Some Republicans say it is racist — TiredThinker

I'm not a Republican but I say it is racist because it automatically disqualifies Asians and other minorities but doesn't seem to reject a white man identifying as a black woman.

The pick is intrinsically political. Having a top deliberative body be representative of the population in a democracy is itself a factor in legitimacy, and the legitimacy of the institution is worth consideration in picking candidates. That makes candidates who aren't White Men distinctly qualified, in that the body will be serving a country in which White Men are about 35-25% (declining over time) of the population during the length of their careers, but have held almost all of the positions on the court.

Second, all else equal, women live longer, so in terms of the political aspect of appointing middle aged Justices so that they can sit on the bench for 30-40 years, women win out there.

There are more important considerations, but they are less visible and less irreducible than race and sex in the context of American culture. Obviously a person can also hold values on relevant legal issues that are worlds away from the median values held by people of the same race/ethnicity/gender (e.g., Clarence Thomas holds some ideas that are arguably far from the median of "sane" people as a whole, let alone African Americans).

I don't think these are contradictions to the relevancy of race and sex. The question of relevant population groups being represented on the Court is different from popular opinion being represented. The first is essential to legitimacy, the second is not necissarily a good thing. In general, top legal scholars probably should have some nuanced opinions that cut across the popular will. The whole point of law is that it doesn't follow the will of crowds.

I would like to see another group more represented in US government; people not above retirement age. We should get that with this pick (albeit by a max of 10 years), but they will likely serve about half their term over the age of 65.

It boggles my mind that being less than a decade from being eligible for Social Security, 52, is generally considered "too young" for the Court. As if decline doesn't start in the 60s, or claims that clerks write all the decisions for the Court haven't been around for awhile. The GOP Senate leader is an octogenarian, as is the President, the Speaker of the House, and the defacto head of the far left in the country. Trump will be an octogenarian during his term if he runs again. He had the oldest cabinet in history, with an average age at retirement age. Fienstien took out papers for another six year term at 92.

I don't want to be prejudiced, but this seems like maybe the most relevant demographic split. It's perhaps why we have no leave for mothers at all, but direct transfer payments to the old, along with universal healthcare for the old, and debt (i.e., taxes to pay for services rendered to previous tax payers and paid later by the young), is over half the budget. Or why addressing global warming, an issue whose impact will peak in 30+ years, seems virtually impossible.

If you want someone sensitive to the issues inherent in cases concerning race and gender, a black woman would be the best person. — Bitter Crank

Why not an Asian trans-gender woman?

Why not an Asian trans-gender woman? — Harry Hindu

Because she is a man, and has no insight into the plight of the North American Black peoples.

I mean she might have SOME insight, but no insight resulting from personal experience. That makes a HUGE difference.

What Tobias said. Diversity improves the quality of the decisions.

Selecting a judge on the basis race, gender, and “diversity” has nothing to do with justice, I’m afraid, and everything to do with the perversion of justice. When you scan candidates for their skin color and genitalia you’ve tossed justice to the wind in favor of race and sex-based discrimination, adopting the same habits and superstitions which have prohibited diversity in the first place. All of it serves to degrade the candidates and their work. Now, when asked why she was chosen for the Supreme court, the answer is embarrassingly clear.

Selecting a judge on the basis race, gender, and “diversity” has nothing to do with justice, I’m afraid, and everything to do with the perversion of justice — NOS4A2

Actually, the justice system is already perverse. It does not serve justice, and you can ask any lawyer and they will say the same thing.

The justice system is about finding "a" guilty person, regardless of his or her being truly guilty or not. If the court is satisfied that the person is guilty, they condemn him or her. What they find actually is unrelated to reality.

Actually, the justice system is already perverse. It does not serve justice, and you can ask any lawyer and they will say the same thing.

The justice system is about finding "a" guilty person, regardless of his or her being truly guilty or not. If the court is satisfied that the person is guilty, they condemn him or her. What they find actually is unrelated to reality.

I wouldn't say the system is just—it clearly isn't—but that it ought to be. But it's true: the law serves only to protect the state's interest.

