I got more turtles when I got this error: Your session has timed out. Please go back to the article page and click the PDF link again.

That is strange... I can seem to access it alright but not link it....
The article is called "Kelsen's theory of the basic norm" by Joseph Raz.... odd how this works or does not work.

Based on the definitions I related, I don't think the nomination is racist. To be racist, it seems you must contend that a particular race is superior than another; that must be the basis of the distinction made. If the nomination isn't based on a belief in the superiority of a black woman over others because she's black or a woman, it doesn't appear to come within the definitions. I think you have an uncommon definition of racism.

So-called “positive” race discrimination suggests a belief in the inferiority of the races they are designed to help. But this nomination isn’t a form of affirmative action, and it isn’t clear that Biden thinks women with darker complexions are inferior.

Neither is it about racial justice. Biden worked really hard to filibuster Judge Janice Brown back in the Bush days, and threatened to do the same if she was ever nominated for Supreme Court. He actively and explicitly opposed the nomination of a black woman, so if it was about racial justice let’s just say he missed that opportunity 20 years ago.

Rather, it is about identity politics, in this case using race and gender to score political points in the hopes of retaining political power now and in the future, the ethics of racial discrimination be damned. You can see the justification of this form of discrimination in this very thread, complete with essentialist notions about her experience, different knowledge, and different ways of thinking, which are racist assumptions if I’ve ever seen them. So if it isn’t racist according to your definition, it soon will be.

So-called “positive” race discrimination suggests a belief in the inferiority of the races they are designed to help. But this nomination isn’t a form of affirmative action, and it isn’t clear that Biden thinks women with darker complexions are inferior. — NOS4A2

Positive iscrimination is a way to redress past wrongs and an attempt at creating equal starting positions. It has nothing to do with inferiority or superiority.

Neither is it about racial justice. Biden worked really hard to filibuster Judge Janice Brown back in the Bush days, and threatened to do the same if she was ever nominated for Supreme Court. He actively and explicitly opposed the nomination of a black woman, so if it was about racial justice let’s just say he missed that opportunity 20 years ago. — NOS4A2

I guess he wants a black woman with a similar political agenda.

Rather, it is about identity politics, in this case using race and gender to score political points in the hopes of retaining political power now and in the future, the ethics of racial discrimination be damned. — NOS4A2

That might be a practical concern of course, politicians like to appeal to their constituencies.

You can see the justification of this form of discrimination in this very thread, complete with essentialist notions about her experience, different knowledge, and different ways of thinking, which are racist assumptions if I’ve ever seen them. So if it isn’t racist according to your definition, it soon will be. — NOS4A2

Not different ways of thinking but different perspectives. Having different perspectives represented might lead to better in the sense of better informed legal judgments. In the US there is also the principle right of judgment before ones peers to be kept in mind. That does deal with equal representation. Considered in the long term would it not also be representationally fair if a woman of color gets a chance to shape the law of the land? That is, if one thinks that judgment is a matter of being held to account by a forum of peers. (I do not necessarily think it is, but in the US with its jury system this seems to be an entrenched principle of law)
Law is, as I have tried to show a hermeneutic enterprise in which the presence of a plethora of background assumptions is beneficial. Now it is not by necessity that a woman or a or a black person brings a different perspective to the table, but it is more likely than that a white man does.

Positive iscrimination is a way to redress past wrongs and an attempt at creating equal starting positions. It has nothing to do with inferiority or superiority.

You’d have to assume she’s been wronged, and base it on nothing other than the color of her skin. So already you place her on a lower rung in a racial hierarchy.

Not different ways of thinking but different perspectives. Having different perspectives represented might lead to better in the sense of better informed legal judgments. In the US there is also the matter of judgment before ones peers to be kept in mind. That does deal with equal representation. Considered in the long term would it not also be representationally fair if a woman of color gets a chance to shape the law of the land? Law is, as I have tried to show a hermeneutic enterprise in which the presence of a plethora of background assumptions is beneficial. Now it is not by necessity that a woman or a or a black person brings a different perspective to the table, but it is more likely than that a white man does.

Upon what assumption do you assume she has a different perspective? I figure these assumptions are based on nothing other than pseudoscientific racial distinctions and nothing besides, but perhaps I’m wrong. I’m not lawyer, but I assume that the only perspective that matters in a court is the word of the law.

You’d have to assume she’s been wronged, and base it on nothing other than the color of her skin. So already you place her on a lower rung in a racial hierarchy. — NOS4A2

No I only need to assume that there is a privilege to being white. All in research I know of confirms that privilege.

