There's no disadvantage to hiring a black woman to the supreme court, so why shouldn't Biden do that seeing as it will help to more accurately reflect the country's demographics and (very slightly) reduce the absolute stranglehood one minority (white men) have on power in the judicial, legislative and executive branches. No downside, some upside. But even that minor dent in white male supremacy will be resisted by perfidious right wingers crying about "discrimination". The argument seems to be that though this demographic has cheated its way to the top for hundreds of years, it should get to keep absolute power because any incursion into that power is... cheating. But, of course, they can't say that directly, so will try to obfuscate by declaring it prejudice to even recognize any of the demographics that were cheated. And, bingo, the crime and any possible redress disappears. Absolutely specious positioning that deserves zero respect.

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

Agreed, that is why I used it as an example of arbitrary classifications. When I applied to law firms they asked me to submit a list of grades. I was good at making exams so I became a legal theoretician at uni ;) Though being good at law exams says nothing about being successful at writing a PhD either...

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

Be sure to contact me when you are puzzled about legal theory, that is my field. Your remarks about law are silly in general, not just in the case Dutch law. Your other points are just a repetition of moves.

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

why would 'qualifications' whatever they may be, be the sole criterion that is relevant?

What ten white people? :chin: — frank

:blush:

No. A candidate from a pool of 'well-qualified black women' is preferred by an old white man — 180 Proof

And that’s fine, as long as the preference isn’t for white males? Why is preferring one race over another ok? Is it ok in any other situations?

Yeah, I also believe in "world peace", but ... :roll: — 180 Proof

But what? There seems to be a contradiction in agreeing with a law that prohibits racial discrimination, and also agreeing with excluding all but one race from consideration.

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

Perhaps, but I’m not going to try guessing what people believe.

Maybe you think all discrimination is equal, but it isn't. — 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?

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

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.

Why would preferential treatment be harmful, disadvantageous or unfair? — Tobias

The preferential treatment of white males over minorities has been harmful, disadvantageous, and unfair to them, has it not? I guess I’m a bit Kantian at times, and this doesn’t pass the imperative test. We know where this road leads. Repeating the same acts (racial discrimination) that caused this problem in the first place doesn’t sound like a solution.

It says nothing about all kinds of other qualities. — Tobias

I have no issue with discrimination based on characteristics.

:yawn:

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

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.

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?

As long as racial discrimination continues how can there ever be equality? — Pinprick

What do you mean by equality? Equal representation? Well if that is the equality you mean we need to step up efforts of preferential treatment for all kinds of groups.

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

No of course not. White people justified their racism in the past by stating that other races were inferior. They did not justify it by arguments of equal representation or the need to diversify our perspectives. they could not since they thought their perspective was superior. right or wrong depend on context and argument. No preferential treatment policy makes that argument.

The preferential treatment of white males over minorities has been harmful, disadvantageous, and unfair to them, has it not? — Pinprick

Most certainly.

I guess I’m a bit Kantian at times, and this doesn’t pass the imperative test. — Pinprick

Why not? It cannot be because "discrimination is wrong" because we always ddiscriminate on all kinds of grounds. You choose for instance who you want to hire and what your grounds for it are, who you want to allow in your house and so on. For Kant what matters is the motive. No we cannot want everyone to start favoring a certain group over another in other to attain dominance for your own group. If everyone one would do that we would get a war of all against all. 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.

We know where this road leads. — Pinprick

That is not a Kantian argument but a slippery slope fallacy.

Repeating the same acts (racial discrimination) that caused this problem in the first place doesn’t sound like a solution. — Pinprick

Maybe not, but think about it and maybe that gut feeling will prove false. And of course it must end somewhere. However do we already have a society where people with darker skin have the same opportunities as people with paler skin? No.

The preferential treatment of white males over minorities has been harmful, disadvantageous, and unfair to them, has it not? — Pinprick

Is this to be remedied by nominating another white male?

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.

The racial makeup of a court is irrelevant to law and the function of a court. Not to mention, historically speaking, the only ones concerned with the racial makeup of the court were of the racist variety. This is reason enough to avoid race-based hiring or nominations, to say nothing of the ethics.

But now we have this quandary of “representation”, as if justice will be accessible so long as millions of people can point to a similar pigment in the epidermis of nine judges. Racism has enough narcissism built into it, why add more?

Mind your own business Canadian. :grin:

The racial makeup of a court is irrelevant to law and the function of a court. — NOS4A2

You are woefully uninformed. Neither the law nor the courts are racially neutral.

Apparently you are not familiar with Jim Crow laws or Thurgood Marshall.

It was certainly relevant wherever the law was unjust and the court racist, sure. But that’s no argument that it is now or ought to be.

It was certainly relevant wherever the law was unjust and the court racist, sure. But that’s no argument that it is now or ought to be. — NOS4A2

I repeat, you are woefully uninformed.

You are unable to explain why the racial makeup of the court is relevant to law or the court’s function.

The reason is simple and should be obvious. There is a disproportionate number of black citizens who have been convicted and sentenced to prison. Those whose own experience, which includes that of family and friends, is closer to those who have been incarcerated are more likely not only to be aware of the disparity but to have suffered from it. Their judicial decisions are far more likely to this into consideration than those who receive, at worst, a slap on the wrist.

The fact that you, along with Chief Justice John Roberts, are isolated from and are unaware of such disparity, imagining that the days when the law and courts were unjust is in the past, is a powerful argument in favor of more racial diversity.

Are you chaps aware of the concept of tokenism? It's the grownup version of Uncle Tom. So, for example, you promote a vertically challenged lesbian female to be head of the Metropolitan Police, on the understanding that she will both exemplify the non existence of, and vigorously deny the existence of, misogyny and homophobia, (and racism, for good luck) in the police. I imagine the Supreme Court works the same way.

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

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.

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

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.

What do you mean by equality? — Tobias

Equal treatment of others. IOW’s no discrimination based on things like race, sex, religion, socio-economic status, etc.

Equal representation? — Tobias

This ideal is shortsighted in my opinion. Equal representation depends on equal interest in particular fields across all races, genders, etc. I have no reason to think that exists.

For example, suppose we wanted equal representation for female mechanics. Does this desire justify a trade school for mechanics only accepting female applicants? Do you think there’s just as many females that want to be a mechanic as males?

Now, this isn’t to deny that additional barriers may exist for certain demographic groups due to things like racism and sexism. And when that occurs it is unequivocally wrong, and work needs to continue to be done to improve the situation. But preferential treatment isn’t how to do so. Equality acts, like the equal opportunity laws I mentioned previously, is how you bring about change. If Biden were serious about this then why not extend these laws to cover appointed positions as well? We expect the average manager at business X to follow these laws, surely we should expect the same of our political leaders.

Most certainly. — Tobias

Then why wouldn’t the preferential treatment of black females be harmful, disadvantageous, and unfair to other races/genders?

Why not? — Tobias

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?

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

Preferring one group over another doesn’t create equal opportunities.

Maybe not, but think about it and maybe that gut feeling will prove false. — Tobias

Maybe, and I truly hope it does, but I wouldn’t hold my breath.

However do we already have a society where people with darker skin have the same opportunities as people with paler skin? No. — Tobias

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.

Is this to be remedied by nominating another white male? — Fooloso4

No, I’m not saying another white male should be selected. I’m not saying I have all the answers, but 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. Maybe there should be a diverse group committee that decides instead of just one person. Maybe presidents should have to “prove” that the person they choose for a position wasn’t due to racism, nepotism, sexism, etc. The NFL has what’s known as “The Rooney Rule”, which admittedly has not worked out that well, but I think that has more to do with enforcement of the rule than anything else.

Whatever promotes equal opportunity and kills rap culture. For the sake of all of us foreigners, wanting crime glorification to stop. If a black female judge in the Surpreme Court promotes that, fine.

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

This is the role of the Senate.

Maybe there should be a diverse group committee that decides instead of just one person. — Pinprick

It is not decided by one person, it is decided by the Senate, although it is not as diverse as many think is should be.

Maybe presidents should have to “prove” that the person they choose for a position wasn’t due to racism, nepotism, sexism, etc. — Pinprick

Again, this is the work of Senate. They have the power (or at least certain members do in some cases such as when Mitch arbitrarily blocked Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland and vowed to block any nomination by Biden if the Republicans have the majority in 2024), to approve or disapprove of a nomination. It is not a unilateral process.

Yea, it's just important for young black females to see someone like themselves up there among the elder statesmen. The rest of the concerns are minor.

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

... 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

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:

:point: Are you for more power-sharing or less?

No, it is not obvious to me that someone who has been convicted and sentenced to prison, or who is similar in skin-tone to others who may have had such experiences (which is everyone), are better suited to the highest court in the land—nor is it obvious that someone’s epidermis can afford him some ability, or otherwise prohibit him, from taking such experiences into consideration.

Instead, it’s obvious to me that these insidious generalizations are born of race-thinking and other assumptions, all of it premised on bogus taxonomies. You want her skin color to matter, is the problem, like everyone else who tries to divide the species into such tenuous and superficial categories. There is some symbolic self-interest in it for you, perhaps even in most of us. But at the same time this grandstanding can only serve to maintain a division where there isn’t one. This division, at every step, is born of pseudoscience and hatred, and reified by activities such as this.

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

No it is not. Say you are robbed of your money by a gang of thieves. That is harmful. Every year that same sum of money is being taxed by the state. You are losing the same amount of money. Equally harmful? Of course not. So motives matter.

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

Yes, 'if'. But there is no reason for it to go on idenfinately because the motive is not superiority, but making starting positions equal. When that happens and they are more or less equal, there is no need for preferential treatment anymore. It is only harmful if you smuggle in some extra assumptions.

Equal treatment of others. IOW’s no discrimination based on things like race, sex, religion, socio-economic status, etc. — Pinprick

But on other criteria it is somehow miraculously fine? Equal treatment is a funny thing. Take traffic fines. In principles the fines are equal right? However, say millionaire has to pay a traffic fine of 100 dollars for a traffic violation. For the same traffic violation, a man or lady with two jobs who barely makes end meet has to pay 100 dollars as well. Who is more severely harmed by the apparently 'equal' traffic fines?

Then why wouldn’t the preferential treatment of black females be harmful, disadvantageous, and unfair to other races/genders? — Pinprick

Because they are a marginalized group, others aren't, see above.

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

Well we would probably have a society such as ours but with black women at the helm instead of white man... If we can want this society we can also want that one. Anyway, that is not how Kant works. According to Kantian logic we have to find the root cause first as our maxim. That would likely be can we want a world in which everyone discriminates according to certain categories. And I think a point can be made that we have an imperfect duty not to discriminate and I would agree. However there might be other overriding considerations as imperfect duties are not absolute. I digress however.

Preferring one group over another doesn’t create equal opportunities. — Pinprick

Hoh! Pushing my mug of beer firmly on the table as if I made some kind of point!

Maybe, and I truly hope it does, but I wouldn’t hold my breath. — Pinprick

I also do not. I am not a big fan of preferential treatment and do not know if it works but I see no harm in it in this case and some benefits sometimes. Mind you, not all the time. Policy is very context dependent.

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

I agree race is a bogus concept, but even though race is a bogus concept ,it caused divisions that last well into the present day. We want that changed, but it is as it is. In certain institutions as I have argued before, it is good to have a plethora of perspectives. That might well include black women, but might also include a Muslim, a person from the working class, somebody with autism or ADHD (provided they have the qualifications).

No, it is not obvious to me — NOS4A2

Right, it is not obvious to you, you are oblivious, as is clear from the following:

But at the same time this grandstanding can only serve to maintain a division where there isn’t one. — NOS4A2

One only need look at the disproportionate treatment of Blacks by law enforcement, the courts, and the prison system. But you can bury your head in the sand and pretend things are different, because systematic racism does not affect you because of your skin color.

This division, at every step, is born of pseudoscience and hatred, and reified by activities such as this. — NOS4A2

This is certainly part of it, but you have it backwards. "Race thinking" is not something new, created by those who recognize racial disparities, it is a response to racial hatred. Do you really not know this?

:up:

:up:

You look at the disproportionate representation of certain skin colors in prison, and then someone comes along and shows the same disproportionate representation in violent criminal activity such as murder. Any implications derived from these proportions are sinister, but false, because both use the specious race variable in order to make predictions about individuals. The fact remains that not all people you call Black or White have the same experiences as everyone else who occupies their position in the color spectrum. The fact remains that individuals, not races, are found in prison, commit crimes, are victims of crime, etcetera.

One of the potential nominees has a father who was cop, which falls outside your assumptions that, by virtue of her skin color alone, her experience is somehow “closer to those who have been incarcerated”. Not only is the assumption wrong, it’s odious; 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, when exactly the opposite is the case. False assumptions such as these are the direct result of methodological racism, just like every racist act, policy, or system throughout history.

How about looking at the difference in sentencing and punishment for the same crime? The "war on drugs" is a prime example.

... 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

In a sense that is largely true, but not because of anything they may have done but because being Black puts them on the wrong side of the justice system with regard to how they are likely to be treated. The expression "driving while Black" comes from experience. An experience you will have no knowledge of unless you are aware of the need to educate yourself regarding such matters.

:100:

Money is power.

Isn't the right wing's fave slogan "No taxation without representation"? But when attempts are made to give minority demographics' representation, they fight it tooth and nail, mostly with strawmen and red herrings. Just to make it clear, this is not about giving a judge a job because of their demographic (the judge gets the appointment proximately because they are considered qualified) and it's not about a different application of the law because of a demographic (minority judges may be of any ideological persuasion). It's about achieving more equal representation of a demographic. It's that simple. If you object to the appointment, that is what you are objecting to. Nothing else. Own it.