the i dont care about politics anymore thread

[Patriam1066]

Originally Posted by unsunghero [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

It’s muddied when considering picking someone based on their politics. The judicial system is supposed to be a part of checks and balances to our other 2 branches of government but both parties see it as an obstacle to getting their directives done. Theoretically the ideal person in my opinion would have no political affiliation whatsoever and no vested interest in politics. But if someone claimed this, I’m sure no one would believe them

Religion shouldn’t be a factor either. Definitely couldn’t say “I’m not picking this person bc of their religion” bc illegal tho

I think trump’s picks were red meat for his base, just like Biden’s pick probably will be, but there are bigger issues. In any case, Biden needs the vote of Manchin so he can’t choose someone completely out of left field

[Reiwa]

Originally Posted by unsunghero [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

It’s muddied when considering picking someone based on their politics. The judicial system is supposed to be a part of checks and balances to our other 2 branches of government but both parties see it as an obstacle to getting their directives done. Theoretically the ideal person in my opinion would have no political affiliation whatsoever and no vested interest in politics. But if someone claimed this, I’m sure no one would believe them

Religion shouldn’t be a factor either. Definitely couldn’t say “I’m not picking this person bc of their religion” bc illegal tho

He did supposedly make it as a promise to Clyburn and the CBC for making him king. 👑

Choose your champion(top 3):

DC Circuit Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

California Supreme Court Justice Leondra Kruger
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

South Carolina US District Court Judge J. Michelle Childs
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Gatordash]

Out of those picks I think I'd want Julianna Childs or Kentaji Jackson. The wikipedia article on Leondra Kruger states that she got appointed to her position without any experience by Governor Jerry Brown, so I guess good for her if she once once again gets appointed just because she is a black woman.

[Reiwa]

Originally Posted by Gatordash [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Out of those picks I think I'd want Julianna Childs or Kentaji Jackson. The wikipedia article on Leondra Kruger states that she got appointed to her position without any experience by Governor Jerry Brown, so I guess good for her if she once once again gets appointed just because she is a black woman.

I would bet on Childs because she's from Clyburns state. Kruger is way too young anyway.

[unsunghero]

From yahoo:

“Conservatives in general and white Americans in particular have no business lecturing the rest of us about identity politics or that it’s wrong to pick a minority to serve on the nation’s Supreme Court. White justices held the court for 178 years and men for nearly 200 years, and now they are balking about the idea of selecting a Black woman? It’s pure hypocrisy. But they have no shame”

These sort of statements confuse me. So is it now 178 years of black justices to make it Even Steven? Then we cycle to 178 years of hispanic justices? Or do we do just a few years of solid blacks then maybe speckle some other colors in there? What’s the rule here?

Also, how bad do you want it? I have no knowledge of these justices, but for any other thing, if you had been anticipating it for a long time, you would probably take one of 2 attitudes. If the thing you want you could get soon, your attitude would probably be “I’ve been waiting x [unit of time] for this thing, and I can’t wait another [unit of time]!” However, if you had to sacrifice a decent amount of quality or function to get the thing you want soon, but by waiting the quality would be better, you might take an attitude of “well I’ve been waiting x [unit of time] for this thing, what’s one more [unit of time]” to inspire patience

I’ve found myself cycling between these two attitudes when waiting for something that I know I could get now, but not quite in the best fit, or potentially later, in a better fit

Just found this idea of how we adjust our attitudes when we need patience interesting

[Patriam1066]

Originally Posted by unsunghero [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

From yahoo:

“Conservatives in general and white Americans in particular have no business lecturing the rest of us about identity politics or that it’s wrong to pick a minority to serve on the nation’s Supreme Court. White justices held the court for 178 years and men for nearly 200 years, and now they are balking about the idea of selecting a Black woman? It’s pure hypocrisy. But they have no shame”

These sort of statements confuse me. So is it now 178 years of black justices to make it Even Steven? Then we cycle to 178 years of hispanic justices? Or do we do just a few years of solid blacks then maybe speckle some other colors in there? What’s the rule here?

