I said DeSantis not Trump.
Democratic racism... Everything is about race. Biden picking a black woman months ahead of time. Nothing wrong with picking one if she is the best person. Few would think she has been. Ditto supreme court pick and his cabinet. Do I care if secretary of something is gay, a woman, Hispanic, etc? No, I prefer they…
Democratic racism... Everything is about race. Biden picking a black woman months ahead of time. Nothing wrong with picking one if she is the best person. Few would think she has been. Ditto supreme court pick and his cabinet. Do I care if secretary of something is gay, a woman, Hispanic, etc? No, I prefer they be a good candidate. Some are but when one limits the pool the odds increase for a bad choice.
Didn't like Reagan picking O'Connor because she was a woman either
Re appealing to white supremacists, they are a small minority so not the best political strategy.
Right...in other words - "If only they were WHITE!! Then there wouldn't be the problems of racism! How is it that your own stupidity hasn't killed you by now?
I can empathize with your desire to live in a society where gender, racial, or other identity issues are disregarded because ...meritocracy. I'd like to find that one too. But, in THIS society, with its foundation in, and history of, racism, sexism, ethnic and religious discrimination... and diversity ...that is a fantasy. There are a multitude of legacy effects of all of that. redlining, ghetto-ization of black populations in communities where the tax base wouldn't pay for water, schools, services, electrification, or transit. Black farmers who couldn't get loans from the government so had to sell their land to white neighbors who could. Women who only achieved the ability to get a credit line without their husbands permission in the 1970!? Do we not need their perspective in governance and judicial decisions? And, no, white nationalism and Christian nationalism are having a moment. And much of the rage driving it is contrived issues by the propaganda arm of the Republican party. "Wokism"..."God help us if our kids learn what happened in the past." All so much "I don't see color BS".
This is spot on, James. Spot on. America needs to look in the mirror and face what her history is so she can mature up and make decisions that protect her people, all of her people. She is a melting pot and her Great Experiment is still in the adolescent stages. And based on the seditious republican party members and leaders, they are grossly reversing maturity levels.
I don't think the answer to past discrimination is more discrimination.
I do support helping those on the bottom of the ladder, be they black, white, Hispanic or anything else.
I think those who are sick of wokism just don't like the excesses, such as the 1619 project. Well, that and things like men can get pregnant, menstruating people, 3 year olds can determine they are another gender, etc. The US has done some great things and some terrible things. The millions who desire to still come here support the idea that not all is bad here and things may get better.
It's certainly very convenient to reframe "making amends for centuries of past racism" as "racism" when your forebearers benefited from the systemic inequality and you likely did too via generational wealth.
Maybe for once in your life try to put yourself into the shoes of the people who were on the worse end of slavery, oppression, and then systemic discrimination intentionally formed to keep them in a second class status in society... and then tell me again that some amount of "more discrimination" isn't a necessary solution, because we've already determined we're not going to actually PAY in straight reparations for those sins. We've given plenty of systems the chance to reform themselves and be less discriminatory, and they routinely fail to do so... When those in power can't even level the playing field NOW, let alone admit the accumulated past harms and how that put generations of people behind economically... it would be pretty silly to pretend we don't need *intentional* policies to force their reformation.
Again I say, it's VERY convenient to decide "discrimination needs to end entirely" when it's finally white men who are the ones who might be minutely affected in any way whatsoever.
But. Everything IS about race. In our racist country, most policies have been designed to maintain the unequal playing field. We started out as a racist country and have never had a national discussion, at least, a reasoned one, about how race and racism affects almost everything. And if it isn't racism, then it's sexism. We just love to punish people for how they've been categorized. DeSantis has successfully suppressed the votes of a lot of Black Floridians. Since he doesn't know any of them personally, I'd suggest it's solely because they're Black. How is that not racism?
Bingo. That is exactly the shadow we are confronted with in this bigoted, authoritarian, white male supremacist republican party petrified of what is happening about equality. Their caste system thrones are getting wobbly. And those who want to sit on thrones assume they deserve better than others due to their skin pigmentation (or lack thereof). Also there is always that tribal, gonadal thing with some men who have higher narcissism that the, normal, average human who wants All The People to be equal and live in peace and prosperity. Not just some.