The justice system is about finding "a" guilty person, regardless of his or her being truly guilty or not. If the court is satisfied that the person is guilty, they condemn him or her. What they find actually is unrelated to reality. — god must be atheist

That is a very peculiar take on law. There are standards of evidence and if the evidence meets the standards the person is probably guilty. Necessarily guilty, no of course not. However a judge is not 'satisfied' simply because of some gut feeling.

Thanks Bert1. The post might also serve as a reply to NOS. It is not the color of one's skin that matters it is the perspective someone of color, or a woman, or a woman of color is more likely to bring to the table.

What Tobias said. Diversity improves the quality of the decisions. — bert1

I don't think there is any guarantee of that. It improves confidence in the government.

I exaggerated. You're right.

Standards can be thrown out the window, however, in case of a Jury trial.

And I wasn't exaggerating when I said that the legal system's workers will say, "people come to court to seek justice. The law does not serve justice, it serves what it is convinced of it should serve." Or something to that effect.

If Jones sues Perez that Perez did not repay a loan; then it may be true, that justice would be served if Perez was forced to pay back Jones. But Jones is unable to provide a document or witnesses that Perez owes him that money. (Even if in reality Perez does.) Therefore justice is not served.

This is to you in its most simple terms.

I am not saying that people get hanged in random order or people get beaten up in police stations to sign a confession. I am saying that the court will accept what is given to it in an acceptable form... everyone else, and every other argument, can go screw him-/her-/itself.

I am not even saying it's a horribly bad system. ALL I AM SAYING is that the justice system is not in the service of justice. It is in the service of law.

The justice system is about finding "a" guilty person — god must be atheist

That is one of the tasks of the courts. The Supreme Court doesn't do trials. Their main concern is to review cases from the POV of procedure and constitutional questions and to resolve conflicting rulings by lower courts.

A white man identifying as a black woman? Cute.

I am not even saying it's a horribly bad system. ALL I AM SAYING is that the justice system is not in the service of justice. It is in the service of law. — god must be atheist

The law isn't quite the wacky, unprincipled, standardless, unpredictable, haphazard, amoral or incoherent system you may think it to be, intent on finding people guilty on any basis, and festooned with madcap juries running amuck without thought or guidance.

But as I've noted before, the law is simply the law. "Justice" to some isn't justice to others, and that makes the service of justice speculative and uncertain. But the law is always the law no matter what anyone believes. Think what you like of it and be damned.

As Justice Holmes noted to some poor lawyer appearing before him: "This is a court of law, young man, not a court of justice." I think he was saying something along these lines..."Know something about the law before you slink into my courtroom, you buffoon, and waste time prattling about what you think is just or unjust."

Why not an Asian — Harry Hindu

All I good time. Have patience.

And I wasn't exaggerating when I said that the legal system's workers will say, "people come to court to seek justice. The law does not serve justice, it serves what it is convinced of it should serve." Or something to that effect.

If Jones sues Perez that Perez did not repay a loan; then it may be true, that justice would be served if Perez was forced to pay back Jones. But Jones is unable to provide a document or witnesses that Perez owes him that money. (Even if in reality Perez does.) Therefore justice is not served. — god must be atheist

Well I do not agree with you that justice is not served, justice in this individual case is not served, but there is more at stake than the individual case. I will try to show that justice writ large, as in a just legal system, a legal system that leads in most cases to just outcomes is served.

Firstly you sneak in an assumption that judges cannot work with. That Jones in reality has a right to that money. That is not the way cases come for a judge, Jones claims Perez owes him money, Perez rejects the claim. How do we proceed?

A, We ask Jones to provide evidence to buttress his claim against Perez. The most common is a document, but there might also be a witness, in any case there are rules of evidence and the onus is on Jones because he makes a claim.

B. We go out of our way, leave no stone unturned, make inquiries into the bank accounts of both, look through every and all transactions, interviews neighbors, do psychological tests to assess the character of the two parties and we will not rest until eventually the truth comes out irrespective of the witness brought forward or a document of debt produced.

C. We see them in court and hear their stories and no matter what evidence presented, we just go for oir gut feeling. Whoever tells the more convincing story gets the claim awarded.

Now: option B. is most in accordance with finding the truth. We come as close to the truth as we can get and possibly Perez'deception comes to light. After a very time consuming, difficult and costly inquest, yes, the truth is finally out there. However, imagine the costs of such an operation, not only in money, but also in time and in hardship for the parties and possibly others who get investigated in the context of this inquiry. Even if it would be at all possible to find the truth, which is not a given at all, the justice system would be quickly overflow with cases. We would not have the manpower, or only against very high costs. those costs have to be subtracted elsewhere, say cancer treatments. A more truthful justice system might lead to a less healthy population. Moreover, notions like privacy, certainty, the right to closure of a dispute, would all be moot. Uncertainty will be rife because suddenly your money might be frozen because Perez claims it is his and first we have to leave no stone unturned to see whether this might be true. In that time we cannot let you make use of that money because you might hide it by transferring it to a third party. The money will be frozen for quite a while because the inquiry itself takes a long time and there is a huge backlog of cases... Owning money will become an uncertain business, leading to economically adverse consequences. People would demand more certainty before they engage in transaction. Remember we do not know a-priori who is right, I wish that was true! We are in a situation in which Joneses make claims on Perezes and sometimes Perez is right, sometimes Jones.

C. leads to arbitrariness. We hope judges are better at detecting deception and assessing the weight of different stories, but alas they are human and like I pointed out before biased and burdened by the background assumptions with which they read files, listen to stories, interpret mimicry and so on. Possibly it goes right mmore often than it goes wrong but it will go wrong and will lead to resentment and mistrust in the judiciary, eroding its legitimacy.

The only option is A. Beforehand the procedural requirements are stated one should meet in order to get your claim awarded. Since they are known beforehand and case after case saw judges require the same papers, parties know it. We know that when we lend a particular sum of money we should ask for a document, signed, that the sum of money is indeed owed. We know we need to provide a witness so we call in a third party (a notary for instance) who will oversee the transaction. Since we know it we will not have to go to court very often. We spare ourselves the trouble when we have no receipt, or otherwise a lawyer will tell you not to take the trouble. In turn we do ask for receipts when lending money because we know we will be asked for them. Third parties who are paid a sum by Perez can also trust on it that he really owes that money and there will not be some Jones who suddenly revindicates it, causing me the third party in good faith the trouble of being embroiled in law suits.

Of course, A in some cases lead to parties being cheated out of their money, but overall it leads to a more fair and free society in which people can know what they what need to do and can expect from each other. Three cheers for a procedurally consistent legal system!

The law isn't quite the wacky, unprincipled, standardless, unpredictable, haphazard, amoral or incoherent system you may think it to be, intent on finding people guilty on any basis, and festooned with madcap juries running amuck without thought or guidance. — Ciceronianus

Very nice of you to pretend to know what I think, coming up with opinions I did not say, and describing a process in a way I did not prescribe and then attributing all your maligned statements to me.

No, I won't go on the defensive only because you totally exaggerated and altered the thought I presented.

Shame on you for so derisively equating your imagination or malintent to what I actually said.

A Black woman on the Supreme Court is fine by me. I only wish she would be nominated without including the criteria that she is being nominated because she is a black woman.

You seem to assume that it only suffices "because she is a black woman" that she will be nominated. :chin:

It takes just a little research to see that I wasn't blowing shit out of my mouth, like Ciceronianus claimed.

"On the Connection Between Law and Justice,
by Anthony D'Amato,*
26 U. C. Davis L. Rev. 527-582 (1992-93)
Abstract: What does it mean to assert that judges should decide cases according to justice and not according to the law? Is there something incoherent in the question itself? That question will serve as our springboard in examining what is—or should be—the connection between justice and law.
Legal and political theorists since the time of Plato have wrestled with the problem of whether justice is
part of law or is simply a moral judgment about law. Nearly every writer on the subject has either concluded that justice is only a judgment about law or has offered no reason to support a conclusion that justice is somehow part of law."

https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1001&context=facultyworkingpapers

So if nearly every writer said the same thing as I did (by the way, this is not an argument, it is just an example of showing you that intuitive figuring out can beat societal indoctrination-- intuitive figuring out in my case, to bending to societal false dogma in your case) perhaps I am not as ill-witted, malevolent, blind and stupid as Ciceronianus claimed in his post earlier in this thread.

