Ketanji Brown Jackson to be first Black woman to sit on Supreme Court - Jordan Peterson has something to say - is he right or is he in the wrong?

[MigL]

Why do people keep bringing up past practice when discussing J Biden's selection criteria?
Or rather, his pre-announced ( for public consumption ? ) selection criteria, which may be different from the actual ( i would hope ).
Society is supposed to be progressing, for the better.
200 years ago, America had slavery; that cannot be used to justify racism today.
Saying that was the way it was done, or asking why no-one complained about it then, is really bad use of 'whataboutism'.

And comparisons with the Trump administration are really setting the bar low ...
I would hope we all expect much better from J Biden.

[MSC]

3 minutes ago, MigL said:

Why do people keep bringing up past practice when discussing J Biden's selection criteria?

Because America has a precedent based judicial system maybe? 

Here are the facts of the situation as I see them:

1. Biden said that this time around, a black woman will be appointed.

2. Biden did not say, that ONLY black woman will be appointed in the future.

3. Most of the arguments used here to claim that this was an illegally and ethically problematic appointment via racial discrimination, came from Senator Ted Cruz. 

4. Ted Cruz had NOTHING critical to say, when Trump explicitly told everyone that his nominee would be a woman. 

5. Race and Gender are BOTH protected characteristics. 

6. Biden only nominates, he doesn't confirm. Since Senators ultimately decide who gets the job, any claims of discrimination can only be directed at them.

7. So far, Republican senators have even admitted she is qualified enough for the job, but they will still vote against her. So if competency isn't the main stay of THEIR selection criteria, they can only be basing their decision on two things, Political Partisanship and Race. 

In conclusion, all I want from my friends here whom are on the opposite side of this to answer for me; How is the appointment of the FIRST Woman whom is black, to a seat on the Supreme Court, racist or discriminatory, when her appointment has not implicated in any way, that a white man will never get the nomination and confirmation again? 

[Peterkin]

55 minutes ago, MigL said:

And comparisons with the Trump administration are really setting the bar low ...
I would hope we all expect much better from J Biden.

Who's we? The criticism largely comes from quarters that favoured Trump's decisions and style of leadership. The gist of the objection is not "He's not enough better than Trump." but that "He's doing what all presidents do." 

[MigL]

By 'we', I mean us on this forum, not idiots like T Cruz.

I am pretty sure most of us, on this forum ( Just to be clear ), expect a much saner Presidency with J Biden.

[CharonY]

18 minutes ago, MigL said:

By 'we', I mean us on this forum, not idiots like T Cruz.

I am pretty sure most of us, on this forum ( Just to be clear ), expect a much saner Presidency with J Biden.

So which one would then be a reasonable comparison? Reagan made a campaign promise to appoint the first woman, which he did. He also chose Scalia since he wanted da an Italian-American on the court, thought that was less publicized at that time.

Lyndon B Johnson basically groomed Marshall to become the first black supreme court justice (though publicly announcing it at that time as such would have been politically damaging, of course), 

[Peterkin]

26 minutes ago, MigL said:

am pretty sure most of us, on this forum ( Just to be clear ), expect a much saner Presidency with J Biden

Then we must resign ourselves to disappointment. Saner than Trump is doable - just about, given the general fuckedupedness of the communication media and electoral procedure. Saner, let alone better, than all previous presidents is a pretty tall order, even for somebody who won by a landslide and had a majority in both houses. That's not going to happen.

[beecee]

1 hour ago, MigL said:

By 'we', I mean us on this forum, not idiots like T Cruz.

I am pretty sure most of us, on this forum ( Just to be clear ), expect a much saner Presidency with J Biden.

The world generally speaking, saw Trump as a coniving, crazy, raving right wing dangerous, blithering idiot. It certainly was not hard to expect the next President to be saner then the Trump rock bottom choice. As an Aussie, I quite like Biden and cannot understand why his popularity is so low in the poll. My only criticism, is that it would be far better if he were a younger man, or that the democrats did not have someone younger to handle the job.

I have no qualms about Biden nominating a black woman, and again see it simply as a matter of public recognition for a large section of the American community. It seems a real non event from where I'm sitting.