The media and our entertainment are also to blame. Look to the violence and fear that floods our psyches. Violence for violence's sake. We are one warped species. Many of us want to be civilized, but then we are confronted with bizarre humans bullies with lust for power at all costs. Look into yourself to see what motivates you. And why. And for what cost to self and others?
Sorta agree, but I'd leave the vetting to the experts. Jackson is the best person for the job, way better than most in the position now, but limiting the pool to 'black women' simply degraded the process. Now she's just seen as the most qualified black woman, not the most qualified person. I have confidence that her legacy will support the latter.
Let's be real here. We have at least four partisan hacks on the court currently, who would prefer to decide law from cherry picked 17th century literature, rather than on the actual content of Constitution (and every existing legal precedent for that matter). And those people were served up as nominees by "experts" despite many of them being arguably unqualified even before they lied to us all during their confirmation hearings.
I think Biden did a very solid job of selecting someone who was both exceptionally qualified and experienced... AND who will bring a much needed cultural, social, AND LEGAL perspective to the court.
The right wing wack-a-doodle contingent of the court needed a strong countervailing influence. Not a "white supremacy" light male justice who could find just enough common ground with the right wing contingent to keep acceding influence to the ultra wealthy and already powerful on the completely facetious idea that racism is dead in America and none of us really deserve human rights if we can't afford to buy them. :P
It just so happens the black woman Biden selected for a Supreme Court nomination has better legal credentials and experience than all but one of the current justices.
It's disingenuous BS to try and pretend that a president making a point to add diversity to the highest court is "racism" in the same sense as Nazis openly marching in the streets chanting "Jews will not replace us!" and taking selfies with Republicans, and joining them for dinner at Mar-a-lago.
An acknowledgement that systemic racism has been a festering plague on our country, undermining our collective achievement & ability to have a fair and peaceable society for over 200 years AND ACTUALLY TAKING STEPS TO ADDRESS IT... is called "making amends for past racism" not "racism."
White men with money got to be 100% of the supreme court bench composition for 95% of it's existence. ALL but 7 of the justices for all of time have been white men. Perhaps it's not "too much" to give women and minorities their day on the bench after all this time... even if that means 5 of the 7 ever given the privilege are on the bench currently.
It seems intentionally obtuse to pretend these are in any way the same thing.
A good possibility. Although women can be as nefarious as men, they often have a higher tipping point, and usually have to work harder and be smarter to attain the same levels of achievement as men.
I don't care if the court is all women, men, gay, Hispanic, Chinese, etc if they do a good job. I just don't want the president to limit the pool months ahead of time, be the president Biden or Reagan.
I thought that Biden really undercut whomever he would pick for VP by saying ahead of time that his pick would be a woman and a person of color. He could have kept his mouth shut and simply picked Harris and then defended his choice on her credentials. He undercut her authority and credentials by making the gender/color proclamation first. There will always be people who say she was chosen solely due to her gender and color because of that.
We absolutely need all those in positions of authority to be a mix of genders and ethnicities that represent our entire population - fair representation by all for all. I am not against his picks at all but I am against the grandstanding proclamations beforehand. He really undercut Harris by doing that.
I do care, because we've had to deal with the judgements of all men on SCOTUS for centuries, so it does matter. Just as in our country, men still have male privilege. And, my original question was, how would people feel if for the next 200 years, we had an all female SCOTUS? People's reactions would tell us that it does matter.
Ending slavery was a big turn off for some too. Perhaps it's a good thing that one person's opinion doesn't govern what we should do as a society, hmm?
But it's always been identity politics. It's just that more recently people with identities other than white, male, heterosexual, Christian etc. are now demanding equality under the law. It's like standing in a blizzard that's been going on for 200 years, and complaining about those who want it to rain instead.
I said DeSantis not Trump.
