SCOTUS and whatnot

[CMRivdogs]

On 1/27/2022 at 11:54 AM, 1776 said:

But doesn’t anybody see the hypocrisy or irony in this? Every employer, be they private, public, whatever, states front and center in bold print that hiring processes/practices will not discriminate on the basis of (you know the rest of the song). Any violations of this song & dance and the Feds are knocking on the door, rightfully so. 
Regardless of the past, at what point do we stop basing decisions on race, any race! It’s the hypocrisy and double standard that I object to. When do we, as a nation, get beyond making race or sex a part of conversations regarding hiring practices and selections? I know it won’t be in my lifetime. 

 

I'm old enough to remember back in my radio days in the mid 70s to hire an African American to fill an announcer position I had. The major stipulation was that he couldn't "sound black". 

Fortunately there was a guy looking for work who fit the bill. I went to high school with him and he was the whitest sounding person I knew. Good guy, went on to be a college president at a HBSU briefly.

About that time stations were also scrambling to find a female announcer. Our sales staff kept bringing me applicants they found in the local bars. The one I hired and trained was later "promoted" to the "home office"

[mtutiger]

2 hours ago, 1776 said:

Help me with this because I don’t recall…did Bush or McCain identify Thomas or Palin by race or gender publicly when selecting them? 
 

Did Ronald Reagan identify Sandra Day O'Connor by race or gender when selecting them? (Rhetorical q)

I'll take you at your word that you dont like it, but let's not act like this is unprecedented. 

I just find it incredible that only now are we hearing objections. Not when O'Connor was nominated, not when ACB was nominated.... only now do we hear about it.

Edited January 29, 2022 by mtutiger

[CMRivdogs]

2 hours ago, 1776 said:

Help me with this because I don’t recall…did Bush or McCain identify Thomas or Palin by race or gender publicly when selecting them? 
 

Probably not unless you looked between the lines. They both seemed reasonable at first glance.

[chasfh]

1 hour ago, 1776 said:

Do you have an answer?

Some things don't need to be said flat out for reasonable people to understand that it's true. We could all clearly see what Bush and McCain were doing.

[mtutiger]

6 minutes ago, chasfh said:

Some things don't need to be said flat out for reasonable people to understand that it's true. We could all clearly see what Bush and McCain were doing.

Knowing that McCain wanted a game changer and wanted to capitalize on Hills not getting the nomination and the fact that Thomas succeeded the first black justice, it's pretty reasonable to assume sex/gender were involved in those selections. Even if not explicitly stated.

Either way, we have actual examples of declarations ahead of the nomination that keep getting brought up (O'Connor, ACB) that seem to just get ignored in this discussion. 

And again, only now is this an issue. I'm sorry, it just reeks of partisanship. It just does.

Edited January 29, 2022 by mtutiger

[1776]

4 minutes ago, CMRivdogs said:

I'm old enough to remember back in my radio days in the mid 70s to hire an African American to fill an announcer position I had. The major stipulation was that he couldn't "sound black". 

Fortunately there was a guy looking for work who fit the bill. I went to high school with him and he was the whitest sounding person I knew. Good guy, went on to be a college president at a HBSU briefly.

About that time stations were also scrambling to find a female announcer. Our sales staff kept bringing me applicants they found in the local bars. The one I hired and trained was later "promoted" to the "home office"

The 70’s were my serious rock-n-roll years. Some good times back then.

I was a production supervisor for years and I was involved in hiring and there were some interesting stories logged back then. Makes me appreciate retirement when I think back to those days.

[1776]

8 minutes ago, chasfh said:

Some things don't need to be said flat out for reasonable people to understand that it's true. We could all clearly see what Bush and McCain were doing.

You made my point. Biden didn’t need to introduce race into the conversation. I see that as a net negative. 

[CMRivdogs]

Biden was asked about it on the campaign trail. He gave an honest answer. 

[chasfh]

7 minutes ago, 1776 said:

You made my point. Biden didn’t need to introduce race into the conversation. I see that as a net negative. 

I don't disagree with the first part, necessarily, but by the same token, I don't think what Biden said or is doing about it is beyond any pale. I think there was value, and not just political value, in making the promise to an historically underrepresented group of people, within which there are surely hundreds of candidates who qualify at least at the level of Clarence Thomas.

You see Biden's strategy here as a net negative, and that's your prerogative.

Edited January 29, 2022 by chasfh

[mtutiger]

12 minutes ago, 1776 said:

You made my point. Biden didn’t need to introduce race into the conversation. I see that as a net negative. 

But why is Biden the one taking hell for it when we have had past Presidents (ie. Reagan, Trump) who have basically done the exact same thing with little to no controversy for using that rationale?