[MigL]

In case there are doubts, I don't have a problem with his choice and nomination of KBJ either.
I have a slight problem with his announcing beforehand, the criteria of skin color and gender,; simply because of the 'optics'.

1 hour ago, CharonY said:

Lyndon B Johnson basically groomed Marshall to become the first black supreme court justice (though publicly announcing it at that time as such would have been politically damaging, of course), 

Thank you CharonY, for pointing out that L B Johnson and I think alike 🙂 .

[Peterkin]

2 hours ago, MigL said:

I have a slight problem with his announcing beforehand, the criteria of skin color and gender,; simply because of the 'optics'.

'Optics' is still a silly word and a poorly defined concept. How things look is very often how things are, so if you're doing something other than what it looks like you're doing, you're doing something sneaky, which, if discovered, would look very much worse than the obvious thing you're doing, which is exactly what it looks like.

Quote

Black women are often called the backbone of the Democratic Party - the type of reliable voters that can make or break a candidate. And an overwhelming majority supported President Biden during his presidential bid. An estimated 93% voted for him in 2020. So it's little surprise that earlier this week, the president reiterated a key promise that he made on the campaign trail. https://www.npr.org/2022/01/30/1076798457/biden-may-fulfill-a-campaign-promise-to-black-voters-with-his-supreme-court-nomi

 

[iNow]

People like to say Biden is a gaffe machine, and as we all know a gaffe in Washington is when a politician says out loud something everyone already knows to be true. 

[zapatos]

5 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

'Optics' is still a silly word and a poorly defined concept.

Optics is also in the eye of the beholder, and seems to have become a buzzword for those here who disapprove of Biden's announcement to select a black woman to the Supreme Court. From my perspective the optics were very good. A presidential nominee who tells us exactly what his plans are instead of obfuscating, and who announces a bold step toward racial equality without fearing how his announcement will play with those who don't approve of his vision.

Good for Joe.

[iNow]

Paraphrasing an old legal adage:

When you have policy on your side, pound the policy. When you have history on your side, pound the history. When you have neither on your side, pound the process (aka pound the table) 

[CharonY]

6 hours ago, MigL said:

Thank you CharonY, for pointing out that L B Johnson and I think alike 🙂 .

I actually I was hoping that we were over the 60s mindset...

[Intoscience]

15 hours ago, MSC said:

Since we are on the topic of protected characteristics, why shouldn't every lawyer who has not been in the field long enough to become a judge, not cry foul by claiming age discrimination?

This is something I'm currently dealing with in my work. I have a number of younger staff who feel they have been discriminated against because non have been selected for promotion and the person who was successful was of a "senior" age. They fail to accept that the promotion was given using a well established points scoring system based on an extensive criteria non of which considers age, gender... I'm now coming under pressure from the HR department to reconsider my decision (in fear of an age discrimination lawsuit) even though I can demonstrate that the person selected was the most capable and qualified for the position. 

To be clear, I'm an advocate of equally opportunity, but I also understand and appreciate that logically there cannot always be an equal outcome.

I'm sure KJB is the most capable and the most qualified for the job, and I'm sure she will demonstrate this during her service. No one is questioning the decision on whether she is the right person or not, what is in question is whether or not the decision was pre conceived and for what purpose.

As zapatos said (see below) maybe this was the reason?    

5 hours ago, zapatos said:

Optics is also in the eye of the beholder, and seems to have become a buzzword for those here who disapprove of Biden's announcement to select a black woman to the Supreme Court. From my perspective the optics were very good. A presidential nominee who tells us exactly what his plans are instead of obfuscating, and who announces a bold step toward racial equality without fearing how his announcement will play with those who don't approve of his vision.

Good for Joe.

That is a good point, and I'd like to believe the motivation around his statement was to show his feelings, thoughts, and consideration towards honesty and integrity. 

If so, Good for Joe also.   

Edited April 14, 2022 by Intoscience
spelling

[Peterkin]

6 hours ago, Intoscience said:

No one is questioning the decision on whether she is the right person or not, what is in question is whether or not the decision was pre conceived and for what purpose.