Also, how bad do you want it? I have no knowledge of these justices, but for any other thing, if you had been anticipating it for a long time, you would probably take one of 2 attitudes. If the thing you want you could get soon, your attitude would probably be “I’ve been waiting x [unit of time] for this thing, and I can’t wait another [unit of time]!” However, if you had to sacrifice a decent amount of quality or function to get the thing you want soon, but by waiting the quality would be better, you might take an attitude of “well I’ve been waiting x [unit of time] for this thing, what’s one more [unit of time]” to inspire patience

I’ve found myself cycling between these two attitudes when waiting for something that I know I could get now, but not quite in the best fit, or potentially later, in a better fit

Just found this idea of how we adjust our attitudes when we need patience interesting

There’s that old Duke study about how affirmative action admissions didn’t work out because the kids flunked out anyway. It wasted everyone’s time and money

In this case, the people who would be appointed would almost certainly be qualified. It’s more of the Rooney rule from the NFL as opposed to affirmative action. This is “taking a look” at well qualified candidates from a particular minority group, as opposed to giving unqualified candidates a leg up on people who are more deserving, does that make sense? That’s how I see it and why I’m not worried about it. And again, republicans would never, at this point, nominate a judge to SCOTUS who wasn’t a conservative Christian. If you want a truly better system, look to neither party. Both political parties now pander to their primary voters as opposed to doing what is right for the entirety of the country

That said, that article is clearly written by an entitled moron. White men also wrote the Magna Carta and the Latin script. Doesn’t matter, and it doesn’t make it wrong by default

[unsunghero]

Originally Posted by Patriam1066 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

There’s that old Duke study about how affirmative action admissions didn’t work out because the kids flunked out anyway. It wasted everyone’s time and money

In this case, the people who would be appointed would almost certainly be qualified. It’s more of the Rooney rule from the NFL as opposed to affirmative action. This is “taking a look” at well qualified candidates from a particular minority group, as opposed to giving unqualified candidates a leg up on people who are more deserving, does that make sense? That’s how I see it and why I’m not worried about it. And again, republicans would never, at this point, nominate a judge to SCOTUS who wasn’t a conservative Christian. If you want a truly better system, look to neither party. Both political parties now pander to their primary voters as opposed to doing what is right for the entirety of the country

That said, that article is clearly written by an entitled moron. White men also wrote the Magna Carta and the Latin script. Doesn’t matter, and it doesn’t make it wrong by default

Ya, good points. I have heard negatives towards the beneficiaries of affirmative action in that if it is pushed too hard, the beneficiaries will eventually suffer in the end in addition to those that were pushed aside for it. If someone who is under qualified is pushed through and continued to be pushed through, eventually this will catch up to them. And if this reality check is being fired for a job that they were not quite qualified for, and let’s say they committed hard by moving to new state and putting a down payment on a house or something, they could be in quite a bind. Sort of an extreme example, but showing how even a beneficiary can suffer in the end

I was just thinking that of the possible candidates here, the total is really only 3. Whereas if we were in an alternative Spider-Man metaverse (is that the word? I didn’t see the movie) where there was no previous white monopoly to feel the need to compensate for now, and the candidates were the original number….and say years down the road a black female happened to be the best out of the entire group not just the best of 3, would the system be better off?

[Gravydoo II]

How can we make laws that effect people without having them represented in the law making? Like shouldnt we have black peoples input on laws, since they effect them too? Women too? Black women too? And hispanic people. We cant know what its like to be them or how a law could effect them differently. Its good to have as many different perspectives as possible if the law is going to apply to literally every single person in the country.

[unsunghero]

Originally Posted by Gravydoo II [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

How can we make laws that effect people without having them represented in the law making? Like shouldnt we have black peoples input on laws, since they effect them too? Women too? Black women too? And hispanic people. We cant know what its like to be them or how a law could effect them differently. Its good to have as many different perspectives as possible if the law is going to apply to literally every single person in the country.

True, but to some degree it’s more about where you grew up than your skin color. A poor white person from the ghetto is probably going to act more like a poor black or poor Hispanic person from the ghetto than they would act like a rich white person from the suburbs

And if we compare a black person from Africa to a black person from the USA, there are a lot of differences, same as between a white Irishman or a white Italian, etc

So really we can’t cram a round lived experience expectation into a square peg hole of skin color. We can’t say well we got 2 black guys, so between the 2 of them they understand the needs and experiences of all the black people in America. So it works, but not all that well, IMO

But on the contrary, the reverse is even more true. A group of entirely one race is probably even less likely to understand. So, we are still choosing the better of two situations, but we have to be careful not to sacrifice too much quality or merit in doing so

[unsunghero]

It’s funny because comedian Bill Burr’s wife is black, and he made a joke that if you are in an inter-racial relationship, and especially if you are that person’s first of your ethnicity, you are sorta fucking for your race. Because he or she is going to associate what it’s like to have sex with your race based on you. And that’s a lot of pressure

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]