I'm Confused

[Versatile_Hunter]

5 minutes ago, Salmon_Run said:

But how can Biden say that statement BEFORE HIS SELECTION, let's reverse this and use the Trump model. You brought up Trump so riddle me this:

What if Trump had said "I'm filling a USSC position and going to select a white male" ?

 

I don't understand the logic. Do you think these Supreme Court candidates didn't exist or haven't been vetted until after a vacancy was announced?

You're upset because you feel that Biden is playing politics by announcing race. How is this any different than Trump promising to appoint Supreme Court justices to overturn Roe v Wade? Abortion is as politicized as race in this country. It was a shrewd political move that won him the Christian right and ultimately the presidency. They're playing the same game.

Now, I personally prefer Biden's game because I'm in favor of both gender/racial parity in public institutions and in women having autonomy over their bodies and not being governed by fringe theological doctrine.

[Versatile_Hunter]

2 minutes ago, Salmon_Run said:

VH your still off the mark from my original post, the post had NOTHING to do with who or who isn't qualified, it simply about the statement made over choice.

No  one should say or make that choice based on anything OTHER THAN QUALLIFICATIONS. One can not and should say they are making a choice based on any factor other than qualifications....bottom line.

NO ONE here said there weren't any qualified black woman, not even close!  As I am sure there are many.

Just to be clear you jumped to the card that we said there were no qualified black woman. I was pointing out the utter hypocrisy of Biden's statement and how is that not racist based upon the societal norms of today?    

I quoted what I was responding to. There is no ambiguity here. I'm sorry if you wish the quote said something else... 

[Jeremy K]

3 minutes ago, Versatile_Hunter said:

I don't understand the logic. Do you think these Supreme Court candidates didn't exist or haven't been vetted until after a vacancy was announced?

You're upset because you feel that Biden is playing politics by announcing race. How is this any different than Trump promising to appoint Supreme Court justices to overturn Roe v Wade? Abortion is as politicized as race in this country. It was a shrewd political move that won him the Christian right and ultimately the presidency. They're playing the same game.

Now, I personally prefer Biden's game because I'm in favor of both gender/racial parity in public institutions and in women having autonomy over their bodies and not being governed by fringe theological doctrine.

Shocking you would be in favor of everything biden is doing.

[BizCT]

3 minutes ago, Jeremy K said:

Shocking you would be in favor of everything biden is doing.

I love many types of vegetables, but Biden isn't one of them 

[Versatile_Hunter]

14 minutes ago, Chef said:

While I don’t disagree with your basic premise here, this can be done without announcing it. We have enough division in this country don’t Alienate more people.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't know, the last guy didn't seem to care too much about decorum or political correctness. In fact, I believe he mocked it.

But sure, was there political posturing in this announcement? Leave it to the politicians to play politics. Don't think Lindsey Graham is playing along because he's suddenly a great guy. He's making a shrewd political decision. But hey, is it so bad for these white guys in charge to finally say black people matter? 

[Jeremy K]

1 minute ago, Versatile_Hunter said:

I don't know, the last guy didn't seem to care too much about decorum or political correctness. In fact, I believe he mocked it.

But sure, was there political posturing in this announcement? Leave it to the politicians to play politics. Don't think Lindsey Graham is playing along because he's suddenly a great guy. He's making a shrewd political decision. But hey, is it so bad for these white guys in charge to finally say black people matter? 

More deflection as usual ,bring up trump to avoid holding biden accountable for any of his screw ups.

[crappyice]

I don't understand the logic. Do you think these Supreme Court candidates didn't exist or haven't been vetted until after a vacancy was announced?
You're upset because you feel that Biden is playing politics by announcing race. How is this any different than Trump promising to appoint Supreme Court justices to overturn Roe v Wade? Abortion is as politicized as race in this country. It was a shrewd political move that won him the Christian right and ultimately the presidency. They're playing the same game.
Now, I personally prefer Biden's game because I'm in favor of both gender/racial parity in public institutions and in women having autonomy over their bodies and not being governed by fringe theological doctrine.

RoevWade is a Supreme court issue.
“Black woman” is not.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Robhuntandfish]

8 minutes ago, crappyice said:

RoevWade is a Supreme court issue.
“Black woman” is not.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

i never understoof why all the hostility over this.  Hands down i would rather row than wade. Seems like everytime i wade I end up falling on my ass and getting soaked.  

[Northcountryman]

1 hour ago, Versatile_Hunter said:

But hey, is it so bad for these white guys in charge to finally say black people matter? 

This assertion would have been far more fitting, say , I don’t know , 50 years ago  maybe ? How long ago has Justice Thomas been on the bench , anyway ? And , for that matter who appointed him ? 

