Well, remember Ronald Reagan made a similar pledge in 1980 and delivered the first female SC judge - Sandra Day O'Connor. Court nominations are always political, so what?

Do you really think justice is non-political? Do you really think justice depends on representation?

Any racially motivated action is by definition racist. Choosing positions of competance requires competance in that respective domain to be the primary factor of selection, irrespective of race. Poltical office is not meant to represent racial demographics, and in this case, not even to represent people. This particular office is to represent current law, as written, and clearly defined, or reinterpreted in the case of clear ambiguity. This activity is inherently non-racial. Thus, to conclude that your primary factor of selection is race, as well as gender, is the kind of cognitive processing that escapes any rational description. Such a decision is clearly motivated by one's feelings on either a political topic, fear, need for admiration, insult, or some other inclination that has nothing to do with the official position in question. As far as non-biased governmental officials, you have to know what the government has done, right? The amount of people they kill, money they steal, freedoms they impinge? Government is institutionalized bias with a gun backing it that only it is allowed to use.

One notes you consistently claim to know what people are thinking, feeling, doing. and how and why, and tell them. When you grow up, you will realize that is always a mistake, except and until you get it right. Which does not happen very often, nor are you a judge of it.

And of course you may be guilty of exactly what you seem to object to. If Biden cares to choose a Black woman for the USSC, and you object on the basis of her color/gender/whatever, then you're the one discriminating. He merely thinks such a person, if qualified, deserves a fair chance - no one is suggesting appointing anyone who is incompetent, except maybe Republicans. And he's willing to give her/them that chance. And given the history, that and more like it seem a mighty good and fine thing to do.

Doesn't sound bad to me. If he chooses a fair judge he'll pick up a few Republican votes as well.

Hiring someone based on her race is the exact opposite of justice, is racist, is stupid, but works perfectly well for politics in the current age.

Yeah, you really need more old white men. Been working for hundreds of years, why change.

What coulda black woman possibly have to offer that a white male couldn't?

Yeah, you really need more old white men. Been working for hundreds of years, why change. — Banno

Exactly, and there'd be the additional benefit of a lack of racism.

Appointing the best man for the job works so well for the Liberal Party.

Opposition to patriarchal white supremacy (re: 109 white men out of 115 (95%) justices appointed since 1789), especially in government, cannot be "racist" unless, of course, such opposition – e.g. appointments/hiring – causes material harm via adverse discrimination against "White persons". POTUS nominating a "black woman" for SCOTUS only "harms", as far as I can see, the overblown sense of historical entitlement to "power" of many ambitious "white men". The only "quota" at work for SCOTUS appointments that I see is '95% white male justices in 231 years.' Maybe we can't do any better (just) by "diversifying" SCOTUS; we damn sure, however, can't do any worse IMO.

If 95% of Associate Justices were white old men, then that's because white old men are the best for the job, irrespective of race.

Consider who it is that does the choosing, who it is that is elected as president... why, white men, of course. With one exception. SO of course it's only natural that white men, having been selected as the Best, will choose other white men to do such an important task.


White men are just better at getting the job, let alone getting the job done.

What's the job? Looking after white men as they get older, of course.

Diversity without inclusivity will not change SCOTUS though. The problem runs deeper than just appointing a black, female judge. She'll have a hell of a job to do, not as a judge but managing the institution to open up and realise the added value of minorities' experiences and their different knowledge and ways of thinking and paving the way for future minority generations for whom it should be normal to have access to and exercise political power.

Well, who am I to argue the point with an old white fella? :wink:

Of course, of course.

↪Banno Well, who am I to argue the point with an old white fella? :wink: — 180 Proof

Good, good.

Next thing they'll want gun laws and stuff. Ridiculous.

And they got that vote on roe vs wade coming up. Serious stuff, no room for placating small minorities like blacks and women.

It's neo-Marxist manipulation... bet the Rockefeller foundation is behind it all.

