Biden did the right thing. He is correct (and ironically, so is Lindsay Graham). It is long overdue to have a black woman on the court.
Thing is, Biden likely KNEW from his time in the Obama administration that there were superbly qualified black women capable of being a Supreme Court justice. Ones who merited the role in every way. Obama had 3 nominations and given Biden's experience in the Senate, he almost certainly played a role in reviewing the candidates. No doubt, some were black women and I'm sure at least a few were excellent candidates.
When Biden ran for president, he already knew these excellent candidates -- from these prior nomination cycles. He may have even thought one of these women should have been nominated by Obama.
Or more likely, not qualified for the job. Biden has voted for plenty of R nominated judges and justices, including Supreme Court justices nominated by Bush, Reagan and Ford.
Her only non-qualification was that the Democrats wanted to not lose the ability to pander to the left by putting the first black woman on the court. She would have been just as qualified as any of those the media has put forth as options for Biden to pick, many with very little experience in the courts and one with no experience at all.
We gave women special consideration with the 19th amendment, and the Blacks, with the voting rights act of 1965, isn’t that enough? Why should we give women of color special consideration, isn’t giving them the right to vote enough? I mean, aren’t we making women of color more human by giving them special consideration? Who cares if the ideology of racism and sexism held them back? Who do they think they are? And oh yes, Pres. Biden is being politically incorrect. How dare he offend so many people!
The folks are going to find supporters using unrelated criterion for monopolizing the steering wheel. If a steering committee comprised of five able (competent and strong) people and fifteen unfit people, all real decision – making power would soon be concentrated into the hands of these five people (history offers a lot of examples of this provision). Now, the people who are potentially able to run national or state business (because of their personal qualities) comprised a minority, which is hardly over 7% of the population (this is an optimistic estimate, which based on the common estimate of the ability of conducting independent business). This are the people, whom the elite have to consider in the democratic society: with whom the elite often have to negotiate, whose understanding the elite have to take into considerations, whom the elite is recruiting from (at slow rate, though). Now, the black women would be given “the priority”. Blacks amount 15% of US population, and so black women amount 7% of US population. Thus, now the elite have to consider only 7% x 7% = 0.5% of the whole population. Nice! Is this a democracy? Is this an anti-racism? Is this an anti - … -ism? No, this is cover-up for authoritarianism!
Well black women are about 7%, which is low enough, without that misapplied calculation, unless you're saying that 7% of black women are qualified lawyers.
I don't mean that only lawyers may be the active actor of social life (leaders, etc.); moreover, critically thinking and active people often are not lawyers. I want to say that usually only about 7% of population are able to maintain a constructive attitude toward the social life, and are able to follow their own judgment and logic. Most of the people are "following the suite" and "go with the flow". The percentage of such people among black women are expected to be nearly the same, 7 out of 100 black women.
By the way, "qualified lawyers" are often good leaders only in "smooth, peaceful" times. Turbulent times require another type of people. Lincoln said of his legal education that "I studied with nobody." Roosevelt earned BA in history; he entered Columbia Law School in 1904 but dropped out in 1907, and cared little for the legal practice.
intelligence, In education, the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or challenging situations. In psychology the term may more specifically denote the ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one’s environment or to think abstractly as measured by objective criteria (such as the IQ test). Intelligence is usually thought of as deriving from a combination of inherited characteristics and environmental (developmental and social) factors. The subject remains hotly debated, and many have tried to show that either biology (especially genes) or environment (especially conditions reflecting socioeconomic class) are more or less exclusively responsible for producing differences in intelligence. Particularly contested have been studies purporting to show links between ethnic heritage and intelligence, most of which have not been accepted in the scientific community. General intelligence is often said to comprise various specific abilities (verbal ability, ability to apply logic in solving problems, etc.), but critics contend that such compartments fail to reflect the nature of cognition and that other models, perhaps based on information processing, are needed. High intelligence (as measured by tests) is sometimes shown to correlate with social achievement, but most experts believe other factors are important and that intelligence is no guarantor of success (and its lack is no guarantor of failure).
Yeah Penny, I believe that Biden made the vow during the campaign to woo some votes. Even if I was in his spot and thought I should look for a qualified black woman (I in fact would, there are certainly plenty of qualified black women and that would add some valuable perspective to the bench), I wouldn’t be so stupid as to make it a concrete commitment. Do the right reviews and make a good choice.
thing is, Biden almost certainly DID Supreme Court reviews during the Obama years -- the last Obama nominee came in 2016. Biden knew the field of candidates. If someone was highly qualified in 2016, they are almost certainly highly qualified now.
Biden didn't start from scratch, he knew what he had.
"...will make the nominee look foolish, and it will undermine respect for her."
I disagree. You're looking at it from a logical, evenhanded perspective. To the left, it's ONLY about power and winning, no matter how it's done. There is no nuance. In this case, the left can say: "We TOLD you we were going to shove our identity politics nominee down your throat...and now we've DONE it! What are you going to do about it?"
"To the left, it's ONLY about power and winning, no matter how it's done. There is no nuance."
Yeah! I know what you mean! Like when that left-wing nutcase Mitch McConnell shoved his Supreme Court identity politics down a sitting president's throat by not allowing Obama to name a justice to the high court . . . oh, wait, um . . .
You didn’t find it deliciously ironic that Obama and by extension Biden got a taste of the Biden Rule first pronounced as we headed into the election in 1992? And FWIW, I hope you can read an article like this and realize how dangerous the complete double standard Bari calls out truly is. What we have devolved into as a society is far from the best traditions of the country and this is yet another example of it.
In the last 30 years, the Republican Presidents' six nominees have received an average of 7 Democratic votes each (Roberts, 22, Thomas, 11, Alito, 4, Gorsuch, 3, Kavanaugh, 1, and Barrett, 0), while the Democratic Presidents' four nominees received an average of 22 Republican votes each (Ginsburg, 41, Breyer, 31, Sotomayor, 9, and Kagan, 5). The trend is not good, but it does seem Republicans have been inclined to be not quite as partisan as the Democrats.
I have thought a lot about how I could possibly continue to live in a society where lies believed with religious fervor became predominant, and I was required to kowtow to them in every public setting simply in order to remain a member of society in good standing. I thought there was no way I could do that.
Then I remembered I was raised Catholic.
To spell it out, I became a complete nonbeliever but made it through with a Catholic society all around me, and came through it with my clear beliefs totally counter to the the teachings I got for 15 years. (Respect to all believers - I'm not arguing against faith, just noting that people are not predestined to believe any specific faith they are taught). This gives me hope about the future and our society's resilience to being told what they think versus figuring it out for themselves.
Read, at least part, of The Three Body Problem by Cixin Liu. The Sci fi plot is not what struck me, it was the portrayal of Enforced Government Right Think. The young people and old non believers. It conveyed better than anything I could say what a society being told what to think looks like as it progresses.
Biden wanted instant credit for his “bold” and “courageous” decision. Let’s Go Brandon!
Biden did the right thing. He is correct (and ironically, so is Lindsay Graham). It is long overdue to have a black woman on the court.
Thing is, Biden likely KNEW from his time in the Obama administration that there were superbly qualified black women capable of being a Supreme Court justice. Ones who merited the role in every way. Obama had 3 nominations and given Biden's experience in the Senate, he almost certainly played a role in reviewing the candidates. No doubt, some were black women and I'm sure at least a few were excellent candidates.
When Biden ran for president, he already knew these excellent candidates -- from these prior nomination cycles. He may have even thought one of these women should have been nominated by Obama.
Yes, and he could have selected one, received his kudos, without digging himself into the ditch that his premature announcement created
Biden filibustered a black woman nominated by George Bush for the DC circuit court. Wrong politics.
Or more likely, not qualified for the job. Biden has voted for plenty of R nominated judges and justices, including Supreme Court justices nominated by Bush, Reagan and Ford.
Her only non-qualification was that the Democrats wanted to not lose the ability to pander to the left by putting the first black woman on the court. She would have been just as qualified as any of those the media has put forth as options for Biden to pick, many with very little experience in the courts and one with no experience at all.
Right. And skin color and sex are the FIRST qualifications this time around. He has "evolved"!
Thank you for pointing this out for me. It gives lie to their whole argument.
George Bush nominated a black woman to the Supreme Court and the Democrats filibustered her. We know exactly what they would do because they did it.
She was nominated to the DC circuit of the Federal appeals court, not SCOTUS. But I get your point.
We gave women special consideration with the 19th amendment, and the Blacks, with the voting rights act of 1965, isn’t that enough? Why should we give women of color special consideration, isn’t giving them the right to vote enough? I mean, aren’t we making women of color more human by giving them special consideration? Who cares if the ideology of racism and sexism held them back? Who do they think they are? And oh yes, Pres. Biden is being politically incorrect. How dare he offend so many people!
I'm going with sarcasm here. At least, I hope it is.
Sarcasm has become my default means of verbal communication in the past two years.
The tone saves me from being beaten to a pulp (metaphorically) when I express an unpopular opinion.
Indeed, sometimes sarcasm is a helpful ploy!
The folks are going to find supporters using unrelated criterion for monopolizing the steering wheel. If a steering committee comprised of five able (competent and strong) people and fifteen unfit people, all real decision – making power would soon be concentrated into the hands of these five people (history offers a lot of examples of this provision). Now, the people who are potentially able to run national or state business (because of their personal qualities) comprised a minority, which is hardly over 7% of the population (this is an optimistic estimate, which based on the common estimate of the ability of conducting independent business). This are the people, whom the elite have to consider in the democratic society: with whom the elite often have to negotiate, whose understanding the elite have to take into considerations, whom the elite is recruiting from (at slow rate, though). Now, the black women would be given “the priority”. Blacks amount 15% of US population, and so black women amount 7% of US population. Thus, now the elite have to consider only 7% x 7% = 0.5% of the whole population. Nice! Is this a democracy? Is this an anti-racism? Is this an anti - … -ism? No, this is cover-up for authoritarianism!
Well black women are about 7%, which is low enough, without that misapplied calculation, unless you're saying that 7% of black women are qualified lawyers.
Lawyers...
I don't mean that only lawyers may be the active actor of social life (leaders, etc.); moreover, critically thinking and active people often are not lawyers. I want to say that usually only about 7% of population are able to maintain a constructive attitude toward the social life, and are able to follow their own judgment and logic. Most of the people are "following the suite" and "go with the flow". The percentage of such people among black women are expected to be nearly the same, 7 out of 100 black women.
By the way, "qualified lawyers" are often good leaders only in "smooth, peaceful" times. Turbulent times require another type of people. Lincoln said of his legal education that "I studied with nobody." Roosevelt earned BA in history; he entered Columbia Law School in 1904 but dropped out in 1907, and cared little for the legal practice.
Are you saying you know more than these folks?
intelligence, In education, the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or challenging situations. In psychology the term may more specifically denote the ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one’s environment or to think abstractly as measured by objective criteria (such as the IQ test). Intelligence is usually thought of as deriving from a combination of inherited characteristics and environmental (developmental and social) factors. The subject remains hotly debated, and many have tried to show that either biology (especially genes) or environment (especially conditions reflecting socioeconomic class) are more or less exclusively responsible for producing differences in intelligence. Particularly contested have been studies purporting to show links between ethnic heritage and intelligence, most of which have not been accepted in the scientific community. General intelligence is often said to comprise various specific abilities (verbal ability, ability to apply logic in solving problems, etc.), but critics contend that such compartments fail to reflect the nature of cognition and that other models, perhaps based on information processing, are needed. High intelligence (as measured by tests) is sometimes shown to correlate with social achievement, but most experts believe other factors are important and that intelligence is no guarantor of success (and its lack is no guarantor of failure).
https://www.britannica.com/summary/human-intelligence-psychology
Everything you just said! Bravo! Especially the first line.
Yeah Penny, I believe that Biden made the vow during the campaign to woo some votes. Even if I was in his spot and thought I should look for a qualified black woman (I in fact would, there are certainly plenty of qualified black women and that would add some valuable perspective to the bench), I wouldn’t be so stupid as to make it a concrete commitment. Do the right reviews and make a good choice.
Oddly, for a man who spent decades in Congress he is devoid of political finesse. Do not forget that another political promise was to be a unifier.
thing is, Biden almost certainly DID Supreme Court reviews during the Obama years -- the last Obama nominee came in 2016. Biden knew the field of candidates. If someone was highly qualified in 2016, they are almost certainly highly qualified now.
Biden didn't start from scratch, he knew what he had.
"...will make the nominee look foolish, and it will undermine respect for her."
I disagree. You're looking at it from a logical, evenhanded perspective. To the left, it's ONLY about power and winning, no matter how it's done. There is no nuance. In this case, the left can say: "We TOLD you we were going to shove our identity politics nominee down your throat...and now we've DONE it! What are you going to do about it?"
Yep. Pure Power.
"To the left, it's ONLY about power and winning, no matter how it's done. There is no nuance."
Yeah! I know what you mean! Like when that left-wing nutcase Mitch McConnell shoved his Supreme Court identity politics down a sitting president's throat by not allowing Obama to name a justice to the high court . . . oh, wait, um . . .
You didn’t find it deliciously ironic that Obama and by extension Biden got a taste of the Biden Rule first pronounced as we headed into the election in 1992? And FWIW, I hope you can read an article like this and realize how dangerous the complete double standard Bari calls out truly is. What we have devolved into as a society is far from the best traditions of the country and this is yet another example of it.
Never said the right doesn't do it too. Just not nearly as often.
Of course it does. The right does it when it has the power, the left does it when it has the power.
Which is why nothing constructive has been done by Congress in 20 or so years
In the last 30 years, the Republican Presidents' six nominees have received an average of 7 Democratic votes each (Roberts, 22, Thomas, 11, Alito, 4, Gorsuch, 3, Kavanaugh, 1, and Barrett, 0), while the Democratic Presidents' four nominees received an average of 22 Republican votes each (Ginsburg, 41, Breyer, 31, Sotomayor, 9, and Kagan, 5). The trend is not good, but it does seem Republicans have been inclined to be not quite as partisan as the Democrats.
It is all about power, nothing more.
I have thought a lot about how I could possibly continue to live in a society where lies believed with religious fervor became predominant, and I was required to kowtow to them in every public setting simply in order to remain a member of society in good standing. I thought there was no way I could do that.
Then I remembered I was raised Catholic.
To spell it out, I became a complete nonbeliever but made it through with a Catholic society all around me, and came through it with my clear beliefs totally counter to the the teachings I got for 15 years. (Respect to all believers - I'm not arguing against faith, just noting that people are not predestined to believe any specific faith they are taught). This gives me hope about the future and our society's resilience to being told what they think versus figuring it out for themselves.
Read, at least part, of The Three Body Problem by Cixin Liu. The Sci fi plot is not what struck me, it was the portrayal of Enforced Government Right Think. The young people and old non believers. It conveyed better than anything I could say what a society being told what to think looks like as it progresses.
One of my kids suggested I read above books (I am starting the 3rd one) , a lot of discussions followed, gave me hope for the next generation!