Democratic racism... Everything is about race. Biden picking a black woman months ahead of time. Nothing wrong with picking one if she is the best person. Few would think she has been. Ditto supreme court pick and his cabinet. Do I care if secretary of something is gay, a woman, Hispanic, etc? No, I prefer they be a good candidate. Some are but when one limits the pool the odds increase for a bad choice.
Didn't like Reagan picking O'Connor because she was a woman either
Re appealing to white supremacists, they are a small minority so not the best political strategy.
Right...in other words - "If only they were WHITE!! Then there wouldn't be the problems of racism! How is it that your own stupidity hasn't killed you by now?
Gtfoh, you RACIST POS.
I can empathize with your desire to live in a society where gender, racial, or other identity issues are disregarded because ...meritocracy. I'd like to find that one too. But, in THIS society, with its foundation in, and history of, racism, sexism, ethnic and religious discrimination... and diversity ...that is a fantasy. There are a multitude of legacy effects of all of that. redlining, ghetto-ization of black populations in communities where the tax base wouldn't pay for water, schools, services, electrification, or transit. Black farmers who couldn't get loans from the government so had to sell their land to white neighbors who could. Women who only achieved the ability to get a credit line without their husbands permission in the 1970!? Do we not need their perspective in governance and judicial decisions? And, no, white nationalism and Christian nationalism are having a moment. And much of the rage driving it is contrived issues by the propaganda arm of the Republican party. "Wokism"..."God help us if our kids learn what happened in the past." All so much "I don't see color BS".
This is spot on, James. Spot on. America needs to look in the mirror and face what her history is so she can mature up and make decisions that protect her people, all of her people. She is a melting pot and her Great Experiment is still in the adolescent stages. And based on the seditious republican party members and leaders, they are grossly reversing maturity levels.
I don't think the answer to past discrimination is more discrimination.
I do support helping those on the bottom of the ladder, be they black, white, Hispanic or anything else.
I think those who are sick of wokism just don't like the excesses, such as the 1619 project. Well, that and things like men can get pregnant, menstruating people, 3 year olds can determine they are another gender, etc. The US has done some great things and some terrible things. The millions who desire to still come here support the idea that not all is bad here and things may get better.
It's certainly very convenient to reframe "making amends for centuries of past racism" as "racism" when your forebearers benefited from the systemic inequality and you likely did too via generational wealth.
Maybe for once in your life try to put yourself into the shoes of the people who were on the worse end of slavery, oppression, and then systemic discrimination intentionally formed to keep them in a second class status in society... and then tell me again that some amount of "more discrimination" isn't a necessary solution, because we've already determined we're not going to actually PAY in straight reparations for those sins. We've given plenty of systems the chance to reform themselves and be less discriminatory, and they routinely fail to do so... When those in power can't even level the playing field NOW, let alone admit the accumulated past harms and how that put generations of people behind economically... it would be pretty silly to pretend we don't need *intentional* policies to force their reformation.
Again I say, it's VERY convenient to decide "discrimination needs to end entirely" when it's finally white men who are the ones who might be minutely affected in any way whatsoever.
I might add, that what he may mean by "more discrimination" is that white male privilege is curtailed. That is not discrimination.
Thank you. So well stated.
But. Everything IS about race. In our racist country, most policies have been designed to maintain the unequal playing field. We started out as a racist country and have never had a national discussion, at least, a reasoned one, about how race and racism affects almost everything. And if it isn't racism, then it's sexism. We just love to punish people for how they've been categorized. DeSantis has successfully suppressed the votes of a lot of Black Floridians. Since he doesn't know any of them personally, I'd suggest it's solely because they're Black. How is that not racism?
Bingo. That is exactly the shadow we are confronted with in this bigoted, authoritarian, white male supremacist republican party petrified of what is happening about equality. Their caste system thrones are getting wobbly. And those who want to sit on thrones assume they deserve better than others due to their skin pigmentation (or lack thereof). Also there is always that tribal, gonadal thing with some men who have higher narcissism that the, normal, average human who wants All The People to be equal and live in peace and prosperity. Not just some.
The media and our entertainment are also to blame. Look to the violence and fear that floods our psyches. Violence for violence's sake. We are one warped species. Many of us want to be civilized, but then we are confronted with bizarre humans bullies with lust for power at all costs. Look into yourself to see what motivates you. And why. And for what cost to self and others?
