How can you say Jackson benefitted form affirmative action, when according to qualifications she is more qualified than any of the current justices were at this point in their career?

She has done more than any of them by this point in her career, and it was harder because she was a black woman in a world dominated by white men. Its better now, but she would be what, the third black person every to be a SCOTUS in the history of the US? What a sham to say this lol.

It goes to show that some people will always look down on black women and judge their success as gifts from the white man (affirmative action in their view is this), even when this black woman is more than qualified and given no breaks.

ACB benefitted form religious affirmative action more than any other justice benefitted from any other force IMO.

This post was edited by Skinned on Mar 23 2022 05:31am

The GOP can't win elections without appealing to women while it can afford to ingore black voters, it's really as simple as that. One difference, though, is that Barrett was replacing THE female icon of judges, just like Thomas back in the day was replacing THE first and only black SCOTUS judge.

Based on representation grounds, one could argue that a demographic like blacks, which make up one in nine Americans and which are historically underrepresented, deserved some representation on the Supreme Court. Hence, there was a reasonable argument in favor of H.W. Bush specifically nominating a black person to succeed Marshall. Now, however, we're in a situation where about one in nine Americans is black and one in nine SCOTUS judges is black. From a "fair representation" point of view, blacks will actually be quite overrepresented once Brown Jackson is sworn in. Based on representation, quotas or anything like that, there was objectively no need for Biden to narrow his list to exclusively black candidates. He did it to pander to a core constintuency of his party from which he needed enthusiasm and turnout. It's as simple as that.





If Biden had considered candidates of various races and genders, then and only then would it be unfair to criticize his pick for being an affirmative action pick. So in this counterfactual where he doesn't promise to nominate a black woman, it would depend on the actual selection process whether such a criticism would be justified or not. Blasting Republicans over a hypothetically hypocritical criticism seems kinda silly, don't you think?


That's a good point I hadn't really thought about. But the argument could easily be adjusted to "the most qualified judge from the 45-55 age range" , so I think that a qualification-based selection would still be possible.


----------


Anyway, Brown Jackson seems like a really fine pick, so I should prolly stop wasting so much time complaining about the process that led to her nomination.

Joe Biden said he would confirm a woman. Yet he didn't consult with a biologist to know that Ketanji Brown Jackson is a woman. She couldn't answer what the definition of a woman was because she said she isn't a biologist. But she wants to be on the highest court in the United States of America.

good post.



that one too.

This post was edited by ferdia on Mar 23 2022 06:04am

you never should have started in the first place, considering how the previous three picks were made, which you spent days defending...

dumb monster does not know what a woman is

I don't know much about how she'll vote. Probably a moderate lefty. But she's definitely going to be confirmed.



Skinned has the debate tactic "say whatever you want and pretend that its real REALLY REALLY HARD"

This post was edited by EndlessSky on Mar 23 2022 07:00am

If this was AOC, Bernie, Macron, etc. you'd be licking their boots.