a person should be picked on their qualifications, not color, gender etc.. If the best candidates are Black women, so be it.
[deleted]
3 ups, 3y,
1 reply
The goal of picking the Supreme Court nominee should be the picking the best person for the job. Saying that you would pick only a black woman is;
1. Illegal under the civil right act,
2. Does not guarantee that the best nominee will be picked (although the best nominee may still fall within the narrowed parameters)
3. It is racist and sexist to believe that someone's gender or skin color has any effect on how they would perform a job.
@BR, why do you think a black woman wouldn't be the best for the job?
[deleted]
2 ups, 3y,
1 reply
It is possible that a black woman would be the best for the job. The problem is saying "black people are different from white people" is something a racist would say.
@BR, who said that? Different people bring different perspectives and it is better to have an inclusive court. Choosing who is "best" is subjective. By what criteria was Kavanaugh the best for the job?
[deleted]
2 ups, 3y,
1 reply
The goal of the court is to get the right answer, not get a diverse answer.
Say you were falsely arrested for a crime you didn't commit, would you want a diverse ruling or the correct ruling?
It’s not, other than the fact that race and gender aren’t attributes a person has control over.
But you didn’t answer the question. How is a race and gender litmus test good?
@7, as I said in another comment "Different people bring different perspectives and it is better to have an inclusive court. Choosing who is "best" is subjective. By what criteria was Kavanaugh the best for the job?"
By stating he’s going to pick a black woman, Biden automatically eliminated consideration of every other qualified candidate based on race and gender. In the business world that’s illegal, racist and gender biased. There aren’t any Asians, Polynesians or Indians on the Supreme Court (male or female) but there is a mix of Caucasian, hispanic and black justices. So, if it’s important to be inclusive, why has he eliminate consideration of anyone from these and other races?
@7, isn't that what Trump did by saying he was picking a conservative? I'd be happy if the SC reflected U.S. society: 50% female, 60 % white, 19% Latino, 12% African American, and 6% Asian. I'd be cool with a political breakdown based on the U.S., also: 31% Democrat, 25% Republican, and 41% Independent. Is that cool with you?
[deleted]
1 up, 3y,
6 replies
As long as they were Constitutionalists then nothing else matters.
Riddle me this, why did the Democrats fight so hard against Thomas?
@2, didn't have to because I was already doing it. However, I am glad that you have agreed to "obey the orders of the president of the United States."
[deleted]
0 ups, 3y
"I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;"
"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."
"according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."
The word "constitutionalist" can have multiple meanings. Many people who just want their way or want to impose their way on others call themselves "constitutionalists." For example, a "constitutionalist" could argue that the Air Force or Space Force is illegal because the Constitution only says the government can create an army and navy.
The Constitution is a living, breathing document designed to adjust to changes in society.
Here is a good article about that word and how some people are using it today: https://www.inlander.com/Bloglander/archives/2015/08/12/so-what-are-constitutionalists-and-why-would-a-deputy-worry-about-them
@2, glad to hear it! We need to stand up to those insurrectionists and racists who want to tear this country apart. Pres. Biden is trying to unite the country and get us back on track, but some are trying to oppose everything he recommends just because he is not in their political party. Just like they did with Pres. Obama: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B46km4V0CMY
[deleted]
0 ups, 3y
What are his recommendations?
The country is united aside from some idiots his poll numbers are way down.
@2A, the Constitution is often open to interpretation. It was written to allow it to change with the changing times. Democrats fought against him because of the allegations of sexual harassment. Their party supports both men AND women.
[deleted]
1 up, 3y
You have sadly swallowed the Democrat propaganda hook line and sinker.
It doesn't matter what Constitutionalist is nominated, the Dems will trump up something against them.
Bill Clinton smoked dope, Dems = COOL!
Bork smoked dope, Dems = REEEEEEEE!
No the Constitution is not open to interpretation, it IS able to be changed, by Constitutional means, not by courts.
They’re not *supposed to* legislate from the bench. But when their misinterpretation of existing laws change how they are enforced, that’s pretty much what they do.
@7, we could play this game all day. I can cite laws that conservative courts overturned, too. It's not a perfect system and that's why we have checks and balances. Letting everyone have a voice in government is included. There is no "master race" and giving others equal rights doesn't take away from your rights.
Yes, I’m sure you could find some examples. But in the end, Joe Biden still plans to make gender and race requirements for his nomination. No matter how you try to spin it, that’s wrong and you know it.
@7, if you think that there were not requirements for the other people on the bench you are pretty naïve. I am glad that you finally included a meme, though. Cheers!
Sure, there were requirements for the other people. But only Biden is dumb enough to blatantly show his racism and gender bias by announcing it. I feel sorry for whoever he picks since she will forever be labeled as the justice who was picked because of her sex and skin color.
@7, we have three branches of government and separation of powers. If one branch oversteps, one of the others can correct it. The judicial branch upholds the rule of law. For example, Civil Rights cases go there when conservative states try to deny minorities their rights.
That’s the theory but when the SC does things like saying Obamacare penalties for not signing up for health insurance is really a tax - even though the law was not written that way and Democrats repeatedly said “it’s not a tax, it’s a fee” - then they are not doing their job and, instead of ruling on the law as written, they basically rewrite the law which is what the legislature is supposed to do, not the court.
