.1 percent of the Supreme Court.

Asian Americans make up 5.7 percent of the population and 0.0 percent of the Supreme Court.

Title: Re: Biden's choice for the SC
Post by: cherrypoptart on February 01, 2022, 06:15:55 PM
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-america/biden-administration-asks-us-supreme-court-decline-harvard-affirmative-rcna8274

"President Joe Biden’s administration on Wednesday urged the Supreme Court to decline to hear a case against Harvard University challenging the ability of it and other schools to consider race as a factor in student admissions to boost diversity.

... SFFA accuses Harvard of discriminating against Asian-American applicants by engaging in impermissible “racial balancing” to make it easier for Blacks and Hispanics to win admission at the expense of Asian-American applicants."

----------------------------------------------------------

I guess it makes sense that Biden wouldn't want an Asian American on the Supreme Court. Having Asian Americans represented could seriously jeopardize Biden's apparent priorities, which are blatantly, starkly anti-Asian American. We talk about a lot of anti-Asian hate on the streets and we can see some of it coming all the way from the highest levels of our government.
Title: Re: Biden's choice for the SC
Post by: Wayward Son on February 01, 2022, 06:36:28 PM
"But it's not because he considers any other race to be somehow inferior, which is the real definition of racism."
 
Oh my... I'm pretty sure a lot of Asian Americans would disagree about that being the real definition of racism.

If you consider Asian Americans to be superior in terms of academic achievement, lower incarceration rates, higher income, home and business ownership, greater rates of double parent households, better health and longevity, and so on and then you say well I'm not going to hire any Asians for this job and I'm going to racially discriminate against them in college admissions but don't worry as there is no need for concern and it's not racism at all because I'm not doing it because I think they're somehow inferior. It fact, it's exactly the opposite. I'm going to racially discriminate against all of them because as a whole they are doing quite well for themselves and so not only is that not racism but in fact it'd be racist not to racially discriminate even if for example they are actually under-represented such as at the Supreme Court.

That's an interesting scenario, cherry, but completely made-up, from what I can tell. :)

Mainly because no one that I know of wants to discriminate against Asians because they are superior.  No one says, "I'm going to racially discriminate against them because as a whole they are doing quite well for themselves."  I have never heard of someone using that reasoning, and I suspect you haven't, either.

Rather, someone would say, "our [business, university, etc.] is becoming too racially homogeneous, and we need more diversity, because our [business, universtiy, etc.] will be better with a variety of views, including those associated with race.  We don't want to have an all-Asian [business, university, etc.] just like we don't want to have an all-White [business, university, etc.].  We would not be as good if that happened."

Now, it may seem to someone who is rejected that they are being discriminated against because they are doing well, but not really.  And usually it is not that harmful, since superior people usually have other job/university prospects that they can get.

But I do agree it would be a good thing to have an Asian on the Supreme Court.  I see no reason Biden would be against such an idea, do you?  Perhaps you should try to get Trump, or whoever the Republican candidate will be, to make that promise come the next election.  It would be nice to see the Republicans make a strong, anti-racist stand like that. ;)
Title: Re: Biden's choice for the SC
Post by: ScottF on February 02, 2022, 11:37:28 AM
But I do agree it would be a good thing to have an Asian on the Supreme Court.

Do you have an opinion on what kind of Asian would be best? "Classic" Asian like Chinese, Japanese or Korean? Or something more like Thai or Laos?  It's a pretty big category.
Title: Re: Biden's choice for the SC
Post by: Wayward Son on February 07, 2022, 06:10:26 PM
So is Latino. :)

I would say just about any would be fine.  Probably choose the one who is the best among the candidates.

It's not that we'll ever have a representative of every minority sitting on the courts.  But we want a nice diversity so as to include as many views as possible, in order for the Supreme Court to have a broad perspective.  Not a view that is defined by a single class or race or whatever.  Our nation is too large and diverse to have our laws adjudicated by a single perspective.