Sorta agree, but I'd leave the vetting to the experts. Jackson is the best person for the job, way better than most in the position now, but limiting the pool to 'black women' simply degraded the process. Now she's just seen as the most qualified black woman, not the most qualified person. I have confidence that her legacy will support the latter.
"Experts" like the Federalist Society?
Let's be real here. We have at least four partisan hacks on the court currently, who would prefer to decide law from cherry picked 17th century literature, rather than on the actual content of Constitution (and every existing legal precedent for that matter). And those people were served up as nominees by "experts" despite many of them being arguably unqualified even before they lied to us all during their confirmation hearings.
I think Biden did a very solid job of selecting someone who was both exceptionally qualified and experienced... AND who will bring a much needed cultural, social, AND LEGAL perspective to the court.
The right wing wack-a-doodle contingent of the court needed a strong countervailing influence. Not a "white supremacy" light male justice who could find just enough common ground with the right wing contingent to keep acceding influence to the ultra wealthy and already powerful on the completely facetious idea that racism is dead in America and none of us really deserve human rights if we can't afford to buy them. :P
It just so happens the black woman Biden selected for a Supreme Court nomination has better legal credentials and experience than all but one of the current justices.
It's disingenuous BS to try and pretend that a president making a point to add diversity to the highest court is "racism" in the same sense as Nazis openly marching in the streets chanting "Jews will not replace us!" and taking selfies with Republicans, and joining them for dinner at Mar-a-lago.
An acknowledgement that systemic racism has been a festering plague on our country, undermining our collective achievement & ability to have a fair and peaceable society for over 200 years AND ACTUALLY TAKING STEPS TO ADDRESS IT... is called "making amends for past racism" not "racism."
White men with money got to be 100% of the supreme court bench composition for 95% of it's existence. ALL but 7 of the justices for all of time have been white men. Perhaps it's not "too much" to give women and minorities their day on the bench after all this time... even if that means 5 of the 7 ever given the privilege are on the bench currently.
It seems intentionally obtuse to pretend these are in any way the same thing.
And, just think, how would many men feel if we decided to actually make it balanced and have over 200 years of an all female SCOTUS?
They'd probably do better, no?
A good possibility. Although women can be as nefarious as men, they often have a higher tipping point, and usually have to work harder and be smarter to attain the same levels of achievement as men.
Can't women be given credit here?
I don't care if the court is all women, men, gay, Hispanic, Chinese, etc if they do a good job. I just don't want the president to limit the pool months ahead of time, be the president Biden or Reagan.
I thought that Biden really undercut whomever he would pick for VP by saying ahead of time that his pick would be a woman and a person of color. He could have kept his mouth shut and simply picked Harris and then defended his choice on her credentials. He undercut her authority and credentials by making the gender/color proclamation first. There will always be people who say she was chosen solely due to her gender and color because of that.
We absolutely need all those in positions of authority to be a mix of genders and ethnicities that represent our entire population - fair representation by all for all. I am not against his picks at all but I am against the grandstanding proclamations beforehand. He really undercut Harris by doing that.
I am from California. I personally have never liked or voted (when she was stand alone ) for her. Hope if he does run he picks someone more qualified.
I do care, because we've had to deal with the judgements of all men on SCOTUS for centuries, so it does matter. Just as in our country, men still have male privilege. And, my original question was, how would people feel if for the next 200 years, we had an all female SCOTUS? People's reactions would tell us that it does matter.
I said okay with women for 200 years.
Men gave us Roe v Wade, Brown v Board of Education so maybe not all bad in your eyes.
Identity politics is a big turn off to some.
Ending slavery was a big turn off for some too. Perhaps it's a good thing that one person's opinion doesn't govern what we should do as a society, hmm?
But it's always been identity politics. It's just that more recently people with identities other than white, male, heterosexual, Christian etc. are now demanding equality under the law. It's like standing in a blizzard that's been going on for 200 years, and complaining about those who want it to rain instead.
Disgruntled white man says what…