Biden was right, pick a black woman.

[Jarod]

I don’t think anyone is saying just any black women will do. There are thousands I would object to… What Biden is saying is that there are plenty of very qualified black women and they have been looked over for too long.

When a qualified group has been discriminated against for over 200 years, I’m ok with going out of our way to pick a well qualified person out of that group.

[BartenderElite]

It's such a silly thing to object to.

What it assumes is that there is only ONE qualified candidate for SCOTUS.

There are many; it's not like he's picking a "worse" candidate when he declares his intention to appoint a black woman.

[McRocket]

The amount of melanin in a person's skin should have ZERO bearing on whom is picked for the SCOTUS.

[BartenderElite]

The amount of melanin in a person's skin should have ZERO bearing on whom is picked for the SCOTUS.

Why?

Until we eliminate racial inequity, that statement simply isn't true.

[BartenderElite]

You could also say that the amount of melanin in a person's skin should have no bearing on whether they get pulled over.

[Legion]

I don’t think anyone is saying just any black women will do.

Maybe that's because nobody is, AFAIK. Strawman much?

There are thousands I would object to…

Name them.

What Biden is saying is that there are plenty of very qualified black women and they have been looked over for too long.

I don't agree. IMO, what bungling Biden is saying is that he's stuck with a promise he made so he has to pander for the sake of appearances.

When a qualified group has been discriminated against for over 200 years, I’m ok with going out of our way to pick a well qualified person out of that group.

Isn't that racial and gender discrimination? Only one race and one gender are even under consideration.

[Legion]

Why? Until we eliminate racial inequity, that statement simply isn't true.

So you say.

The law prohibits discrimination on the basis of race and gender, last time I looked.

[Legion]

It's such a silly thing to object to. What it assumes is that there is only ONE qualified candidate for SCOTUS. There are many; it's not like he's picking a "worse" candidate when he declares his intention to appoint a black woman.

False conclusion.

When is blatant racial and gender discrimination "a silly thing to object to"?

Nobody is assuming that "there is only ONE qualified candidate for SCOTUS", are they?

[Legion]

You could also say that the amount of melanin in a person's skin should have no bearing on whether they get pulled over.

And so it shouldn't. Ergo, discrimination is indefensible.

[McRocket]

Why?

Until we eliminate racial inequity, that statement simply isn't true.

Sooooo...instead of basing the SCOTUS pick SOLELY on their judicial qualifications?

You want to use the SCOTUS as a means to 'eliminate racial inequality'?


So...Affirmative Action has now reached the Supreme Court.




I can see it now?
By 2036..the requirements for the SCOTUS will be (to appeal to EVERYONE):

'must be 'multi-racial, female, left-handed, vegan, drive an EV, is trans, shops at Walmart, is a member of the NRA, owns an Abrams MBT, has NEVER farted, is married to a Camaro, puts free range cockroaches on their pizza AND their excrement must contain at least 1.7% gold flakes. Oh...and must have at least heard of the Constitution.'


We are done here.

Good day.

And Kiss America Goodbye.

[Stone]

Why?

Until we eliminate racial inequity, that statement simply isn't true.

But for the Supreme Court????? WTF! Best person....regardless of color.

[BartenderElite]

But for the Supreme Court????? WTF! Best person....regardless of color.

Oh. So, there is ONE BEST PERSON for the Supreme Court?

Don't answer that.

[Jarod]

The amount of melanin in a person's skin should have ZERO bearing on whom is picked for the SCOTUS.

It’s about having a different perspective

[Minister of Truth]

I say we nominate a black woman with a law degree from Ole Miss and who currently holds a district judgeship. Those are some fun check boxes!

[McRocket]

It’s about having a different perspective

These are judges for legal issues based on the Constitution.

Not judges for a beauty contest.

Either a case they are judging is supported by the Constitution/US law or it isn't.

'Perspective' has NOTHING to do with it.

I sincerely do not think you understand what a SCOTUS judge does.


We are done here.

Good day.