Upon what assumption do you assume she has a different perspective? — NOS4A2

Because people with a dark skin color are treated differently then people with white skin color in certain societies, as I think if the case in the US. In any case the incarceration rates is disproportionately higher for blacks than for whites and yes they run a higher chance to be murdered and so on. The only thing that I need to make plausible is that she probably had different experiences in dealing with with others in US society than whites to make her perspective a useful addition. I think it is plausible that she had different experiences.

pseudoscientific racial distinctions and nothing besides — NOS4A2

Of course not. My assumption that there are differences in perspective is formed because I find it credible that based on cultural hierarchies reiterated in discourse and practice, black people have been subjected to different experiences in life from white people.

but perhaps I’m wrong — NOS4A2

indeed

I’m not lawyer, but I assume that the only perspective that matters in a court is the word of the law. — NOS4A2

And you are again wrong. Read my discussion with mr Atheist. The law does not speak. Judges do, they interpret the law.

No I only need to assume that there is a privilege to being white. All in research I know of confirms that privilege.

Just another racial hierarchy upon which you place people with darker complexions on a lower rung.

Of course not, they are based on cultural hierarchies reiterated in discourse and practice.

What does the spectrum of complexion have to do with culture?

And you are again wrong. Read my discussion with mr Atheist. The law does not speak. Judges do, they interpret the law.

The law does not speak, sure, but it is spoken. A judge cannot interpret her way out of it.

He actively and explicitly opposed the nomination of a black woman, so if it was about racial justice let’s just say he missed that opportunity 20 years ago. — NOS4A2

A fine example of a tokenist mentality. As if her judicial philosophy is irrelevant.

Very true. It probably is about tokenism for Biden in particular, and the democrats in general.

Is this an attempt to be clever or obtuse? Your assumption is that if Biden was concerned about racial justice he would not have opposed a black woman 20 years ago. As if being a black woman should have been sufficient to support her nomination, regardless of her judicial philosophy.

Do I need to spell it out further?

Added: Just in case I do, it is you whose mentality is tokenist.

I could care less what a judge looks like, what feigned group they “represent”. It is Biden, not me, who is making the symbolic effort of choosing a black woman for the court. Of course, you wouldn’t dare make such an accusation against Biden, would you?

Just another racial hierarchy upon which you place people with darker complexions on a lower rung. — NOS4A2

Why is that? Because I think people with a white skin get hired easier, are less often deemed suspects in criminal cases, get shot by police less often, I somehow place people with a darker complexion on a lower rung? No I simply think there is a lot of prejudice against people with a darker skin and that that means they have fewer chances in life and are required to prove themselves more than people with a light complexion. Those are cultural traits.

What does the spectrum of complexion have to do with culture? — NOS4A2

See my explanation above. There are cultural prejudices against people with darker skin.

The law does not speak, sure, but it is spoken. A judge cannot interpret her way out of it. — NOS4A2

You are not a lawyer eh? Best leave it at that. I am not going into that because I am used to being paid to give legal education. What you can do is read a few pages back in the thread, read the article Atheist provided and my comments and you may have an inkling what lawyers can and cannot do. This remark is just intellectual laziness.

It was you who claimed that:

... if it was about racial justice let’s just say he missed that opportunity 20 years ago. — NOS4A2

Supporting the nomination of just anyone just because she is a woman and black is not what racial justice is about.

On behalf of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights (LCCR), the nation’s oldest, largest, and most diverse civil and human rights coalition, with more than 180 member organizations, we write to express continued opposition to the confirmation of Janice Rogers Brown to the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Brown’s record as a California Supreme Court justice demonstrates a strong, persistent, and disturbing hostility toward affirmative action, civil rights, the rights of individuals with disabilities, workers’ rights, and the fairness of the criminal justice system.

(https://civilrights.org/resource/oppose-the-confirmation-of-janice-rogers-brown/)

Why is that? Because I think people with a white skin get hired easier, are less often deemed suspects in criminal cases, get shot by police less often, I somehow place people with a darker complexion on a lower rung? No I simply think there is a lot of prejudice against people with a darker skin and that that means they have fewer chances in life and are required to prove themselves more than people with a light complexion. Those are cultural traits.

I see it like this: you've grouped people under superficial racial categories of which there is no scientific basis, look for the disparities between them, and use the results to position them, one on top of the other, in a hierarchy of superficial racial categories of which there is no scientific basis. That right there is the methodology that has unleashed racism upon the world. It results in assumptions about people on the basis of their complexion, in injustice, and finally, in racial supremacy and inferiority.

Assuming prejudice, both against and for, is the result of this methodology, I oppose it on the same grounds. We cannot in fact infer how much prejudice, discrimination, hostility, someone has faced by the mere fact of their complexion alone, for the same reason we cannot know what position they occupy in the economy, in ability, in intelligence, and so on. The assumptions we make about someone’s status based on which racial categories they happen to occupy are neither right or wrong, they’re “not even wrong”, to use the phrase. The fact of someone’s status becomes apparent only in other forms of inquiry, such as conversation, cooperation, mutual enterprise, etc.

