chasfh Posted January 31, 2022 Share Posted January 31, 2022 19 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 see it less as liberals’ obsession with identity politics than I do as liberals pushing back on conversatives’ traditional obsession with maintaining white male exclusivity in politics. This is not unlike saying affirmative action is bad because all it does is give jobs to unqualified coloreds because of their identity, when the point is to open up positions to highly qualified people of color who’d been completely shut out from them before based on their identity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mtutiger Posted January 31, 2022 Share Posted January 31, 2022 The focus on identity on this subject is weird considering how politicized this process is, and how political views are an "identity" in and of themselves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chasfh Posted January 31, 2022 Share Posted January 31, 2022 37 minutes ago, mtutiger said: The focus on identity on this subject is weird considering how politicized this process is, and how political views are an "identity" in and of themselves. When conservatives talk about "identity politics" they usually mean enabling uppity blacks, but they could be talking about other races, women, and teh gays, too. "Identity" implies immutability. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buddha Posted January 31, 2022 Share Posted January 31, 2022 1 hour ago, chasfh said: I see it less as liberals’ obsession with identity politics than I do as liberals pushing back on conversatives’ traditional obsession with maintaining white male exclusivity in politics. This is not unlike saying affirmative action is bad because all it does is give jobs to unqualified coloreds because of their identity, when the point is to open up positions to highly qualified people of color who’d been completely shut out from them before based on their identity. female supreme court appointments: democrats: 3 republicans: 2 black supreme court appointments: democrats: 1 republicans 1 ah yes, "conservatives" and their traditional obsessions with white male exclusivity in politics. For almost all of american history, both liberals and conservatives were all about white male exclusivity in politics. and the gender barrier was broken by noted liberal ronald reagan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pfife Posted January 31, 2022 Author Share Posted January 31, 2022 but reagan identity politic'd that too, so what are we even talking about here? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mtutiger Posted January 31, 2022 Share Posted January 31, 2022 2 minutes ago, pfife said: but reagan identity politic'd that too, so what are we even talking about here? That's different because clearly that's just different. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buddha Posted January 31, 2022 Share Posted January 31, 2022 20 minutes ago, mtutiger said: That's different because clearly that's just different. well yeah. i'm not saying republicans dont do the same optics that democrats do, i'm pushing back on chas' claim that conservatives identity politics is just white males. EVERYBODY'S politics in american history was white males, not just conservatives. and conservatives have nominated almost as many non-white males to the courts as liberals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mtutiger Posted January 31, 2022 Share Posted January 31, 2022 5 minutes ago, buddha said: well yeah. i'm not saying republicans dont do the same optics that democrats do, i'm pushing back on chas' claim that conservatives identity politics is just white males. EVERYBODY'S politics in american history was white males, not just conservatives. and conservatives have nominated almost as many non-white males to the courts as liberals. That sarcasm wasn't so much directed at you, fwiw. We are pretty aligned on this topic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oblong Posted January 31, 2022 Share Posted January 31, 2022 After the '52 election Ike promised that he would appoint Earl Warren when a vacancy on the court occurred. Before that Warren was a politician, ran for President a few times, and was on the ticket with Dewey as VP candidate. He was never a judge. He was pretty active politically in the GOP. (Like Kavanaugh?) He also supported Japanese internment. I really don't see any difference between saying you promise to appoint an individual or a "kind of individual". Was Warren the most "qualified"? I don't even know what that means in relation to a SC justice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CMRivdogs Posted January 31, 2022 Share Posted January 31, 2022 Eisenhower also wanted to appoint a Catholic to the bench. He reportedly told his Attorney General "I still want to find some fine, prominent Catholic to nominate to the bench" according to historians. William Brennan Jr even confirmed the story in an interview with Irish America magazine after his appointment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pfife Posted January 31, 2022 Author Share Posted January 31, 2022 32 minutes ago, oblong said: After the '52 election Ike promised that he would appoint Earl Warren when a vacancy on the court occurred. Before that Warren was a politician, ran for President a few times, and was on the ticket with Dewey as VP candidate. He was never a judge. He was pretty active politically in the GOP. (Like Kavanaugh?) He also supported Japanese internment. I really don't see any difference between saying you promise to appoint an individual or a "kind of individual". Was Warren the most "qualified"? I don't even know what that means in relation to a SC justice. these days most qualified means creative writing skills to make it look like the founding fathers agreed with you. And also making it look like what the founding fathers thought is important. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buddha Posted January 31, 2022 Share Posted January 31, 2022 29 minutes ago, oblong said: After the '52 election Ike promised that he would appoint Earl Warren when a vacancy on the court occurred. Before that Warren was a politician, ran for President a few times, and was on the ticket with Dewey as VP candidate. He was never a judge. He was pretty active politically in the GOP. (Like Kavanaugh?) He also supported Japanese internment. I really don't see any difference between saying you promise to appoint an individual or a "kind of individual". Was Warren the most "qualified"? I don't even know what that means in relation to a SC justice. that's the thing, people talk about who is "qualified" and who isnt. what's the "qualification"? plenty of people from all sorts of different backgrounds have been successful jurists. just get a smart person who writes well. that's the important thing. there are sites that will score judges on their writing ability: clarity, conciseness, argument. of the people mentioned as potential candidates they all score well. brown is a little lower than the others, but the others score very high. almost all the current members of the court - liberal and conservative - scored very high. everyone who biden is talking about nominating will be more than "qualified." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mtutiger Posted January 31, 2022 Share Posted January 31, 2022 As expected 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1776 Posted January 31, 2022 Share Posted January 31, 2022 19 hours ago, buddha said: and they definitely should be nominating more justices that went to law schools other than harvard and yale. Benjamin H Barton, a law professor at University of Tennessee had an excellent opinion piece in today’s WSJ that is specific to your point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chasfh Posted February 1, 2022 Share Posted February 1, 2022 (edited) 22 hours ago, buddha said: female supreme court appointments: democrats: 3 republicans: 2 black supreme court appointments: democrats: 1 republicans 1 ah yes, "conservatives" and their traditional obsessions with white male exclusivity in politics. For almost all of american history, both liberals and conservatives were all about white male exclusivity in politics. and the gender barrier was broken by noted liberal ronald reagan. We were talking in generalities, but whatever, cool anecdote, brah. Edited February 1, 2022 by chasfh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buddha Posted February 1, 2022 Share Posted February 1, 2022 39 minutes ago, chasfh said: We were talking in generalities, but whatever, cool anecdote, brah. that's not an anecdote, but at least you got to use the word "brah" in a derogatory way. so good job. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chasfh Posted February 1, 2022 Share Posted February 1, 2022 54 minutes ago, buddha said: that's not an anecdote, but at least you got to use the word "brah" in a derogatory way. so good job. Anecdotes deal in examples and not data, so, yeah, anecdote. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buddha Posted February 1, 2022 Share Posted February 1, 2022 Just now, chasfh said: Anecdotes deal in examples and not data, so, yeah, anecdote. data about supreme court justice appointees is not an anecdote, brah. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chasfh Posted February 1, 2022 Share Posted February 1, 2022 19 minutes ago, buddha said: data about supreme court justice appointees is not an anecdote, brah. Selective data is. Brah. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buddha Posted February 1, 2022 Share Posted February 1, 2022 6 minutes ago, chasfh said: Selective data is. Brah. no it isnt. and "selective data". ok chas. lol. data that disproves your point is "selective." with an insult on top of it! lol. this is all an exercise so you can call someone a "brah". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chasfh Posted February 1, 2022 Share Posted February 1, 2022 "Brah" is an insult? Who knew? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buddha Posted February 1, 2022 Share Posted February 1, 2022 its like calling someone "chief", without the racism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pfife Posted February 1, 2022 Author Share Posted February 1, 2022 (edited) 35 minutes ago, buddha said: its like calling someone "chief", without the racism. oh, so like chief of staff? or chief executive? commander in chief? when I call you and/or eswieg and/or Archie chief? Edited February 1, 2022 by pfife 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pfife Posted February 1, 2022 Author Share Posted February 1, 2022 The least you could do is not prove my point about "creative writing" being the necessary skill while trolling there esquire. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gehringer_2 Posted February 1, 2022 Share Posted February 1, 2022 7 hours ago, chasfh said: "Brah" is an insult? Who knew? I thought 'brah' was Gaelic for 'forever' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.