That's not exactly a mystery. Yes, it was predetermined. To fulfill a promise to his most loyal voters.

(You know, like how how Reagan promised to restore prayers in school, He tried, but it wasn't ratified. Obama's promised health care reform plans were smashed on even rockier shores, and Trump swore he would defund Planned Parenthood, which he did.) 

What I don't understand is why keeping a promise - with due ratification - should be at all problematic. 

[iNow]

4 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

That's not exactly a mystery. Yes, it was predetermined. To fulfill a promise to his most loyal voters.

This isn't accurate either, though. There were SEVERAL candidates who met the criteria and from THAT subpopulation the choice was made. KBJ was NOT predetermined. 

[MigL]

13 hours ago, Peterkin said:

How things look is very often how things are, so if you're doing something other than what it looks like you're doing, you're doing something sneaky, which, if discovered, would look very much worse than the obvious thing you're doing, which is exactly what it looks like.

Was that supposed to clarify the term 'optics' ?
If so, it fails miserably, 😃 .

Let me give it a shot ...

If I say I will buy a new vehicle next month, and it will be a red Range Rover Evoque, does that mean that I will consider the merits of an Acura RDX, or a Jeep Grand Cherokee, before making my decision ?
Or does it look ( the 'optics' ) like I've already made up my mind ?

Now, don't get me wrong, the Range Rover does have some reliability issues, but it is an excellent vehicle.
Still, some may feel like my mind was already made up, and I failed to give the Acura, and Jeep, a fair evaluation; and they would be perfectly justified in their reasoning.

Now consider how much worse it looks ( optics, again ) when the selection criteria is not 'red' and 'Range Rover', but skin color and gender.
Skin color and gender should never be criteria for choosing a candidate; that is the definition of racial and gender discrimination ( it means selecting according to that criterion; there is no such thing as reverse discrimination )

I think some here are so caught up in the 'us vs. them' partisanship of American politics, that that they refuse to believe their 'side' could make a mis-step. J Biden's mis-step  ( my opinion ) was not in his selection, which seems an excellent choice, but his announcement beforehand that he would choose according to skin color and gender.
And while it is true that J Biden would have to be President for 40 years to equal the number of mis-steps of his predecessor, that shouldn't stop objective observers from pointing out his mis-steps.

By the way, I've owned a Jeep Grand Cherokee and an Acura RDX, the Jeep was prone to rust and the Acura is no longer available with the excellent V6, so I considered the Range Rover but decided against it.
I may wait another year or two and go electric for my retirement vehicle.

Edited April 14, 2022 by MigL

[MSC]

7 hours ago, Intoscience said:

what is in question is whether or not the decision was pre conceived and for what purpose.

I think this is the part that stubs the most people. From a legal perspective, you are allowed to include protected characteristics, as well as the non protected ones like competency, into your evaluation in certain instances as part of something called holistic review. It is in accordance with affirmative action policies used in schools.

Truely illegal prejudicial discrimination on protected characteristics is when the ONLY thing being reviewed is one or two of those protected characteristics and skill, competency, experience and suitability are all ignored. 

Applied to the Supreme Court, before a nominee can be considered, you have to conduct that review on the court, public sentiment, campaign promises and a variety of other factors. KBJ represents over half of voters, because she is a woman. However, ultimately as a justice she is there to represent the interests and rights of every citizen/perm resident of the USA. 

One thing I'm curious of, has anyone suggested any other potential nominees from whatever side of the political spectrum? Who exactly is or was the competition?

Rounding back to discrimination; (sorry for the tangent) there is a legal term used in some courts in cases of discrimination to determine if a wrongdoing has taken place, based on consequentialist ethics. Concrete Harm. Let's say we both have a friend who is disabled, they apply to get a physics degree at a good school. They have awesome grades. He has done data entry for his father's business since he was 14 and applies to do it part time with a prestigious firm offering a multitude of entry level data entry positions. Let's imagine they got rejected from both the school and the job, and it turned out the hiring manager and the interviewer were later snitched on that they had used some pejorative term and stated they didn't even bother looking at the relevant factors because they assumed they would fail, so we're rejected solely because of their disability. Losing out on a job (wages) and given an unfair interview process would constitute concrete harm when it can equal loss of wages, access to education and direct emotional harm. 