You are not a lawyer eh? Best leave it at that. I am not going into that because I am used to being paid to give legal education. What you can do is read a few pages back in the thread, read the article Atheist provided and my comments and you may have an inkling what lawyers can and cannot do. This remark is just intellectual laziness.

While your ability to train students to give legal advice and draft documents are far superior to mine, I see no reason to abide by your authority in other aspects of law and Justice.

No I fully agree. That’s why I said Biden, nor anyone, cannot claim he is excluding other races for matters of racial justice. His past actions falsify this theory.

I still do not understand why you are accusing me of tokenism out of one side of the mouth, and then defending Biden’s tokenism outside of the other.

I still do not understand ... — NOS4A2

There is a yawning gap in your understanding. Biden opposed Brown's nomination because of her human rights record as detailed above. Being a black woman is not sufficient grounds for supporting a judicial nominee. To think otherwise is tokenism. To nominate a candidate who is a qualified black woman whose judicial philosophy and record he approves of is not.

I see it like this: you've grouped people under superficial racial categories of which there is no scientific basis, look for the disparities between them, and use the results to position them, one on top of the other, in a hierarchy of superficial racial categories of which there is no scientific basis. That right there is the methodology that has unleashed racism upon the world. It results in assumptions about people on the basis of their complexion, in injustice, and finally, in racial supremacy and inferiority. — NOS4A2

I haven't grouped people, they are grouped by everyday social practices. There is no scientific basis for me being grouped among the category of Dutch people as well and I have to show a Dutch passport when I want to enter my country nonetheless. I am the first to agree with you that there is no scientific basis for the concept of race, but the historical categorization has present day consequences.

Redressing past wrongs and making starting positions qual is not the methodology that caused racism, thinking some races were inferior and some superior did.

We cannot in fact infer how much prejudice, discrimination, hostility, someone has faced by the mere fact of their complexion alone, for the same reason we cannot know what position they occupy in the economy, in ability, in intelligence, and so on. — NOS4A2

Of course we cannot know but we can compare candidates. We cannot know that the best lawyer will be a good supreme court judges but we think the chances are higher than with an inferior lawyer. We cannot know someone with a darker complexion had different experiences in life from a person with a light complexion, but it is likely given that people with darker complexion face discrimination and racially themes abuse more than do people with a pale complexion. Certainty is very rare to obtain, so we go about things in terms of probabilities.

While your ability to train students to give legal advice and draft documents are far superior to mine, I see no reason to abide by your authority in other aspects of law and Justice. — NOS4A2

Sure, why take a lawyer's word for issues having to do with law? Me, I never take a doctors word for things having to do with medicine, imbeciles they are! Car mechanics, what do they know about cars anyway? Physicist about physics, don't even get me started on that one! What they think they bloody know about physics fits into my pinky it does!
You are hilarious sometimes. Just remember that the blanket statements about legal work you made in this thread immediately peg you as ignorant about law, not just about drafting documents, but about how law is practiced generally.

I haven't grouped people, they are grouped by everyday social practices. There is no scientific basis for me being grouped among the category of Dutch people as well and I have to show a Dutch passport when I want to enter my country nonetheless. I am the first to agree with you that there is no scientific basis for the concept of race, but the historical categorization has present day consequences. — Tobias

Well said.

If the black woman nominee isn't confirmed, has Biden lived up to his pledge or must he continue presenting only black women to the Senate? Would there be any point where a supporter of the diversity pledge might balk and say enough is enough or does the applicant pool remain as previously promised until one is approved?

There is a certain absurdity here, but I'm used to it. A couple things I do know: just because you're a black woman doesn't make you a liberal and the appointment of a black woman isn't going to remedy a whole lot of anything.

What the left needs is someone consistently left if they want to counter those consistently right.

the appointment of a black woman isn't going to remedy a whole lot of anything. — Hanover

It's encouraging to young black women.

Based on the definitions I related, I don't think the nomination is racist. To be racist, it seems you must contend that a particular race is superior than another; that must be the basis of the distinction made. If the nomination isn't based on a belief in the superiority of a black woman over others because she's black or a woman, it doesn't appear to come within the definitions. I think you have an uncommon definition of racism. — Ciceronianus

Not to argue with the dictionary, but I am surprised at the emphasis on belief. In everyday language many acts are considered racist, typically any act that discriminates on the basis of race. But technically you seem correct.

Of course not, since no one is "entitled" to that job by "birth right". — 180 Proof

Yet a black female is somehow entitled to this position? Wouldn’t you agree that minorities have in fact been harmed by not being considered viable candidates for a plethora of positions? Do you agree with the equal opportunity acts?

