- 3,712
- Elizabeth, New Jersey, USA
Welp, I hope we're all ready for an upcoming 7-2 conservative leaning supreme court.
America - The Official Thread
- Thread starter ///M-Spec
- 38,983 comments
- 1,695,997 views
Joey D
Premium
- 47,364
- Lakes of the North, MI
- GTP_Joey
- GTP Joey
It seems like a really bad look for Biden to come out and publically say that he would nominate a black woman. Whoever gets chosen is going to end up facing a slew of backlash as to whether she is the most qualified candidate or if she was picked merely to "check a box" on a campaign promise. Biden should've just kept his mouth shut, nominated a black woman, and then praised her for her work. Even the potential nominee has to be wondering if they were picked because Biden truly thinks they're the best, or if he's doing to just because they fit a certain demographic.
McLaren
Premium
- 45,391
- Texas
I wonder if Ketanji Brown Jackson is who he's hinting at. Background courtesy of Reddit:
"She’s very accomplished, young, a former clerk of Breyer, former editor of the Harvard law review and has the benefit of being recently confirmed to the US circuit court and confirmed with a senate vote of 53-44 in June, including confirmation from manchin and sinema. Good luck to McConnell on blocking her."
Last edited:
Joey D
Premium
- 47,364
- Lakes of the North, MI
- GTP_Joey
- GTP Joey
That's what I'm seeing too. And I think that background is pretty much what Biden should focus on. She's not being picked because she's a black woman, she's being picked because she's clearly a skilled judge with favorable bi-partisan Congressional support. She's also, apparently, pretty speedy when it comes to legal proceedings and has been quoted saying "Presidents aren't kings" which is an important stance in today's political climate. I think that speaks more about her than just her race or sex, which is what the media, on both sides of the spectrum is zeroing in on.I wonder if Ketanji Brown Jackson is who he's hinting at. Background courtesy of Reddit:
"She’s very accomplished, young, a former clerk of Breyer, former editor of the Harvard law review and has the benefit of being recently confirmed to the US circuit court and confirmed with a senate vote of 53-44 in June, including confirmation from manchin and sinema. Good luck to McConnell on blocking her."
Also, she's apparently related to Paul Ryan by marriage. Her husband is the twin brother to Ryan's brother-in-law and even Paul Ryan spoke highly of her, despite the big divide in their politics.
Danoff
Premium
- 33,937
- Mile High City
Trump did exactly the same thing (female, not black).
The democrats are the big champions of racial integration, affirmative action, and taking deliberate steps to ensure that racial minorities are represented in government. I don't see this as being in any way out of step with big democrat priorities or talking points. As long as Biden appoints someone qualified (which is not a given for the supreme court these days), and they're confirmed, it'll be a win.
I'd love to see the supreme court made up of only the absolute best most competent judges (who are willing to take the job), but not only is that a subjective goal, it's also not remotely achievable. I think we all have to just settle for competent, and sometimes get disappointed on even that. Maybe a black woman is the most competent judge in the land, but we'll never know because it is an unknowable and unmeasurable thing.
Last edited:
- 29,700
- a baby, candy, it's like taking.
- TexRex72
It seems likely that a black woman can be among qualified individuals. When an individual is deemed qualified and holds views deemed favorable, the factor used to decide one over others is invariably going to be something other than qualification and viewpoint.
- 13,140
- Seattle-ish
If Biden were to say "I have found a white man who is qualified to sit on the Supreme Court", everyone would shrug their shoulders and say "Okay?" Biden will shortly say "I have found a black woman who is qualified to sit on the Supreme Court", and everyone will go on and on about whether she really is qualified, if she was only picked for her race and/or gender, etc. That's an example of the structural racism at the heart of America. White man are assumed to be qualified (even when they clearly are not: See: Kavanaugh). But black women have to prove they are qualified beyond a shadow of a doubt and will still be seen by a large number of people as a nod to tokenism rather than a legitimate candidate.
Joey D
Premium
- 47,364
- Lakes of the North, MI
- GTP_Joey
- GTP Joey
This is why I think he shouldn't have made it a point to say he was going to nominate a black woman. Just nominate her and say he nominated the person he thought was best for the job. After reading up about Ketanji Brown Jackson, she's a good candidate regardless of her race or sex and much more than just a black, female judge.
And while I don't think Biden's intention was to make it about race or sex, he had to have known that it would be and that it was going to pull attention away from the candidate he chose. I can almost guarantee someone in Congress is going to bring up the fact that Biden said he was going to choose a black woman and use that as a sticking point. They'll probably even attempt to fundraise off of it too.
- 29,700
- a baby, candy, it's like taking.
- TexRex72
You know this was going to happen anyway, right? Just sub in "he did" for "he said he was going to." This is such a peculiar sticking point.
