This guy seems to have his head on straight. What he said in these two snippets is common sense to me, and rational, and like Oldsfiero said, how I was raised.
I'm curious if anyone disagrees with what he said in these vids.
[This message has been edited by 2.5 (edited 03-30-2022).]
Don't you think it's telling as to who hasn't commented on this thread?
Someone that comments on virtually every other thread in this subforum....
(It's not about you Todd... it's not always about you Todd... mom isn't always right, the world doesn't revolve around you, you are not God's gift to the planet...)
Don't you think it's telling as to who hasn't commented on this thread?
Someone that comments on virtually every other thread in this subforum....
Well, sourboy has been banned, otherwise he would be telling us that the guy in the video isn't a true conservative and is destroying the culture of his people.
Rinselberg is still looking for an article about how another small time judge has convened a grand jury in an attempt to indict Trump for mopery with intent to creep.
So I looked in here, and saw the name checking of "rinselberg", which surprised me. And I said to myself "OK, I will 'do' these videos, while I have more of the coffee that I brewed." (I drink a lot of coffee.)
The second of the two videos, on "Diversity", is mostly ridiculous. The idea that Joe Biden can be open to ridicule for promising to nominate a black woman for the Supreme Court, and then delivering on that promise, now that he has become President. I think a lot of people who "carp" about this have not thought about the ways that becoming and serving as a federal judge is different from almost any other job imaginable. The way some of these "carpers" have been talking, it could well be "over their heads."
The first of the videos left a better taste in my mouth, so to speak. Although obviously it was my eyes and ears that I relied upon to engage with it.
It doesn't make me unhappy with the person who represents my district in the U.S.House of Representatives. A Democrat. About as "progressive" as they come. But he does have some original-sounding ideas.
I could see voting for the Republican candidate for President in 2024, depending on two circumstances. Who's (going to be) the Democratic candidate? And does the Republican candidate in 2024 impress me as another cluster frack like Donald Trump? That second one would be a "deal breaker."
I like what I've seen from Will Hurd. I don't know that anyone else pictures him as the 2024 Republican candidate for President. I don't know if I do, myself. Certainly not yet.
In responding to these two Buddy Brown videos, I have tried to answer in the way that would be of most interest to the forum at large.
I still don't understand why you'd flip out over what I posted. Do you disagree with the comment by that guy that I quoted?
I view MeM’s posts like he’s in a car, listening to the radio, sometimes ranting and chuckling to himself. He reacts to what we say, but it’s usually said “to the wind,” not directly at anyone in particular.
Originally posted by 2.5: I think its worthy of ridicule, and thought the speaker in the video laid out simple decent understandable reasons why.
This Buddy Brown dude does well in many ways, but a man's got to know his limitations, and Buddy doesn't have the "chops" for the Supreme Court candidate selection process. He's in over his head. He's out of his depth. His chalk talk on this particualr topic is naive and needs to be recalled for dealer service.
Here's a top shelf explanation from Georgetown University law professor Sheryll "Cashin-in" who expertly covers all the bases.
"Biden’s SCOTUS Pledge [to put a black woman on the Supreme Court] Is a Model of How Affirmative Action Should Work" Sherylll Cashin for Politico; February 10, 2022. https://www.politico.com/ne...-good-thing-00007442
Read-o-Meter just under 8 minutes.
I scrolled quickly through a few different columns like this. This one stood out as the most complete.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 04-06-2022).]
This Buddy Brown dude does well in many ways, but a man's got to know his limitations, and Buddy doesn't have the "chops" for the Supreme Court candidate selection process.
Indeed, skin, gender, etc, (I.E the video).
Worthy of ridicule.
"what affirmative action should be" Gone
[This message has been edited by 2.5 (edited 04-06-2022).]
Not in this case. Federal judge esp. Supreme Court no reason not to commit to a Black woman in advance and compelling and good reasons to nominate one. This is the highest visibility job in the land not an auto mechanic or mid -level mgr or even a corporate CEO. Ride with the column in Politico from Cashin’in NOT Buddy Brown and be REAL.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 04-06-2022).]
Not using race as the deciding factor. If that were true, they could have picked a Black woman from the proverbial phone book. "Hello, are you a Black woman? Great. What do you think of being my SCOTUS nominee?"
Everything else might be going to hell, but this one... he's got it.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 04-06-2022).]
Not using race as the deciding factor. If that were true, they could have picked a Black woman from the proverbial phone book. "Hello, are you a Black woman? Great. What do you think of being my SCOTUS nominee?"
Everything else might be going to hell, but this one... he's got it.
MORE LEFTIST BULLSHITTERY RACE and SEX was Dotard Brandon's ONLY "deciding factor" and accordingly the "proverbial phone book" of Leftie lawyers and judges of ALL SKIN COLORS AND SEXES was opened up and ONLY those that answered "yes' to the question of "are you a black woman?" were selected.
LYING is a LEFTIST "holy sacrament" for you.
It is so "sacred" to you that you'll do it even when you know damn well that it's obvious as hell to everyone else that you're LYING.
By the way, have they taken Grandpa Gropey's car keys away yet or do they still allow him to "cruise" down to the end of his driveway and back for the media?
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 04-06-2022).]
Retired Connecticut Superior Court Judge Angela Robinson is counsel with Halloran and Sage and the Waring and Carmen Partridge faculty fellow and visiting professor at Quinnipiac University School of Law. She is the author of "First Black Women Judges: The Story of Three Black Women Judges in the United States."
Excerpt
quote
People love to predict who is on Biden’s shortlist for the court vacancy. In fact, there are far too many Black women who would make tremendous appointees to do justice to such a limited list. The fact is, given the depth, breadth and experience of Black women lawyers, the court would be well served by any of them.
One aspect of SCOTUS nominations that separates "Supreme Court justice" from just about any other job like airline pilot, auto mechanic (etc.) is how seldom an opening appears for a SCOTUS nominee to be named.
That's part of where this Buddy Brown-style idea that Biden did wrong to commit well beforehand to a "Black woman" crashes into reality and comes out badly damaged.
Like I said. President Bob on the next go round declares that the next Supreme Court Justice will be chosen from only a pool of white people, and you will be fine with it.
Racism is racism. You can try and paint it however you want, but it's still racism.
I've got a job that almost nobody leaves as well. The average employee is in their 70's. It's a danged good job. The boss should only chose from one race for the next hire, right? After all, someone only gets hired every few years. Forget the best man for the job. It should first be based on race alone, and then the best from that group.
There is nothing wrong with looking at representation as one of the many variables under consideration for a qualified candidate, especially in a sea of qualified candidates.
There is something wrong with only looking at a particular segment of the population and ignoring all others.
Biden shouldn't have promised a Black female nominee. By all accounts, Ketanji Brown Jackson is well-qualified for the seat, but the way she was chosen undermines her credibility in the eyes of the public.
I disagree with those last remarks from Fats and from theBDub.
It's specifically a Black woman that does the most in terms of representation. Of having a Supreme Court that looks like "us", where "us" is all the people of the United States.
And you might say, what about a Southeast Asian woman? Or an Indigenous American woman? Or... whatever.
I think the answer is history. The long history of Black enslavement, from the English colonies all the way to the Civil War. Followed by Jim Crow. A Black woman is what's needed. It's the obvious gap that needed to be dealt with. The others... in due time.
I think there's a marginal aspect to diversity. A long history of the Supreme Court as a white "manel" or panel exclusively of men, then a Black man, then some women. Now a Black woman.
From this time forwards, the importance of diversity or representation in considering a Supreme Court nominee is somewhat diminished. I'm sure it won't go away entirely, but I expect that when the next opening occurs, the importance of selecting a SCOTUS nominee that is from any one particular Venn Diagram circle of ethnicity, or gender, or background, will not be as paramount. There may be groups, encouraged by this "Black woman" nomination, that will push for a formula of their own, but there would likely be more than just one such group. So it becomes more of a moot point.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 04-07-2022).]
no reason not to commit to a Black woman in advance and compelling and good reasons to nominate one. This is the highest visibility job in the land not an auto mechanic or mid -level mgr or even a corporate CEO.
Rediculous and wrong and therefore worthy of ridicule. You cant see this?
Originally posted by williegoat: The supreme court does not represent anyone. The supreme court represents the Constitution. To say that a specific justice represents a specific group, implies bias.
As a Black woman on the Supreme Court, Ketanji Brown Jackson is representational of the nation's diversity.
As a Black woman on the Supreme Court, Ketanji Brown Jackson does not represent Blacks, or women, or any other specific group in the way that a Congressional representative represents a district. She does not become an advocate for a particular subset of the nation's peoplehood.
She is representational in the eyes of those who look upon the Supreme Court, but in her work as a justice, she is not a representative for any particular group.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 04-07-2022).]
As a Black woman on the Supreme Court, Ketanji Brown Jackson is representational of the nation's diversity.
As a Black woman on the Supreme Court, Ketanji Brown Jackson does not represent Blacks, or women, or any other specific group in the way that a Congressional representative represents a district. She does not become an advocate for a particular subset of the nation's peoplehood.
She is representational in the eyes of those who look upon the Supreme Court, but in her work as a justice, she is not a representative for any particular group.
B. S.
People think this way?
Do they realize it nullifies their entire point?
"she is not a representative for any particular group"
LOL and yet so sad.
[This message has been edited by 2.5 (edited 04-07-2022).]
As a Black woman on the Supreme Court, Ketanji Brown Jackson is representational of the nation's diversity.
Of what value is diversity, and what is the significance of its representation, with regard to the function of the supreme court?
quote
As a Black woman on the Supreme Court, Ketanji Brown Jackson does not represent Blacks, or women, or any other specific group in the way that a Congressional representative represents a district. She does not become an advocate for a particular subset of the nation's peoplehood.
She is representational in the eyes of those who look upon the Supreme Court, but in her work as a justice, she is not a representative for any particular group.
So, her representation is meaningless. It serves no purpose.
A judge has been appointed because there was an open position. This judge has been appointed because she is a black woman.
[This message has been edited by williegoat (edited 04-07-2022).]
The most obvious value is that younger people look upon a Supreme Court that looks and talks more like the nation itself.
A young Black woman can more easily imagine herself as a future Supreme Court justice, and start to aspire to a life that could bring her in line for that. And more realistically and long before that, becoming a lawyer or a legal scholar, or someone who becomes educated in the Law.
A young person of another "color" can also more easily imagine it.
And for young people of the "Caucasian persuasion", it's a good thing for them to look upon, as well.
It's not like Black women with impressive qualifications for a Supreme Court justice were a "scientific unknown", like WIMPS (Weakly Interacting Massive Particles) or Gravitons (force carriers of gravity), when Biden first made that promise. It's not like Black women with impressive credentials for the Supreme Court were only a hypothetical, and Biden was promising something that he might not be able to deliver.
People here are going miles and miles around the block and well out of their way to make Biden "wrong" on this one.
I am not saying that Biden was compelled in any particular way to have pledged and delivered on nominating a Black woman—I say that it's not wrong for him to have done that.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 04-07-2022).]
My question was: Of what value is diversity, and what is the significance of its representation, with regard to the function of the supreme court?
Your answer assumes that one function of the supreme court is to create an image for, or to inspire young people of various ethnic backgrounds. That is not in the constitution.
Do you believe that the supreme court has any such obligation?