By-the-by: the writer of the article quoted partly has put forth an argument that law does serve justice. He opens his argument how most writers on law and justice are either convince that law does not serve justice, or in the least, can see no way to support a conclusion that law serves justice.

Again, this reference should not be seen as an argument to support my case. It is, instead, for you to consider that your socially ingrained adoration of law is viewed by many philosophers, including from Plato's time on, as a false, misplaced adoration.

For the record: I do believe that law has rigid and flexible prescribed criteria to make judgments. However, the criteria to make judgments is NOT to serve justice, but to serve the law. So the more you scream at me that law is not haphazard, it is not biassed, it is geared to be objective, then not only do I agree (because I do) but you are still saying things about the LAW, not about justice, and you fail to equate the two no matter how hard you try.

Thanks. I'm still not sure I want to be here again.

In my opinion only Black persons in the United States can truly experience the condition of what it means and what it feels like to be a Black person in the USA. Therefore representation is welcome, more than just as a diversification.

I think he's right in the sense that actual academic credentials, integrity, legal acumen and wisdom aren't relevant. Just look at the Brett Kavanaugh appointment and that crazy lady Barrett recently. Any black woman will do really... In fact, I think just picking people randomly is likely an improvement on the political farce it currently is

I know that an accomplished lawyer will be nominated, but I wish her race was not identified before her actual nomination. It creates the impression that a more qualified candidate of a different race exists,but may have been passed up to make a point about racial discrimination. Maybe it is worth it to make the point, and maybe there is no such thing as a "better" nominee. But I think the point that a black female Judge is just as good as a white male judge is better made by making the nomination without any reference to the person's gender or race.

Why not an Asian
— Harry Hindu

All I good time. Have patience. — Bitter Crank

That's not what I asked nor does your reply answer my question as I stated it before you butchered it in your quoting of me.

But this is typical of how politics warps the mind in the same way that religion does. It turns it's constituents into hypocrites.

Why not an Asian trans-gender woman?
— Harry Hindu

Because she is a man, and has no insight into the plight of the North American Black peoples.

I mean she might have SOME insight, but no insight resulting from personal experience. That makes a HUGE difference. — god must be atheist

I can't tell if you're being silly or serious. At least you didn't butcher my question like Bitter did.

A white man identifying as a black woman? Cute. — TiredThinker

I don't think "cute" is the appropriate term here. "Insane" works me.

It turns it's constituents into hypocrites. — Harry Hindu

Hypocrisy is our collective default state.

Except that in America, no mention of "the person's gender or race" in these political rituals simply defaults to (the 95% quota of) a "White Man". Besides, who decides who is "the best qualified person"? and "best qualified" precisely for what? I suppose in a fairer, more just society, scarce social, professional & political goods would be distributed by lot selecting from a pool of eligible (qualified) candidates that's been weighted for specified proficiencies and/or demographics where, in accord with the Rawlsian difference principle, 'inequalities of treatment' would benefit the historically under-represented, socially marginalized or economically disadvantaged. Until such time as America becomes "a more perfect union", however, the political system reflecting the economic system is still rigged by Upper Class Whites for the benefit of Upper Class Whites at the expense of everyone (& everything) else – in short: historical 'Affirmative Re-action'. Nominating a well-qualified Black Woman to the highest court in the land is the very least that can be done to mitigate an aspect of this 231 year old, sclerotic, rigged system of 'patriarchal white privilege'.

(NB: As nearly seven decades of "Civil Rights gains" in America has more than amply demonstrated: 'equality without power-sharing', in effect, only perpetuates a system rigged in favor of status quo Class, Race & Sex/Gender inequality. Thus, the uptick in 'white backlash' at the mere mention of a non-traditional candidate (outside the 95% quota) for a position of real power.)