I guess I'm asking is if kind of artificially adding diversity is a thing we do — TiredThinker

There is absolutely nothing 'natural' about the SCOTUS; it's an appointed office, so everything about it is "artificial" by definition.

The ethnicity, race, sex, and age matter some. What is REALLY important is whether the court is "conservative' (tending toward limiting the role of government, protecting corporations, limiting individual rights, etc.) or 'liberal' (tending toward accepting changes and enlargement of government's role, limiting corporations, expanding individual rights, etc.)

Liberal Americans are experiencing some of the great angst that conservative Americans experienced under the liberal Warren Court, under Chief Justice Earl Warren, 1953-1969.

The Warren Court expanded civil rights, civil liberties, judicial power, and the federal power in dramatic ways.[1] It has been widely recognized that the court, led by the liberal bloc, has created a major "Constitutional Revolution" in the history of United States.

The Warren Court brought "one man, one vote" to the United States through a series of rulings, and created the Miranda warning. In addition, the court was both applauded and criticized for bringing an end to de jure racial segregation in the United States, incorporating the Bill of Rights (i.e. including it in the 14th Amendment Due Process clause), and ending officially sanctioned voluntary prayer in public schools. The period is recognized as the highest point in judicial power that has receded ever since, but with a substantial continuing impact.

Conservatives absolutely hated Earl Warren -- paying for "IMPEACH EARL WARREN" billboards along highways. It should also be noted that the Warren Court was all-white and all-male until Thurgood Marshall was confirmed in 1967.

Statistically speaking, if the figures in the OP are correct, there should be 1 black woman SC justice for a total of 18 SC justices (6% representation of black women). 1 black woman SC justice amongst a total of 9 SC justices is 11%, nearly twice the 6% proportion of black women in USA.


How does Biden explain this statistical anomaly?

How does Biden explain this statistical anomaly? — Agent Smith

Explain why that "statistical anomaly" is relevant to Biden making an appointment to SCOTUS.

You guys do know Sotomayor is on the court, right? :roll:

Personally, I am so not racist that whatever skin color whatever person appointed to whatever office has, is of great importance to me.

What if the court was expanded along racial and gender lines to have at least one representative from all groups in proportion to their ratio in the general population? Might be a large number of people on the court, but at least representation wouldn't be a political football anymore?

Statistically speaking, if the figures in the OP are correct, there should be 1 black woman SC justice for a total of 18 SC justices (6% representation of black women). 1 black woman SC justice amongst a total of 9 SC justices is 11%, nearly twice the 6% proportion of black women in USA.


How does Biden explain this statistical anomaly? — Agent Smith

solution: surgical amputation. two legs and an arm should do it.

What if the court was expanded along racial and gender lines to have at least one representative from all groups in proportion to their ratio in the general population? Might be a large number of people on the court, but at least representation wouldn't be a political football anymore? — TiredThinker

solution: members of proportionally mixed races.

I think drug addicts and alcoholics are seriously under-represented.

I think drug addicts and alcoholics are seriously under-represented. — unenlightened

bzzzz! wrong. those groups are over-represented.

gifted children are always over- represented. (!)

i vote for genetically re-engineered mussc-s

How does Biden explain this statistical anomaly?
— Agent Smith
Explain why that "statistical anomaly" is relevant to making an appointment to SCOTUS. — 180 Proof

If statistics is important, given that black women are 6% of the population, there should be 0.5 black woman judges among 9 SC justices.

Round down and there should be 0 black woman SC judges.

Round up and there should be 1 black woman SC judge.

Biden should choose a white-black mixed-race female SC judge, statistically speaking.

Basically (please do the math) 1 black women is taking up the seat of 2 mixed-race women! So, instead of having 2 women (mixed-race) SC justices for 2 consecutive terms (lifelong tenure, say 40 years), we have only 1 black woman!

What's the job? Looking after white men as they get older, of course. — Banno

You fear she won't take care of you?

:cry: :rofl: