Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
19 hours ago, Edman85 said:

I am sure the nominee will be qualified, but that doesn't make the Democrats' obsession with identity politics any less icky to me. Don't both sides me on this as obviously the GOP has their own issues here. I think it just drives back to using data analysis, and demographic data is just what they have to play with.

I see it less as liberals’ obsession with identity politics than I do as liberals pushing back on conversatives’ traditional obsession with maintaining white male exclusivity in politics.

This is not unlike saying affirmative action is bad because all it does is give jobs to unqualified coloreds because of their identity, when the point is to open up positions to highly qualified people of color who’d been completely shut out from them before based on their identity.

Posted
37 minutes ago, mtutiger said:

The focus on identity on this subject is weird considering how politicized this process is, and how political views are an "identity" in and of themselves.

When conservatives talk about "identity politics" they usually mean enabling uppity blacks, but they could be talking about other races, women, and teh gays, too. "Identity" implies immutability.

Posted
1 hour ago, chasfh said:

I see it less as liberals’ obsession with identity politics than I do as liberals pushing back on conversatives’ traditional obsession with maintaining white male exclusivity in politics.

This is not unlike saying affirmative action is bad because all it does is give jobs to unqualified coloreds because of their identity, when the point is to open up positions to highly qualified people of color who’d been completely shut out from them before based on their identity.

female supreme court appointments:

democrats: 3

republicans: 2

black supreme court appointments:

democrats: 1

republicans 1

ah yes, "conservatives" and their traditional obsessions with white male exclusivity in politics.  For almost all of american history, both liberals and conservatives were all about white male exclusivity in politics.

and the gender barrier was broken by noted liberal ronald reagan.

Posted
20 minutes ago, mtutiger said:

That's different because clearly that's just different.

well yeah.  i'm not saying republicans dont do the same optics that democrats do, i'm pushing back on chas' claim that conservatives identity politics is just white males.  EVERYBODY'S politics in american history was white males, not just conservatives.  and conservatives have nominated almost as many non-white males to the courts as liberals.

 

Posted
5 minutes ago, buddha said:

well yeah.  i'm not saying republicans dont do the same optics that democrats do, i'm pushing back on chas' claim that conservatives identity politics is just white males.  EVERYBODY'S politics in american history was white males, not just conservatives.  and conservatives have nominated almost as many non-white males to the courts as liberals.

 

That sarcasm wasn't so much directed at you, fwiw. We are pretty aligned on this topic.

Posted

After the '52 election Ike promised that he would appoint Earl Warren when a vacancy on the court occurred.  Before that Warren was a politician, ran for President a few times, and was on the ticket with Dewey as VP candidate.  He was never a judge.  He was pretty active politically in the GOP. (Like Kavanaugh?)  He also supported Japanese internment.    I really don't see any difference between saying you promise to appoint an individual or a "kind of individual".   Was Warren the most "qualified"?  I don't even know what that means in relation to a SC justice.

 

 

Posted

Eisenhower also wanted to appoint a Catholic to the bench. He reportedly told his Attorney General "I still want to find some fine, prominent Catholic to nominate to the bench" according to historians.

William Brennan Jr even confirmed the story in an interview with Irish America magazine after his appointment. 

Posted
32 minutes ago, oblong said:

After the '52 election Ike promised that he would appoint Earl Warren when a vacancy on the court occurred.  Before that Warren was a politician, ran for President a few times, and was on the ticket with Dewey as VP candidate.  He was never a judge.  He was pretty active politically in the GOP. (Like Kavanaugh?)  He also supported Japanese internment.    I really don't see any difference between saying you promise to appoint an individual or a "kind of individual".   Was Warren the most "qualified"?  I don't even know what that means in relation to a SC justice.

 

 

these days most qualified means creative writing skills to make it look like the founding fathers agreed with you.  And also making it look like what the founding fathers thought is important.

Posted
29 minutes ago, oblong said:

After the '52 election Ike promised that he would appoint Earl Warren when a vacancy on the court occurred.  Before that Warren was a politician, ran for President a few times, and was on the ticket with Dewey as VP candidate.  He was never a judge.  He was pretty active politically in the GOP. (Like Kavanaugh?)  He also supported Japanese internment.    I really don't see any difference between saying you promise to appoint an individual or a "kind of individual".   Was Warren the most "qualified"?  I don't even know what that means in relation to a SC justice.

 

 

that's the thing, people talk about who is "qualified" and who isnt.  what's the "qualification"?  plenty of people from all sorts of different backgrounds have been successful jurists.

just get a smart person who writes well.  that's the important thing.

there are sites that will score judges on their writing ability: clarity, conciseness, argument.  of the people mentioned as potential candidates they all score well.  brown is a little lower than the others, but the others score very high.  almost all the current members of the court - liberal and conservative - scored very high.  everyone who biden is talking about nominating will be more than "qualified."

Posted
19 hours ago, buddha said:

and they definitely should be nominating more justices that went to law schools other than harvard and yale.

Benjamin H Barton, a law professor at University of Tennessee had an excellent opinion piece in today’s WSJ that is specific to your point.

Posted (edited)
22 hours ago, buddha said:

female supreme court appointments:

democrats: 3

republicans: 2

black supreme court appointments:

democrats: 1

republicans 1

ah yes, "conservatives" and their traditional obsessions with white male exclusivity in politics.  For almost all of american history, both liberals and conservatives were all about white male exclusivity in politics.

and the gender barrier was broken by noted liberal ronald reagan.

We were talking in generalities, but whatever, cool anecdote, brah.

Edited by chasfh
Posted
39 minutes ago, chasfh said:

We were talking in generalities, but whatever, cool anecdote, brah.

that's not an anecdote, but at least you got to use the word "brah" in a derogatory way.  so good job.

Posted
54 minutes ago, buddha said:

that's not an anecdote, but at least you got to use the word "brah" in a derogatory way.  so good job.

Anecdotes deal in examples and not data, so, yeah, anecdote.

Posted
6 minutes ago, chasfh said:

Selective data is. Brah.

no it isnt.  and "selective data".  ok chas.  lol.

data that disproves your point is "selective."  with an insult on top of it!  lol.

this is all an exercise so you can call someone a "brah".

Posted (edited)
35 minutes ago, buddha said:

its like calling someone "chief", without the racism.

 

oh, so like chief of staff?  or chief executive?   commander in chief?  when I call you and/or eswieg and/or Archie chief?

Edited by pfife
  • Haha 1

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...