Edit: I'd lay odds there's already a WinRed/NRCC emotional extortion text going out. "Biden's nominating a black woman to the Supreme Court. Trump needs you now more than ever. Donate now to save America unless you've turned traitor!"
Last edited:
UKMikey
Premium
- 18,023
- Grea'er Laandan
- UKMikeyA
- UKMikeyA
It wouldn't be a conservative "moral" panic without a little hyperbolic overstatement. This is just in one Disney park, for a month. It's a variant. Why does every newspaper say she's ditching the traditional dress? To enrage the stupid and reactionary. And those dumb ****s eat it up. Every time.
Last edited:
- 13,847
- Adelaide
- Neomone
Wait, what? How the **** is that legal? Sending a pre-filled ballot seems super, super shady.
The thing is, he wouldn't have said "I have found a white man...". He would have said "I have found a person..." and we all would have assumed that he found a white man because that's the status quo.
If he had said "I have found a white man..." we all would have wondered why he wasted breath stating the obvious when it could have just been omitted. Why specifically would a white man be an important appointment?
By inserting race and sex into any statement of this sort it automatically raises the question of why race and sex are being mentioned with regard to the role. It's not that they're irrelevant, it's just an odd thing to bring up and hints at further meaning behind the speakers thoughts.
I think it's rather charming that they're normalising alternative sexual interests. It's remarkably progressive. Besides, it's not like she gets any less <ahem>attractive in a pant suit.
Last edited:
Danoff
Premium
- 33,937
- Mile High City
In my opinion, he did it on purpose. It's very consistent with democrat talking points and progressivism. It doesn't pull attention away from the candidate, it focuses attention on who he wants on the court.
20 years ago I probably would have thought that it was a complete waste and counter-productive to call out that he's naming a black woman on purpose. Today though, after Trump, it's maybe not. If we can get a qualified white male in the job, and that white male does outstanding legal work, then the supreme court has a good legal footing but sends a tiny bit of reinforcement of the last 4 years of veiled white supremacy from the executive. If we can get a qualified black woman in the job, and that black woman does outstanding legal work, then the supreme court has good legal footing AND a tiny bit of the damage caused over the last 4 years of veiled white supremacy may be undone.
The supreme court is a public position that doesn't only serve a role as a court, but also a figurative role. Stating that a black woman will be that figure is a nod to the importance of that role.
Trump said he was going to name a woman. Does everyone focus on whether she's qualified because Trump said he was going to pick a woman? No, I don't think so. Sure, she's maybe unqualified, but not because she's a woman. She's a terrible choice because Trump wanted someone like that. But Biden puts "black" in front of that statement, suddenly everyone is going to think she's unqualified because she was picked only based on her skin color? If they're thinking that now, they were probably going to think it anyway.
It's not what I would have done, but I'm not a democrat - this is core democrat philosophy.
Last edited:
- 29,700
- a baby, candy, it's like taking.
- TexRex72
Maybe you're just jumping on it, but this appears to have been in jest.
Crenshaw's had applications for mail-in ballots sent out rather than actual ballots. Applicants must still meet eligibility requirements for voting by mail.
Of course, the GOP's position is that mail-in ballots are primed for fraud, and so it's odd that a GOP candidate would endorse the method in this manner...or it would be if the GOP's default was anything other than bad faith.
Biden's explicitly not overlooking a demographic that has historically been overlooked. It may be genuine or it may be pandering, but in the case of the latter, it's sort of like the rule of goats* flipped on its head; in pandering, he's still selecting a member of a demographic that has historically been overlooked.
*Even if you say you're only ****ing goats ironically, you're still a goat****er.
I mean...I'm a dress guy. I tend to prefer those dresses be worn by actual real human women, however.
Last edited:
Danoff
Premium
- 33,937
- Mile High City
Senator Ron Johnson:
"People decide to have families and become parents. That's something they need to consider when they make that choice," Johnson told local Wisconsin TV station WKBT. "I've never really felt it was society's responsibility to take care of other people's children."
This is in response to child tax credits.
I'm completely on board with people determining whether they can support children before becoming parents. And I'm even on board with society not being required to support people who have children. I'm not on board with society not being responsible for children though, that completely misunderstands what it is to be a child.
Children are members of society, and they're members of society that are particularly vulnerable, both institutionally and biologically. The alternative to helping parents take care of their children is to take care of those children directly. Senator Johnson sortof insinuates that the alternative to helping parents take care of their children is that the children are simply not taken care of. Somehow the children are doomed to improper care if their parents simply didn't think it through - which is wrong. If parents cannot take care of their children, their children need new caregivers, because they need care.
Senator Johnson missed the mark when he said it's not society's responsibility to take care of... children. He should have said it's not society's responsibility to take care of parents. But even then, it oversimplifies the obvious fallout.