The friend has a right to sue. We don't have a right to sue because we empathize with our friend and it hurts us. We haven't suffered any concrete harm. Only our friend has. 

In the case of a Supreme Court nomination, it's already highly selective, there are probably multiple good choices and multiple bad choices on hand when each seat becomes available. The fact of the matter, is that the only people being considered, largely have their life in order, make a good living and are considered invaluable to society in general through being a judge. How can you prove a person of that caliber, whether white or black, man woman or other, etc... experienced concrete harm by not getting nominated to a Supreme Court position when they are already held in such high esteem?

 

[MigL]

14 minutes ago, MSC said:

The friend has a right to sue. We don't have a right to sue because we empathize with our friend and it hurts us.

You can't sue a sitting President either way.

And you are still missing the point...
No-one is complaining about the selection of KBJ.
What 'looks' bad, is the prejudicial announcement of a choice, based on skin color and gender.
You can argue all you want that it doesn't look bad, to you, but many people have complained that it does look bad ( even non-Republicans ).
And I realise perception is highly subjective, but it is a fact that some people are of the opinion that it looks bad; that is undeniable.

[Peterkin]

1 hour ago, MigL said:

Was that supposed to clarify the term 'optics' ?

Not clarify. Reject.

 

1 hour ago, MigL said:

If I say I will buy a new vehicle next month, and it will be a red Range Rover Evoque, does that mean that I will consider the merits of an Acura RDX, or a Jeep Grand Cherokee, before making my decision ?
Or does it look ( the 'optics' ) like I've already made up my mind ?

It looks as if you mean that you have considered alternatives and made a decision. Since you can't have a red/blue/silver/green Ford Acura Evoqe, you have to pick one car that comes in the combination of characteristics you desire. (That it's a road-licensable passenger vehicle was a given, thus limiting the pool of available choices.) That's how rational decisions are usually made, so most rational people who believe you to be rational would assume that your decision is just what it looks like.

1 hour ago, MigL said:

Now consider how much worse it looks ( optics, again ) when the selection criteria is not 'red' and 'Range Rover', but skin color and gender.

It looks as if he considered available alternatives, including to which voter block he owes the most, and made a decision based on all of those factors.

1 hour ago, MigL said:

but his announcement beforehand that he would choose according to skin color and gender

Not "according to colour and gender" - as you put these two factors in isolation, to make them look bad -  but according to qualifications, experience, decision record, character, popularity with voters, ratifiability, sex and colour. Just like you put the colour selection last in your criteria for buying a car.

So-bloody-what? That's how selections are made. One may be sorry afterward and think differently next time.

It opticizes exactly like what it is: a political appointment by a politician.

1 hour ago, MSC said:

KBJ represents over half of voters, because she is a woman.

That's what's wrong with 'optics'. In some observers' limited vision, a woman represents all women, including the white, Hispanic and Asian ones, who ll have different requirements and demands, just as an African American represents 12% of the population, including the opposite sex, and none of the Hispanic or Asian or white men. 

Except that's not in any sense true, is it? 

46 minutes ago, MigL said:

but it is a fact that some people are of the opinion that it looks bad; that is undeniable.

And that Jordan Peterson, as usual, is wrong.

Edited April 14, 2022 by Peterkin

[swansont]

1 hour ago, MigL said:

If I say I will buy a new vehicle next month, and it will be a red Range Rover Evoque, does that mean that I will consider the merits of an Acura RDX, or a Jeep Grand Cherokee, before making my decision ?
Or does it look ( the 'optics' ) like I've already made up my mind ?

Depends on whether we know you've investigated buying cars in the past, (and are likely to have done so recently) so that you are already familiar with the models. 

[MSC]

1 hour ago, MigL said:

And I realise perception is highly subjective, but it is a fact that some people are of the opinion that it looks bad; that is undeniable.

