iNow

I see. So everyone bitching and moaning and kvetching about this like it’s the 2nd Benghazi on steroids is REALLY just advocating for our union to be more perfect (despite these same people remaining completely silent during ALL of the previous 165 formal nominations presidents have made to the court). Okay, Pollyanna. You go with that explanation if it helps you to sleep better at night. Your idealism is laudable.

I’ll keep asking: Why is Biden being treated different from D Trump, GHW Bush, R Regan, Lyndon Johnson, Dwight Eisenhower, and other previous US Presidents who set precedents on this exact issue?

WHO here is advocating for it to be admired? Will you quote where they did this? I see. In your opinion, what would be the necessary amount of racialization?

It what way is the equivalency I’m suggesting “false?” Lyndon Johnson said he wanted to select a black justice and did. GHW Bush said he wanted to select a black justice and did. Regan said he wanted to select a woman and did. Trump said he wanted to select a woman and did. Biden said he wanted to select a black woman and did. The only thing I can see here that’s not equivalent is that KBJ was both black AND female, but otherwise the process has been executed exactly inline with historical and well established precedent.

I don’t disagree at all, but that’s not my question. All of these citizens who are so passionate about selecting the very best possible candidate for the highest court in the land, who are advocating that this always happens based solely on merit and in a color blind manner… where were their voices speaking out passionately when it was the white fellas being selected? It wasn’t “a different time.” It was 3 years ago, and 4 years ago, and 15 years ago… Surely more capable, more competent, and more qualified candidates from other demographic groups were available when these other nominations were made, so why were they (even you) silent on this topic then?

Okay. So where were these same voices then when Brett Kavenaugh was selected just 3 years ago? Or what about Neil Gorsuch a year before him? Or Merrick Garland 5 years ago? Or Sam Alito 15 years ago? Noticing a trend?

Of course. I readily acknowledge that there is another sizable contingent of people who have arrived at their conclusions on this topic organically and authentically. No doubt, and in fact I (and I imagine most of us) agree that merit based selection and choices based on competence MUST be prioritized. We’re all totally on the same page there. Zero gap between us. Where things start to crumble for me, however, is why were all of these organic and authentic voices who favor selections based solely on merit and competence silent for the last 200+ years? At each step along the way when every single new justice was being chosen over the centuries… when there were SURELY better suited minority candidates or female jurists who were clearly more skilled, capable, and competent than the endless procession of white men that DID get chosen… where were all of these passionate voices arguing solely for fairness and integrity in the process then? Where was the outrage for presidents not choosing the most qualified candidate when the candidate they chose was a white guy? I mean… There were SURELY many more capable, more competent, more qualified female and minority jurists available to choose, yet not so much as a single “peep” from the “should be based on merit!” crowd that’s been so animated and agitated and outwardly expressive this time. I wonder what’s different this time. Why did all of these well intentioned citizens arguing in favor of a pure and fair process… defending the integrity of our system and the need for color blindness in our justice selection process… why have these same people remained so numbingly silent Every. Other. Time. All throughout our history… when SURELY better choices were available from other demographic groups? Why is it THIS time that they suddenly feel so compelled and called upon to speak out with such passion and such vigor and such holier-than-thou oratory? Gosh… what’s different THIS time? I just can’t put my finger on it. It may forever remain a mystery to us all. You mean the faux outrage against it despite there being a LONG historical precedent of other presidents doing the exact same thing? Yep, I sure do.

You’re smart enough to know that at least a fairly sizable portion of it is, SJ

I reject your premise. I do get it. I’ve also shown, with evidence… with specific historical dates, and direct quotes from previous presidents… that the fury against Biden feels hypocritical in the way it ignores the long-standing precedent here. No matter what Biden does, even if he hadn’t mentioned a desire to appoint the first black woman, he’d be attacked by political enemies. He could cure cancer itself, and there’d be rage at him for taking away their freedom to get cancer. It’s specious. It’s hollow. It’s manufactured outrage. It’s strange to me that you don’t get this. Can you explain to me why so many don’t seem to get this?

It’s almost certainly not. He doesn’t care that the info comes from people who intentionally disinform people as part of their war strategy nor that the rest of the world who know more than him flatly disagree with his conclusion.

I’m open to the possibility, as should you be, especially since neither of us can speak factually about what might happen in other peoples minds if they were exposed to hypothetical scenarios.

Still looks like garbage on mobile. Either way, +1 for the latest post not quoted here

You haven’t. TBH, I don’t really care who you are. I care what you say and how you say it. I assure you, you’ve not angered me. Perhaps this is another example of the reading comprehension problems I speculated about above? I’m neither angry, having a hard time, nor a mod at this site.

Who are you even talking to, and what comment have they made that ties to your reply?

Now seems like as good a time as any to repeat this post from the last time we spoke of this nomination: https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/126564-the-next-supreme-court-judge/page/2/?tab=comments#comment-1198820 Facts which add this whole thing to the “give me a break” category for me: Dwight Eisenhower expressly sought to appoint a Catholic to the seat of retiring Justice Sherman Minton in 1956 and then named William Brennan (yep, a Catholic) to the bench. Recordings from Lyndon Johnson show he deliberately chose to make history with the appointment of the first Black justice and later nominated Thurgood Marshall. Ronald Reagan, October 14, 1980. He said “one of the first Supreme Court vacancies in my administration will be filled” by a woman. Reagan also chose Antonin Scalia for the court specifically because he was “of Italian extraction” as confirmed by several of his direct staff. In 1991, George H.W. Bush pledged to replace retiring Justice Marshall with another Black jurist and later nominated Clarence Thomas (yep, a black man just like he said). Donald Trump, September 19, 2020 (a day after Justice Ginsburg died). Donald Trump declared he would limit his search for her replacement to ONLY female candidates. "It will be a woman … we have numerous women on the list." Stop listening to the shit stirrers and propagandists.

If you’re not intentionally misrepresenting me, then it’s possible this relates to reading comprehension challenges (as I didn’t do that). Don’t worry. You’ve succeeded in this. I’m sorry to hear that, but (for now) nobody is saying you aren’t welcome. No need to be melodramatic. This community, like all others, has a culture or a gestalt and some of the feedback you’ve received is intended to help clarify for you what that is. Maybe you’d prefer being ignored?

I reject your premise, as well as your font choice.

It also involves hijacking threads to take them off-topic, much like you’re doing here.

The very best jokes are always those we have to explain and clarify that it was a joke

You assume no invasion would happen if surrender came first. You have a valid opinion there, but as repeatedly explained to you already, you cannot validly assert it as fact.

Is that why Russia with a targeted ballistic missile strike blew up a train station full of innocent women and children trying to flee today? There were 4,000 people on that platform. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/world/russia-denies-responsibility-for-missile-that-killed-dozens-of-ukrainians-at-train-station

It sure sounds like Serge's "Upstart" is a small business trying to gain notice from the Russian cyber disinformation army and their oligarchic funders. Propaganda for profit, as it were.

Nobody cares. You’re off-topic, and seemingly taking pleasure in posting incomprehensibly. Your original comment added nothing of value to the thread. It’s past time for this tangent to terminate.

Autocorrect murder of facetious

He can announce whatever silly damned thing he wants, but as soon as he attempts to move against a NATO ally or enter NATO territory, the NATO members would respond together in retaliation. Strength comes in numbers, not hollow words.