Trump said "I will be putting forth a nominee next week. It will be a woman.". So, it was very clear he was choosing a woman from the get go. Reagan also pledged in his campaign in 1980 to put a woman in the Supreme Court, no asterisk for Sandra Day O'Connor. Clarence Thomas? There's a reason he was chosen by Daddy Bush to fill the spot of the first black justice. If there's an asterisk, then it's only because people choose to do so and erroneously believe there are no qualified black women in the first place. It's a stupid charade and dumb canard which is always pulled in these situations.
You seem to come to this conclusion based on the idea that there is a lot of difference between the top people in the pool. And there very likely is not. Otherwise we'd just always take whoever was oldest, since experience would be the deciding factor. At the highest level, the difference is... probably quite negligible.
And this he... already knows, before the nomination, that a black woman is not "the best" choice? And what makes Amy Coney Barrett the "best" choice? Who was fourth best? 10th? No person is "the best" or "deserves" to be POTUS, on the SCOTUS, or a Senator, or a Mayor, etc. These are service positions. Not noble titles. People are "qualified", or not. So as long as the nominee has been a judge for 3 years, they should be good, right? Or is it that they must agree with Shapiro, to "deserve" it? You're a huge hypocrite, Indy. Huge. Very large. That you posted only yesterday about a double standard because a guy *didn't* state an opinion and then try to act like it is reasonable to decry this as-yet-to-be-made selection while ignoring Barrett's is, frankly, very predictable and funny. What a joke.
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/06/29/trump-supreme-court-female-justice-abortion-685929 6 out of the 25 people on his list were women. That doesn't sound to me like someone who only considered women. https://thehill.com/homenews/admini...nominee-will-most-likely-be-a-woman-announced Saying that he will "most likely" choose a woman and that a woman was currently "in first place," is not the same thing as saying, before you become president or a seat opens up that you will nominate a black woman. The Reagan comparison makes more sense. I think you could make a pretty strong argument, though, that the need for the first female Supreme Court Justice, just from a pure representation/numbers perspective, made a lot more sense, at the time, than the need for a black woman now. Did Bush campaign on nominating the first black supreme court justice? The asterisk is Biden's doing. By narrowing the field to only black women, he eliminates numerous qualified candidates based on their sex and color of their skin, which creates the asterisks. Had he not said anything, and then just selected a black woman, anyone calling it out as a political move would be the ones creating the asterisk, like you did with Bush.
This contradicts your entire moth-eaten position. You're trying to have it both ways. Which I know you hate.
I don't get what you're asking in the first line. If Ilya Shapiro believes that Sri Srinivasan is "objectively" (his words, not mine) the best candidate, then, yeah, he doesn't think a black woman is the best choice. Because Sri Srinivasan is not a black woman. Well, I posted an article the man wrote about her. Surely it gave you some clue as to why he might have thought she was the best choice. You don't truly believe that there aren't other separating factors beyond "qualified" or "not qualified." Does Sri Srinivasan "agree with Shapiro?" Lol The Barrett thing isn't a double standard. Trump did not say on the campaign that he would nominate a woman. Trump had 6 women and 19 men on his list of potential nominees. Trump didn't cut every single person who wasn't a specific skin color and sex out of contention from the beginning of the process.
No, it doesn't. I'm conceding, in that sentence, that the Reagan point is a good one, and the best that Uni made. It's far, FAR better than the Trump, ACB point. But I can get on board with the idea of representation if qualifications are equal (which you've already stated, in your opinion, they are). My point with Reagan was that the situation was far more unbalanced at that time. I went back and found the conversation already had in the other thread, and I can get on board with representation. I see your point about history, and the number of black vs white justices appointed over time, but I don't think it makes much sense to look at it that way. We know we have a rough history with regards to race, so we know why those numbers are what they are. Our goal shouldn't be to look back at this historic numbers down the road and see an exact balance based on the race breakdown of the country at that future point. The goal should be to make sure that the numbers make sense moving forward. And right now, with 1 out of 9 Justices being black, that's relatively representative of that population. There are other races not currently represented on the Supreme Court. Why were they not able to be considered? Biden might have been more easily able to get away with the comment had he said "woman of color." At least then he's hitting a much larger demographic. But again, I would have preferred had he just not said anything and then selected a black woman. Would have made it seem a lot less like tokenism.
While reading through some stuff, I came across this article, which I thought was interesting: https://abcnews.go.com/US/majority-...-supreme-court-vacancy-poll/story?id=82553398
Yes, it is an optics problem and the well has been poisoned. Apparently 77% of folks don't believe a black woman could be "the best" candidate. As you said, our history on race is not so great. We are living history today.
Correct, experience is not created equal. Which is why we don't just take the most experienced person. And at the top, the candidates are pretty much equally qualified, even if not equally experienced. Because not all experience is equal.
Lol what on earth? I don't know why you equate "77% of people want Biden to consider all candidates" and "77% of folks don't believe a black woman could be the best candidate." It's just you making shit up. Your statement would make sense if the poll showed that 77% want Biden to consider all candidates except black women. But that's not what the poll says.
You can make a case for it, but at least Barrett was a circuit court judge, same as every other justice not named Elena Kagan.
Even with a mixed original list, it's, essentially, distinction without difference. Were men, potential "best candidates possible" eliminated because they were men? Yes. Trump decided to choose a woman, creating the field based upon sex. And, Biden has [uck fay] all to do with creating an asterisk. As I said, it's a silly game a white male never has to play and if people are too [uck fay]ing intellectually lazy to bother understanding the candidates merits, then any asterisk is on their shoulders. I also didn't create an asterisk with Thomas as Bush's pick. I noted he was the candidate to replace Marshall because he was black, but not because he wasn't qualified. As it happens, I don't think he was or is, but this had nothing to do with his him being chosen because of his and me making an asterisk for him. If I did, that would be on me and not Bush.
Sounds like you're making assumptions about Trump's thought process. I don't have to do that with Biden. He told us his thought process. They're not the same. I just disagree with you.
Black women account for 6% of the population. IMO publicly eliminating 94% of the candidate pool on the basis of race and gender isn't the "best" approach regardless of past demographic realities. Plenty of other qualified candidates that fall under historically under representative categories. It would have been perfectly reasonable to simply introduce a black female without publicly proclaiming before-hand what the specific race and sex of the nominee will have. With that said, I don't think it's a big deal at the end of the day. Biden's not the first and won't be the last POTUS to publicly limit the demographic parameters of a potential nominee. There are no asterisks once you are confirmed on the Supreme Court.
I first asked about the rankings awhile ago, and I don't think we should splinter off into appeals to authority on political matters when neither of us are moved by that anyway.