[Versatile_Hunter]

1 hour ago, crappyice said:

RoevWade is a Supreme court issue.
“Black woman” is not.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You need to brush up on your history if you think race and gender rights don’t fall under the purview of the Supreme Court.
It’s a good thing for the court to resemble the make up of America. Get over it. 

[Chef]

You need to brush up on your history if you think race and gender rights don’t fall under the purview of the Supreme Court.
It’s a good thing for the court to resemble the make up of America. Get over it. 

I don’t think anyone here is saying it’s a bad thing for a black woman to be on the court.. it just seems dumb for him to say he is appointing someone for that reason.

Great go appoint who ever you want. Share with us all the merit they have. Don’t turn it into a racial issue.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Versatile_Hunter]

37 minutes ago, Chef said:

I don’t think anyone here is saying it’s a bad thing for a black woman to be on the court.. it just seems dumb for him to say he is appointing someone for that reason.

Great go appoint who ever you want. Share with us all the merit they have. Don’t turn it into a racial issue.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No I don’t think anyone has said that either. I’m claiming that there is nothing unique to this kind of presidential posturing. In my examples, they’re signaling to a demographic that feels that fetuses or minorities have been disenfranchised, certainly for perceived political gain. There’s nothing like the prospect of nominating a Justice to mobilize an electorate. Sure it’d be great if this political gamesmanship wasn’t in play, and perhaps better if it was operating more subtly in the background if at all. 

Edited January 31, 2022 by Versatile_Hunter

[Four Seasons]

4 hours ago, Salmon_Run said:

VH your still off the mark from my original post, the post had NOTHING to do with who or who isn't qualified, it simply about the statement made over choice.

No  one should say or make that choice based on anything OTHER THAN QUALLIFICATIONS. One can not and should say they are making a choice based on any factor other than qualifications....bottom line.

NO ONE here said there weren't any qualified black woman, not even close!  As I am sure there are many.

Just to be clear you jumped to the card that we said there were no qualified black woman. I was pointing out the utter hypocrisy of Biden's statement and how is that not racist based upon the societal norms of today?    

Exactly. As i am sure there are qualified black women for the job, I am sure there is a chance that there might be a better qualified white women for that same job.  

[Robhuntandfish]

5 hours ago, Salmon_Run said:

But how can Biden say that statement BEFORE HIS SELECTION, let's reverse this and use the Trump model. You brought up Trump so riddle me this:

What if Trump had said "I'm filling a USSC position and going to select a white male" ?

 

Although I also don't like that Biden is using race or gender, I don't recall the outrage when Trump announced he will nominate a woman to the supreme Court to replace Ginsberg.  And if you recall Reagan also said during his campaign that he would nominate a woman to the court once elected.

It seems this is also being used as a Target of convience for the right.  

It should always be the next best person but where was everyone's outrage for Trump?  

We are all so quick to push the agenda of the most recent issue and cry outrage as long as it fits our own narrative.  

This is coming from someone that thinks Biden is a buffoon.  But I also am able to see how each side just continues to push the outrage and division any which way they can spin it these days as long as it fits their need. 

That being said I hope a qualified candidate applies, and files for discrimination, if they aren't interviewed due to race and gender. But I also would have welcomed that to Trump's same agenda when stating his appointment would be a woman.  Fair is fair. 

[Versatile_Hunter]

27 minutes ago, Robhuntandfish said:

Although I also don't like that Biden is using race or gender, I don't recall the outrage when Trump announced he will nominate a woman to the supreme Court to replace Ginsberg.  And if you recall Reagan also said during his campaign that he would nominate a woman to the court once elected.

 

Nailed it. Though in this instance I believe in the cause and so I feel the declaration is laudable, it’s the same old game. Nothing outrageous or inappropriate. Bunch of dainty snowflakes. 
 

[Trial153]

Although I also don't like that Biden is using race or gender, I don't recall the outrage when Trump announced he will nominate a woman to the supreme Court to replace Ginsberg.  And if you recall Reagan also said during his campaign that he would nominate a woman to the court once elected.
It seems this is also being used as a Target of convience for the right.  
It should always be the next best person but where was everyone's outrage for Trump?  
We are all so quick to push the agenda of the most recent issue and cry outrage as long as it fits our own narrative.  
This is coming from someone that thinks Biden is a buffoon.  But I also am able to see how each side just continues to push the outrage and division any which way they can spin it these days as long as it fits their need. 
That being said I hope a qualified candidate applies, and files for discrimination, if they aren't interviewed due to race and gender. But I also would have welcomed that to Trump's same agenda when stating his appointment would be a woman.  Fair is fair. 