Edited January 29, 2022 by mtutiger

[CMRivdogs]

He's saying the quiet part out loud. Some people don't like transparency from their leaders

[mtutiger]

11 minutes ago, CMRivdogs said:

He's saying the quiet part out loud.

Reagan and Trump said the quiet part out loud as well.

Just really tired of the pearl clutching on this. You don't have to like the precedent, but it existed long before Biden.

Edited January 29, 2022 by mtutiger

[buddha]

its just something to fight about.  judges are appointed on their demographics as much as their skills.  or their political connections.

judges are blocked for the same reason all the time.  the democrats blocked Estrada for that very reason, they didnt want a conservative hispanic moved up to the higher courts because they knew he would be a potential supreme court candidate for the republicans.

if the republicans win and get another appointment soon, you can look for and indian or asian american conservative to be in line for a spot.  if thomas retires, he'll likely be replaced by a black person by either party.

[pfife]

the promise, as I understand it, was a huge reason he won SC in the primaries and that's when he started his roll.  He was floundering before that.   To call that a negative when it may have saved the whole damn thing seems not correct.

[ewsieg]

11 hours ago, pfife said:

the promise, as I understand it, was a huge reason he won SC in the primaries and that's when he started his roll.  He was floundering before that.   To call that a negative when it may have saved the whole damn thing seems not correct.

Yup, he doesn't get nominated without Clyburn.  I have some issues with publicly stating what might have been a promise made behind the scenes, but maybe that was a requirement as well.

I do think this is different from Reagan who simply said it's time for women to be on the highest court and more balance needs to be seen in the federal courts.  O'Connor then looks like Reagan's best pick that happens to be a women which he stated he was open too.  Whoever Biden nominates, to a good portion of the population, is not going to look like the best candidate, but the best black female candidate. In the end, her vote will count the same, and because of politics, most of that same crowd isn't going to like her anyway.  So it probably doesn't matter anyway.

[pfife]

I don't think anything was required.  He definitely could have chosen a different path to the nomination.  

Reagan quote literally says the  opposite of what you said about Reagan appointing Sandra Day Oconnor - he literally said he was selecting the most qualified woman.  DId you look for what Reagan said at the time before you posted this?

A few months later, at a news conference in Los Angeles, he made it official, saying: “I am announcing today that one of the first Supreme Court vacancies in my administration will be filled by the most qualified woman I can possibly find. … It is time for a woman to sit among the highest jurists.”

 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2022/01/26/biden-reagan-supreme-court/

 

Edited January 30, 2022 by pfife

[oblong]

People who bitch about the pick “not being the best candidate” need to tell us who the best candidate is.  Spoiler alert:  it doesn’t exist. There’s hundreds if not thousands of equally qualified people out there. There’s no playbook or metrics that define the best candidates.  

[pfife]

I think you could make the argument that an experience as a black woman qualifies them even more for what the court needs.

[oblong]

Just now, pfife said:

I think you could make the argument that an experience as a black woman qualifies them even more for what the court needs.

People act like that this is the NFL combine and we are measuring their time in the 40 but ignoring it for the black lady. 

[Edman85]

I am sure the nominee will be qualified, but that doesn't make the Democrats' obsession with identity politics any less icky to me. Don't both sides me on this as obviously the GOP has their own issues here. I think it just drives back to using data analysis, and demographic data is just what they have to play with.

[gehringer_2]

5 hours ago, oblong said:

People who bitch about the pick “not being the best candidate” need to tell us who the best candidate is.  Spoiler alert:  it doesn’t exist. There’s hundreds if not thousands of equally qualified people out there. There’s no playbook or metrics that define the best candidates.  

Really, and maybe the last thing we need is another Ivy League law schooler, like that supposed measure of ‘qualification’ doesn’t come with without all its own biases and limitations of “real” experience. 

[oblong]

2016 Lindsay Graham called.  He gusheds on Childs.    Seemed over the top but then I made the SC connection.  

[buddha]

50 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

Really, and maybe the last thing we need is another Ivy League law schooler, like that supposed measure of ‘qualification’ doesn’t come with without all its own biases and limitations of “real” experience. 

amy coney barrett is the only justice that isnt an ivy leaguer.

[buddha]

and they definitely should be nominating more justices that went to law schools other than harvard and yale.

[mtutiger]

8 hours ago, Edman85 said:

I am sure the nominee will be qualified, but that doesn't make the Democrats' obsession with identity politics any less icky to me. Don't both sides me on this as obviously the GOP has their own issues here. I think it just drives back to using data analysis, and demographic data is just what they have to play with.

I think this is fair... I just have a problem with the clear double standard being applied here. 

Whoever Biden picks will be very qualified... and in the grand scheme of things, most Americans are not going to notice or care about the selection process. Just a big deal over nothing.