True. That is undeniable. What is disputable about that opinion, is whether or not it is justified, rational or reasonable. My opinion on that opinion leans toward unjustified 

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

That's what's wrong with 'optics'. In some observers' limited vision, a woman represents all women, including the white, Hispanic and Asian ones, who ll have different requirements and demands, just as an African American represents 12% of the population, including the opposite sex, and none of the Hispanic or Asian or white men

How exactly are the demands of women different based on color? Apologies if I'm misinterpreting what you said, but the idea that all the requirements and demands are different, imo is being narrow-minded because it's buying into this myth that we have little in common with each other and might as well be different species. Help, recognition/appreciation, respect, good health, happy family, decent community, good social networks, food, water, access to education, stable housing, affordable childcare and good opportunities for their children.

 

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

Except that's not in any sense true, is it? 

This is what has me unsure of what you meant 😆 

I'd say the needs and desires of people I listed there are pretty much universal. Color or creed.

[Peterkin]

45 minutes ago, MSC said:

How exactly are the demands of women different based on color?

I didn't mean that their difference were based on colour. I meant that they were all different - though now you menetion it, there are areas of overlap in the experience of women within each ethnic group.

You don't need different species to be for or against reproductive freedom, for or against prayers in school, for or against universal health care, for or against gun contol, for or against fossil fuel. There are groups of voters with a common stand on the issues, and groups of voters who have unaddressed needs, and groups of voters with grievances and groups of voters with common agendas. Those groups may also have ethnicity or gender in common, but neither ethnicity nor gender guarantees that a voter falls into one group or another on those issues.

 No one woman, of any colour, can  represent all women, just as no one person of African descent, whatever gender, can represent all dark-skinned people. Voter blocs differ by more than ethnicity and/or sex.

If you set up an image: "Woman" to represent half the voters, you're setting up a false image. But those who are preoccupied with the 'optics', will see her that way. 

Representation in the highest level of government entails a whole lot more than image. 

45 minutes ago, MSC said:

Help, recognition/appreciation, respect, good health, happy family, decent community, good social networks, food, water, access to education, stable housing, affordable childcare and good opportunities for their children.

Yeah, you'd think, wouldn't you? And yet....

 

45 minutes ago, MSC said:

I'd say the needs and desires of people I listed there are pretty much universal. Color or creed.

If that's what you're seeing in the world, can I have the name of your optician?

That's what everybody wants to him or herself. The trick is persuading them to want it for everybody else. 

Edited April 14, 2022 by Peterkin

[MSC]

17 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

No one woman, of any colour, can  represent all women, just as no one person of African descent, whatever gender, can represent all dark-skinned people. Voter blocs differ by more than ethnicity and/or sex.

If you set up an image: "Woman" to represent half the voters, you're setting up a false image. But those who are preoccupied with the 'optics', will see her that way. 

Representation in the highest level of government entails a whole lot more than image. 

To be clear, when I used this argument, it was more to Steelman the Rephblican line of "oh she only represents 4-6%" line of bullshit. By saying "but if we follow your logic and apply it in a different way, it actually stands against your point." In this case, within that same logical framework, it can be reasonably argued that she represents over half of voter demographics within the makeup of the Supreme Court by way of being a woman. 

To put it simply, sometimes you have to meet people where they are at and lead them away from the narrow-mindedness gradually.

[Peterkin]

35 minutes ago, MSC said:

within that same logical framework, it can be reasonably argued that she represents over half of voter demographics within the makeup of the Supreme Court

In that frame, her constituency is even larger. There are more adult women than men to begin with; more women are registered to vote and the voter turnout in the last election was higher among women, plus you have to add the whole Black population old enough to vote, including men. That's a pretty big majority.  

48 minutes ago, MSC said:

To be clear, when I used this argument, it was more to Steelman the Rephblican line of "oh she only represents 4-6%" line of bullshit

Inclusianry vs. exclusionary BS. OK

49 minutes ago, MSC said:

To put it simply, sometimes you have to meet people where they are at and lead them away from the narrow-mindedness gradually.

Republican senators can be led away from their prejudices?

There was a time when I hoped they might be driven away by the most perfidious, monstrously stupid travesty  ever perpetrated on the oval office. Not anymore.