Selective outrage that’s stems from political Tribalism. They been programmed to respond that way.

[46rkl]

Politicians are all alike. Party distinctions aside, they are all the same.

A few weeks before Election Day 1980, Reagan was favored to win, but he was struggling a bit with women voters. There was no great mystery as to why: The Republican was an opponent of the Equal Rights Amendment, and he had a record of appointing men almost exclusively to key positions of power during his terms as governor of California.

And so, eager to narrow the gender gap, Reagan made an announcement on Oct. 15, 1980: He pledged to name a woman to "one of the first Supreme Court vacancies in my administration." The future president added, "It is time for a woman to sit among our highest jurists."

[Shoots100]

10 hours ago, Chef said:

I actually agree with this… even if he knew he wanted to pick a black woman… he should keep it to him self and then pick a black woman.

The response should always be I will pick the most qualified person for the job!

That’s it


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm going to have to say that the change in your eating habit's is having some effect on your thinking, in a positive way, except for you selling that beautiful Garand.

[Shoots100]

According to a 2021 profile of the legal profession by the American Bar Association, just 4.7 percent of American lawyers are Black and 37 percent of lawyers are female. The report did not break out Black women in particular, but the implication is that roughly 2 percent of American lawyers are both Black and female.

 

[Grouse]

I don't care which President did it, or does it, it is a violation of the Rule of Law and anyone who thinks it isn't doesn't know what he's talking about.  Even doing it without saying you want to do it, is illegal.

"Ironically, it is against federal law to begin a job search by announcing that only people of a certain race will be considered and that all people of other races will be rejected. The Supreme Court itself has been clear on that matter. As Justice Lewis Powell wrote in the 1978 Bakke case, 'Preferring members of any one group for no reason other than race or ethnic origin is discrimination for its own sake. This the Constitution forbids.'" —Gary Bauer

As far as Biden goes.

"Hate to break it to you but the only black person serving on the Supreme Court today was personally attacked, defamed and slandered by Joe Biden before he voted AGAINST him." —Benny Johnson

[Grouse]

President Joe Biden has made clear he will keep his promise to put the first black woman on the Supreme Court, following Justice Stephen Breyer’s retirement. But in a curious tweet announcing he will pick someone with excellent qualifications, he said:

“And they will be the first black woman nominated to the United States Supreme Court.”

They? 

Yes. Don’t be surprised. “Diversity and equity” are of paramount importance to the Biden administration. He is making sure you remember it as he is making this announcement. So why would you assume it is a “she”?

At least theoretically, the first black woman Supreme Court justice could be a biological male who self-identifies as a woman. The move would go right along with current White House practice.

[9jNYstarkOH]

People that disagree aren’t all from the opposite sides of the aisle.

[Salmon_Run]

It further amazes me that this has been given so many spins from my original post; from:  some feel there isn't a viable black female, Trump said or did, other presidents did the same political posturing and on and on.....prior wrongs don't make that statement correct.

My point was how does a sitting president who ran on the ticket of equality for all make the statement that he is making an appointment to the highest court based upon color and gender ?

There is NO SPINNING THAT and it is wrong !

Somehow the Biden fans feel that's ok and attempt to defend the statement. It's divisive, and further creates divide on both sides of the isle.....If in any workplace in the US one made the statement they were hiring or promoting based upon color and gender that'd be a lawsuit with lawyers drooling.

Yes, I think Biden is a week ineffective leader and his health is a question, Trump was most likely the most unpresidential president in history and I never made it through one of his speeches...not a fan of either as a leader.....

  

[Salmon_Run]

16 hours ago, Versatile_Hunter said:

Nailed it. Though in this instance I believe in the cause and so I feel the declaration is laudable, it’s the same old game. Nothing outrageous or inappropriate. Bunch of dainty snowflakes. 
 

If Trump did it it still doesn't make it right today....you never answered an earlier question.

Would it be acceptable, under your way of thinking, for one to state that they are promoting, hiring or appointing a person based on gender and color if they said they were appointing a white male?

Do you feel that's an acceptable statement in any workplace ? (that's a yes or no question without name calling, Trump said/did or any deflection or history lesson)

Not a snowflake just fed up with hypocrisy in politics.. 

Edited February 1, 2022 by Salmon_Run
added text

[Northcountryman]

20 minutes ago, Salmon_Run said:

Would it be acceptable, under your way of thinking, for one to state that they are promoting, hiring or appointing a person based on gender and color if they said they were appointing a white male?

Excellent analogy!! 

20 minutes ago, Salmon_Run said:

Not a snowflake just fed up with hypocrisy in politics.. 

What a Snowflake?