Besides, for at least the last century there have been many "other qualified people of different races/genders" than Straight White Christian Men not even considered for appointment to the high court — 180 Proof

Right. And it was wrong that they were excluded. I would also say it was racist, but the dictionary disagrees.

Redressing past wrongs and making starting positions qual is not the methodology that caused racism, thinking some races were inferior and some superior did. — Tobias

I think racial discrimination has to be included here. It is the mechanism through which racist beliefs are put into practice, and the actual actions are what causes harm.

As we see in the current example, racist thoughts need not accompany racial discrimination, but that doesn’t make the act any less harmful, disadvantageous, or unfair.

Yet a black female is somehow entitled to this position? — Pinprick

No. A candidate from a pool of 'well-qualified black women' is preferred by an old white man who, by the way, owes his presidency in no insignificant part to black women voters and supporters.

Wouldn’t you agree that minorities have in fact been harmed by not being considered viable candidates for a plethora of positions?

My first post on this thread (p.1) references 'patriarchal white supremacy' precisely for the central fact you mention which has driven American political and social history into the dirt.

Do you agree with the equal opportunity acts?

Yeah, I also believe in "world peace", but ... :roll:

Right. And it was wrong that they were excluded. I would also say it was racist, but the dictionary disagrees. — Pinprick

No in this case the dictionary was right because in the past the candidates have been excluded because they were held to be inferior. Men were considered superior to women, whites to blacks and (protestant) Christians to all other religions. It was not just racism, but also sexism and cultural superiority.

I think racial discrimination has to be included here. It is the mechanism through which racist beliefs are put into practice, and the actual actions are what causes harm. — Pinprick

I wonder what you intend to say with this. Maybe you think all discrimination is equal, but it isn't. It makes a difference whether you exclude someone on the basis of deeming that person inferior or whether you desire equal representation, or broaden the scope of perspectives or indeed correct for worse starting positions. Recial discrimination and profiling are real and that means less opportunities for certain people. Preferential treatment may be a way to mitigate against the prevailing cultural biases that hinder the full development of certain classes of people as opposed to others. You might think all discrimination is equal but that is not the case.

As we see in the current example, racist thoughts need not accompany racial discrimination, but that doesn’t make the act any less harmful, disadvantageous, or unfair. — Pinprick

Why would preferential treatment be harmful, disadvantageous or unfair? It depends on the goals you want to reach and the fairness, advantage and desirability of these. Let's face it every job description contains preferential treatment of some sort. For instance the idea that your grades in uni make you a better lawyer and so you get hired easier. It advantages people who score good grades on exam questions... It says nothing about all kinds of other qualities.

Well, you have grouped people and have made assumptions about them according to their racial characteristics. But all I’m trying to say is these assumptions are the prerequisite to any social practice that groups them any further, to any racism, to any racial discrimination.

I’m not sure how one can redress past wrongs and make starting points equal through racial discrimination. This is because one is neither victim or perpetrator by the fact of her complexion or any other phenotype alone. In fact, assigning guilt and victimhood to people according to their racial features is a past wrong, also a present and future wrong, as is racial discrimination in hiring. It seems silly to me redress these past wrongs by applying them in practice.

Again, I bow before your expertise in law, and if I’m ever in the market for Dutch legal advice I’ll be sure to let you know.

There is a yawning gap in your understanding. Biden opposed Brown's nomination because of her human rights record as detailed above. Being a black woman is not sufficient grounds for supporting a judicial nominee. To think otherwise is tokenism. To nominate a candidate who is a qualified black woman whose judicial philosophy and record he approves of is not.

I completely agree. Biden explicitly stated his nominee will be a black woman, all of which is irrelevant to qualifications.

For instance the idea that your grades in uni make you a better lawyer and so you get hired easier. It advantages people who score good grades on exam questions... It says nothing about all kinds of other qualities. — Tobias

I've always been baffled by this view, as I think it clear that what you're taught, especially in law school, has nothing to do with the practice of law. Perhaps someone who does very well in law school may make a good law professor, or a judge's clerk, or an associate in a large firm who spends time doing research and writing memos and briefs. It may prepare you for that, but more than that? Why would it?

A question: What can one black woman do in a group of ten white people? Will her single vote make any difference at all? She's a judge in name only i.e. Biden pulled a fast one on the American people.

I completely agree. Biden explicitly stated his nominee will be a black woman, all of which is irrelevant to qualifications. — NOS4A2

Right, being black is irrelevant to qualifications. But not irrelevant to the makeup of the court.The woman he nominates will be black and qualified and will have a judicial philosophy that is not at odds with his own.

What can one black woman do in a group of ten white people? — Agent Smith

What ten white people? :chin: