All things Racist...USA edition (5 Viewers)

Farb said:

I do care. I was raised to speak out against racism.

Click to expand...

MT15 said:

we had over 200 years of filling all these positions with only white men

Click to expand...

@Farb, since you can see the obvious historical disparity and were raised to speak out against racism, how would you go about correcting this clearly racist imbalance without being intentional about selecting women of color?

If there weren't racism and sexism involved, shouldn't the current process have put a black woman on the supreme court by now? And since it hasn't, isn't it our job to correct that intentionally?

Is it your suggestion that intentionally undoing racist things is racist? That seems to be a recurring theme for you.

Article on how the GOP will respond to Biden's SCOTUS pick
===========================================

WASHINGTON — President Biden’s pledge to name a Black woman to fill a coming Supreme Court vacancy has thrust Republicans into a tricky political calculation, forcing them to confront how aggressive to be in opposing the nominee and how to do so without appearing to be racist and sexist.

While Supreme Court battles have become scorched-earth affairs in recent years, Republicans are weighing whether to wage all-out war or take a more tempered approach against Mr. Biden’s pick, particularly given that whomever the president chooses to succeed Justice Stephen G. Breyer will not change the conservative ideological tilt of the court.

Many of them recognize that a divisive fight could provide more fodder for Democrats to try to deepen the wedge between their party and African Americans before this year’s midterm elections. And while some take issue with Mr. Biden’s pre-emptive promise to name the first Black woman to the court, arguing that the choice should be based on merit rather than race or gender, Republicans enter the coming showdown fully aware that the groundbreaking nature of the president’s pick could make challenging the nominee far more fraught.

“The idea that race and gender should be the No. 1 and No. 2 criteria is not as it should be,” said Senator Susan Collins, Republican of Maine, who is regarded as a potential swing vote in favor of Mr. Biden’s pick. “On the other hand, there are many qualified Black women for this post and given that Democrats, regrettably, have had some success in trying to paint Republicans as anti-Black, it may make it more difficult to reject a Black jurist.”

Others say the historic nomination of the first Black female justice without the philosophical balance of the court in play could provide the opportunity for a reset after a series of confirmations enveloped by brutal partisanship, even if most Republicans ultimately oppose the choice.

“I think there is a lot of value in lowering the temperature,” said Senator Kevin Cramer, Republican of North Dakota..............

Another article
=============
Joe Biden hasn’t yet picked a nominee to fill the seat of retiring Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, but conservatives already know that the nominee is unqualified. After all, Biden has vowed to nominate a Black woman.

As New York magazine’s Jonathan Chait writes, conservative outlets are lamenting that Biden has elevated “skin color over qualifications,” accusing Biden of trying to foment “tribal warfare” and of engaging in “discrimination,” and insisting that the eventual nominee would be “an affirmative-action hire, a kind of a trophy in a display case. The token Black woman.”

One conservative legal commenter sneered that instead of his preferred choice, the president would be appointing a “lesser black woman.” Republican senators have already indicated that they will not support anyone Biden nominates, so it’s not like the nominee’s qualifications would actually make a difference to them.

If this all sounds somewhat familiar, it’s because the last time a Democratic president nominated a woman of color to the Court, legal elites on the right and the left insisted that Sonia Sotomayor was an unqualified affirmative-action pick who was chosen only because she is of Puerto Rican descent.

The idea that conservatives would not be making such arguments if Biden had not announced in advance that he would be appointing a Black woman is nonsense; Barack Obama did not announce any such criteria before nominating Sotomayor, and they said virtually the same things about her—conservatives attacked her as a “quota pick” who was chosen “because she’s a woman and Hispanic, not because she was the best qualified.”

At the time, Sotomayor had more judicial experience before being nominated than any other sitting justice, and that remains the case today, with the appointment of three new justices by Donald Trump.

Now, I could point out that, like Sotomayor, every person on the shortlist of potential nominees has impeccable credentials. I could note that Supreme Court seats have long been about ethnic-coalition politics and patronage, as Slate’s Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern have written.

I could point out that Ronald Reagan promised to appoint a woman to the bench during his campaign, because it was “time for a woman to sit among our highest jurists” and because such “appointments can carry enormous symbolic significance”; he ultimately nominated Sandra Day O’Connor.

I could point out Reagan’s ongoing concern with representation when he nominated Antonin Scalia because he wanted a candidate of Italian “extraction.”

I might note that George H. W. Bush’s nomination of Clarence Thomas to replace Thurgood Marshall, the first Black justice on the Court, was in keeping with previous eras’ tradition of having “Jewish” and “Catholic” seats.

I might argue that under Trump, who similarly pledged to appoint a woman before selecting Amy Coney Barrett, having a law degree and a crank blog was sufficient qualification for the federal bench.

And I could point out the absurdity of arguing that racism is when you first nominate a Black woman to the Supreme Court after more than 200 years, not when you exclude Black women from the nation’s highest court for more than 200 years.............

brandon said:

Is it your suggestion that intentionally undoing racist things is racist? That seems to be a recurring theme for you.

Click to expand...

It's damn near his mission statement, IMO.

Optimus Prime said:

and given that Democrats, regrettably, have had some success in trying to paint Republicans as anti-Black,

Click to expand...

Well, Susan, if you and your friends stopped saying the quiet part out loud again like you had for the entire modern GOP's existence, then maybe you could pretend not to be the party for the (white) people, by the (white) people.

Optimus Prime said:

MSN

www.msn.com

Click to expand...

From this same article
================

.....Rather, these attacks are meant to reiterate the narrative that liberals elevate unqualified Black Americans at the expense of others who are truly deserving, as part of a larger backlash narrative, one that echoes past eras in American history, in which advocacy for equal rights is turning white conservatives into an oppressed class.

Republicans will likely be unable to block the nominee, but they can extract a political price, motivate their own voters, and dull the historic significance of Biden’s choice by orienting the political conversation around the idea that another shiftless Negro is getting free stuff at others’ expense.

“Black women are, what, 6 percent of the U.S. population?” Senator Ted Cruz of Texas helpfully summarized on his podcast. “He’s saying to 94 percent of Americans, ‘I don’t give a damn about you.’” Cruz continued, “He’s saying, ‘If you’re a white guy, tough luck. If you’re a white woman, tough luck. You don’t qualify.’”

All of the nonwhite justices in American history would fill a third of the current Court. For Cruz, this is apparently far too many.......

Not sure where to put this but holy hell

superchuck500 said:

Not sure where to put this but holy hell

Click to expand...

American Taliban.

Farb said:

I don't know, what do you think?

Click to expand...

I think white people who feign a victim complex just to make a political point are laughable. Never mind that there isn't really an objective metric to rank judicial nominees. I see no problem with making selections based on the overall composition of the Court because the Court acts as one entity.

As mentioned, none of the religious zealots cried foul when Trump vowed to appoint a woman because he appointed walking Establishment Clause violation Amy 'Commie' Barrett. If you raised this point back then your argument now might have merit.

superchuck500 said:

Not sure where to put this but holy hell

Click to expand...

Five or six years ago this would have surprised me. Now, I am no longer surprised. This time frame is showing us the worst misogyny I can remember in my life. Folks used to be ashamed to say this stuff except privately. Now they are loud and proud of their hatefulness.

MT15 said:

Five or six years ago this would have surprised me. Now, I am no longer surprised. This time frame is showing us the worst misogyny I can remember in my life. Folks used to be ashamed to say this stuff except privately. Now they are loud and proud of their hatefulness.

Click to expand...

Here is hoping Jason Whitlock’s momma punches him right in the mouth.

MT15 said:

Five or six years ago this would have surprised me. Now, I am no longer surprised. This time frame is showing us the worst misogyny I can remember in my life. Folks used to be ashamed to say this stuff except privately. Now they are loud and proud of their hatefulness.

Click to expand...

Yeah his career has fallen off the deep end. It is truly sad.

He has not had a job with a reputable sports paper or network in a long time. So now he panders to fox to try to even get back to them.

He no longer works for the KC star, ESPN, or even fox he works for Blaze Media.

When you shirt the bed so many times fox sports won't have you Lord help ya.

MT15 said:

Five or six years ago this would have surprised me. Now, I am no longer surprised. This time frame is showing us the worst misogyny I can remember in my life. Folks used to be ashamed to say this stuff except privately. Now they are loud and proud of their hatefulness.

Click to expand...

He sure runs down that list of his negative qualities that have been pointed out about him and his takes pretty easily. Probably because that's who he's always been.

The moose said:

Yeah his career has fallen off the deep end. It is truly sad.

He has not had a job with a reputable sports paper or network in a long time. So now he panders to fox to try to even get back to them.

He no longer works for the KC star, ESPN, or even fox he works for Blaze Media.

When you shirt the bed so many times fox sports won't have you Lord help ya.

Click to expand...

Hey at least he told the truth. He is a sexist pig.

MT15 said:

You must have been particularly outraged then when Reagan did it, and Trump. Or even better yet, when we had over 200 years of filling all these positions with only white men. I’ll bet that really outraged you. Lol.

Seriously, I know I’ve been poking fun at you over this. But you’re smarter than to fall for the “it’s a crime” nonsense. At least I thought you were.

Show us a serious person who agrees that it would be illegal, if it is as you say.

Click to expand...

Farb is right that it is illegal today to fill a federal position based on race.


Can't go back 200 years to call it a crime, because it wasn't illegal before 1964. Ever since then, if you did discriminate, you had to do it covertly. Biden shouldn't have declared that the pool of applicants would be limited to black women, which is only about 7% of the population, so 93% of the population is being excluded. He should've just made that a major emphasis of his decision covertly, and if he viewed the candidates as a tie, then choose the black woman. I understand that it has value to provide a diverse point of view, but it taints the choice knowing that it wasn't a full and open competition, and it is unfair to the qualified candidates that are being excluded. It seems like reparations, rather than the dream to which MLK aspired of a color-blind society. I believe in giving people fair opportunities by using affirmative action, and using it as a tiebreaker due to its value, but I don't believe in excluding people outright. Why not choose a Hispanic LGBT woman, and that might limit the pool to 1 or 2 people? I think we can agree that would be ridiculous, but that would be the most oppressed group in history. They have no representation on the Supreme court. What about an Asian man or woman? Asians represent a larger portion of society than black women. What about a Hispanic man? They are a larger portion of society than black women without representation? It's all ridiculous.

bird said:

Hey at least he told the truth. He is a sexist pig.

Click to expand...

Yeah, that's just scratching the surface with him.

Here's Louisiana's very own embarrassment, John Kennedy, quoted yesterday:

Lapaz said:

Farb is right that it is illegal today to fill a federal position based on race.

Federal Law That Requires Racial Equality in the Workplace

Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act prohibits discriminatory practices in the workplace. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission enforces Title VII. State and federal laws for racial equality ensure that workers are not subject to discrimination based on their actual or perceived race.

work.chron.com

Can't go back 200 years to call it a crime, because it wasn't illegal before 1964. Ever since then, if you did discriminate, you had to do it covertly. Biden shouldn't have declared that the pool of applicants would be limited to black women, which is only about 7% of the population, so 93% of the population is being excluded. He should've just made that a major emphasis of his decision covertly, and if he viewed the candidates as a tie, then choose the black woman. I understand that it has value to provide a diverse point of view, but it taints the choice knowing that it wasn't a full and open competition, and it is unfair to the qualified candidates that are being excluded. It seems like reparations, rather than the dream to which MLK aspired of a color-blind society. I believe in giving people fair opportunities by using affirmative action, and using it as a tiebreaker due to its value, but I don't believe in excluding people outright. Why not choose a Hispanic LGBT woman, and that might limit the pool to 1 or 2 people? I think we can agree that would be ridiculous, but that would be the most oppressed group in history. They have no representation on the Supreme court. What about an Asian man or woman? Asians represent a larger portion of society than black women. What about a Hispanic man? They are a larger portion of society than black women without representation? It's all ridiculous.

Click to expand...

Their panties are in a bunch because he said it. Because he said it during the campaign and the situation occurred after he won. That is it, pure and simple. It is red meat for the base. It is likely that some Republicans don’t actually care, that some Republicans are rabid because it may not be a white, male even an incompetent one and that some Republicans care but aren’t real concerned. They have a 6-3 majority so concern isn’t overriding. What their ire actually is, is a circus and ”media” feeding frenzy. Needles get moved, buttons get pushed, so-called “real ‘Muricans“ get outraged which moves needles even more.

This is part of the bread-and-circuses.

Lapaz said:

Farb is right that it is illegal today to fill a federal position based on race.

Federal Law That Requires Racial Equality in the Workplace

Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act prohibits discriminatory practices in the workplace. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission enforces Title VII. State and federal laws for racial equality ensure that workers are not subject to discrimination based on their actual or perceived race.

work.chron.com

Can't go back 200 years to call it a crime, because it wasn't illegal before 1964. Ever since then, if you did discriminate, you had to do it covertly. Biden shouldn't have declared that the pool of applicants would be limited to black women, which is only about 7% of the population, so 93% of the population is being excluded. He should've just made that a major emphasis of his decision covertly, and if he viewed the candidates as a tie, then choose the black woman. I understand that it has value to provide a diverse point of view, but it taints the choice knowing that it wasn't a full and open competition, and it is unfair to the qualified candidates that are being excluded. It seems like reparations, rather than the dream to which MLK aspired of a color-blind society. I believe in giving people fair opportunities by using affirmative action, and using it as a tiebreaker due to its value, but I don't believe in excluding people outright. Why not choose a Hispanic LGBT woman, and that might limit the pool to 1 or 2 people? I think we can agree that would be ridiculous, but that would be the most oppressed group in history. They have no representation on the Supreme court. What about an Asian man or woman? Asians represent a larger portion of society than black women. What about a Hispanic man? They are a larger portion of society than black women without representation? It's all ridiculous.

Click to expand...

Title VII of the Civil Rights act doesn't apply to presidential appointments, so what Biden is doing isn't illegal. Farb is wrong here, in regards to SC appointments.

"Presidential appointees don’t follow the normal guidelines for federal employment," Cooper said. "If they have to be approved by the Senate, they are known as Political Appointees requiring Senate Approval (PAS), and if they are political appointees, but do not have to be approved by the Senate they area categorized as 'PA.' And the bottom line for both is that the president doesn’t have to show any sort of process, accept traditional applications, or do anything else that we normally associate with hiring in the public or for-profit sectors."

Click to expand...

Also, whether an employer discriminates "covertly" or explicitly, both are illegal if it can be proven in court.

I don't agree that this seems like reparations. It seems more to me like something that is long overdue. The jurist that will be nominated will be highly qualified. If you think Biden saying he would nominate a black female jurist before hand taints his choice, then so be it. I suppose I felt the same way with Trump announcing before hand that he would only nominate judges from the approved Federalist society. And to my consternation, it's played out exactly like I thought it would (i.e. a disaster). But my hope and expectation is that Biden's eventual nominee will bring a much needed perspective to the SC and be a credit to the court bringing some balance.