"People decide to have families and become parents. That's something they need to consider when they make that choice," Johnson told local Wisconsin TV station WKBT. "I've never really felt it was society's responsibility to take care of other people's children."
This is in response to child tax credits.
I'm completely on board with people determining whether they can support children before becoming parents. And I'm even on board with society not being required to support people who have children. I'm not on board with society not being responsible for children though, that completely misunderstands what it is to be a child.
Children are members of society, and they're members of society that are particularly vulnerable, both institutionally and biologically. The alternative to helping parents take care of their children is to take care of those children directly. Senator Johnson sortof insinuates that the alternative to helping parents take care of their children is that the children are simply not taken care of. Somehow the children are doomed to improper care if their parents simply didn't think it through - which is wrong. If parents cannot take care of their children, their children need new caregivers, because they need care.
Senator Johnson missed the mark when he said it's not society's responsibility to take care of... children. He should have said it's not society's responsibility to take care of parents. But even then, it oversimplifies the obvious fallout.
Joey D
Premium
- 47,364
- Lakes of the North, MI
- GTP_Joey
- GTP Joey
Biden isn't even remotely progressive and I don't think he even likes progressive Democrats. Biden is closer to what the Republican Party used to be before it fell off the rails. If he truly is trying to win over progressives, he's doing so in a really pandering sort of way and feels kind of Trumpy in the regard. If he really wanted to win the hearts and minds of progressives he'd actually put forth some of their agenda, or at least cancel student debt like he promised he would. It's almost like he sat down with his advisors and asked "so how do we win over young people?" and took the least risky approach while trying to talk it up...which is a very Trumpy thing to do.
I still don't like Biden's approach here. While I like the presumptive candidate, I would think highly of them regardless of their race or sex. Brown Jackson is qualified and sounds like a good person for the job, let's focus on that instead of focusing on the fact she's black and a woman, which is exactly what all the mainstream media is doing, from CNN to MSNBC to Fox News.
Danoff
Premium
- 33,937
- Mile High City
I think Biden (especially when you consider Obama and Kamala) really does care about the issue of marginalized minority groups, and I think it's hyper critical of you to say that him supporting something that is a core democrat position - diversity - is somehow not genuine simply because he can't win Manchin over on build back better. He doesn't need to cancel student loan debt in order to care about diversity.
Edit:
And I think calling him not remotely progressive is also not fair. Not that "progressive" is praise in my book, but he's definitely on that side of the fence.
It's not what I would do, but I get it. I get calling out that it's important, and he made it clear in his statement that being qualified for the job is not something that's being compromised here.
Biden is being super consistent on this.
Last edited:
- 2,900
- United Kingdom
Why is it a "black woman" and not a "woman of colour" that is being considered?
EDIT: Meaning, why aren't Asian, Hispanic, Native Americans and others being included
EDIT: Meaning, why aren't Asian, Hispanic, Native Americans and others being included
Last edited:
- 29,700
- a baby, candy, it's like taking.
- TexRex72
Is he, though?
I think he's taking into consideration the viewpoints of various segments of the constituency. I think he's probably giving too much ground to segments that don't represent close to a majority of the Democratic base, but I don't think his views align with theirs. I think if we were getting individual Biden rather than representative Biden, we would be seeing someone a lot more like GWB.
I suspect black women are wildly underrepresented in the justice system proportional to the population. Indeed this has been pointed to by critics of the move.
Justice Sotomayor is a woman of color.
Danoff
Premium
- 33,937
- Mile High City
GWB is the one that pushed the prescription drug entitlement program, which was progressive (and which I criticized him for).
Biden's not Bernie, and if that's what it takes to be progressive, then fine, he's not. That's not how I'm using the term. His child tax credits alone are progressive. But also tons of stuff in BBB, as well as the infrastructure plan, are progressive. Manchin has been chipping away at that, but Biden's proposal was to the left (slightly) of American center.
Biden has been on the left, and pushing leftward, for the last 20 years (I say 20, because that's about how long I've been paying attention). 20 years ago he was shockingly progressive. Now he's not on the outskirts of the democrats anymore, but to say that he's not progressive I think is not correct. I admit that it depends on how you use the term.
The most conservative thing I've seen Biden do is be reluctant to call for the erosion of the filibuster, and he's come around on that.
Last edited:
- 3,712
- Elizabeth, New Jersey, USA
I would say it's his reactionary stance on marijuana. It's clear that he won't budge on the issue, and likely for purely ideological/moral reasons, and was the most staunchly anti-marijuana candidate in the 2020 democratic primary. He hasn't even expressed support for decriminalizing/de-scheduling recreational marijuana, let alone freeing nonviolent marijuana "offenders".
The only justification for this which I can surmise, other than pure ideology, is that old folks elected Biden, Biden himself is one of the old folks, and old folks are generally against Marijuana, therefore Biden is just keeping the old folks content
Last edited:
