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? — Ciceronianus
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. — NOS4A2
I completely agree. Biden explicitly stated his nominee will be a black woman, all of which is irrelevant to qualifications. — NOS4A2
No. A candidate from a pool of 'well-qualified black women' is preferred by an old white man — 180 Proof
Yeah, I also believe in "world peace", but ... :roll: — 180 Proof
No in this case the dictionary was right because in the past the candidates have been excluded because they were held to be inferior. — Tobias
Maybe you think all discrimination is equal, but it isn't. — Tobias
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. — Tobias
Why would preferential treatment be harmful, disadvantageous or unfair? — Tobias
It says nothing about all kinds of other qualities. — Tobias
No, it’s that I think all racial discrimination is wrong. That is what leads to “95% white male quotas.” As long as racial discrimination continues how can there ever be equality? — Pinprick
No it doesn't lead to 95% male quotas, not if give preferential treatment to black women. I think you would agree with me no?That is what leads to “95% white male quotas.” As long as racial discrimination continues how can there ever be equality? — Pinprick
As long as racial discrimination continues how can there ever be equality? — Pinprick
Those seem like two sides of the same coin. It isn’t like white people don’t “justify” their racism. By stating that a particular race is better to appoint to a position, for whatever reason, you imply the other races are inferior. — Pinprick
The preferential treatment of white males over minorities has been harmful, disadvantageous, and unfair to them, has it not? — Pinprick
I guess I’m a bit Kantian at times, and this doesn’t pass the imperative test. — Pinprick
We know where this road leads. — Pinprick
Repeating the same acts (racial discrimination) that caused this problem in the first place doesn’t sound like a solution. — Pinprick
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.
Yes that is what I mean. You think all racial discrimination is equally wrong, but it isn't. It matter what the motive for discrimination is and what the consequences are. — Tobias
No it doesn't lead to 95% male quotas, not if give preferential treatment to black women. I think you would agree with me no? — Tobias
What do you mean by equality? — Tobias
Equal representation? — Tobias
Most certainly. — Tobias
Why not? — Tobias
However if the maxim is bringing about a more equal society it can, even by your own lights, because from your post it shows equality is important to you. — Tobias
Maybe not, but think about it and maybe that gut feeling will prove false. — Tobias
However do we already have a society where people with darker skin have the same opportunities as people with paler skin? No. — Tobias
Is this to be remedied by nominating another white male? — Fooloso4
I’m sure someone smarter than me could come up with a way to hold people, Biden in this case, accountable for whoever they select. — Pinprick
Maybe there should be a diverse group committee that decides instead of just one person. — Pinprick
Maybe presidents should have to “prove” that the person they choose for a position wasn’t due to racism, nepotism, sexism, etc. — Pinprick
I don't care as much about the appointee's demographic profile nearly as much as I'm concerned about whether s/he applies the 18th c. Constitution in a manner which reduces 21st c. injustices equitably (re: pro-Stakeholders) or whether s/he hog-ties 21st c. jurisprudence in an 18th c. Constitutional straitjacket (re: pro-Shareholders). So far, at this preliminary stage, none of Biden's candidates are partisans to 'the 18th c. straitjacket.' — 180 Proof
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. — 180 Proof
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". — 180 Proof
In sum: "equality" without power-sharing only camouflages and perpetuates systemic inequalities; Biden's appointment of a well-qualified black woman jurist to SCOTUS will be an instance of power-sharing by establishment White Men with Non-White Wo/Men and, thereby, another small step towards (securing) substantive equality in America. Do you agree? :chin:... this historical "quota" [95% white men] has not materially harmed the 'qualified others' but, in fact, has in many ways materially harmed the American people in general and American jurisprudence in particular ... — 180 Proof
It’s equally harmful. I don’t think whoever is being discriminated against cares about the motive. That it harms them is all that matters. — Pinprick
Well, right, but my point is that if this preferential treatment continued indefinitely, it would be the same thing, only the roles would be reversed. Instead of 95% white males we would have 95% black females. — Pinprick
Equal treatment of others. IOW’s no discrimination based on things like race, sex, religion, socio-economic status, etc. — Pinprick
Then why wouldn’t the preferential treatment of black females be harmful, disadvantageous, and unfair to other races/genders? — Pinprick
The categorical imperative is to imagine what would happen if everyone acted in such a way at all times. So I’ll ask you. What would happen if everyone showed preferential treatment to black women all the time? — Pinprick
Preferring one group over another doesn’t create equal opportunities. — Pinprick
Maybe, and I truly hope it does, but I wouldn’t hold my breath. — Pinprick
I agree, but the way to change this isn’t to bypass the process by selecting whichever group you prefer. There shouldn’t even be a group you prefer. — Pinprick
No, it is not obvious to me — NOS4A2
But at the same time this grandstanding can only serve to maintain a division where there isn’t one. — NOS4A2
This division, at every step, is born of pseudoscience and hatred, and reified by activities such as this. — NOS4A2
... it assumes that her, her family, or her friends have been on the wrong side of the justice system by virtue of her skin color, — NOS4A2
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.