Are Liberals Now Embracing the Racism They Accuse Conservatives Of?

1. 96

   wildernessposted 2 years ago

   As Supreme Court Stephen Bryer prepares for retirement, President Biden is doubling down and repeating his campaign promise to put a black woman on the Supreme Court and his growing list of candidates reflects that.
   
   No males will be considered.  No Caucasians, no Hispanics, no Asians, no Innuit, no American Indians.  Only black females. 
   
   This not only violates our basic requirement of leaving racism at the door, it also directly violates the civil rights act:
   
   SEC. 2000e-2. [Section 703]
   
   "It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer -
   
   (1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or
   
   (2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin."
   
   How have we gotten to the point that the highest office in the country (the President) violates almost sacred law simply to look good by refusing to consider 93% of the population because of their sex or race.  Especially considering that the employment being considered is for the highest court of law in the land?  The law is extremely clear and unambiguous - how does a President simply ignore it to gain political points?

   replyreport
   1. 0

      savvydatingposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Yes. The Progressives have been embracing racism for some time. As an aside, this is one reason why they have managed to implement "critical race theory" (Marxism) into public education. Progressive tentacles have reached every segment of society.
      
      Hoover Institution senior fellow, Shelby Steele, said "the left uses racial tensions and exacerbates divisions to achieve a powerful stronghold in America."
      
      He is correct.
      
      According to Steele, this theory is in opposition to America's "commitment to racial harmony."
      
      There is no question about that.
      
      "They truly are offended by … this idea that we're, as it should be, treated as individuals," Shelby adds.
      
      
      Let's see if Biden chooses Sherrilyn Ifil, a lawyer and director-counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund. She has stated her approval for Defunding of the Police.
      
      But, most likely, Biden will choose someone who can be confirmed by the Senate more easily. I don't think he cares, as long as the Progressive Marxists in his Party are abated to some degree.
      
      And yes, it is ironic that someone who is chosen primarily because of her race will be hearing cases on race discrimination. She should recuse herself since Justice Breyer has already heard some oral arguments.
      
      The odd thing is that Progressives are a tiny minority of the population. If Biden, Big Tech, powerful Ceo's, and the media would just say, "No.' "Enough." Your Marxist values do not represent American values," then Marxists would shrivel up and die before our very eyes, But, instead, a small few allow the vultures to circle and do their best to kill our republic. Biden is their perfect puppet.
      
      We can only hope that the next Supreme Court Justice will have a keen intellect and strong morals, much like Justice Clarence Thomas (much aligned by the Left) and even Justice Breyer, who has been forced out before his time, but who believes strongly in what he calls "the American experiment" as well as our Constitution.

      replyreport
      1. 59

         Fayetteville Fayeposted 2 years agoin reply to this

         "As an aside, this is one reason why they have managed to implement "critical race theory" (Marxism) into public education."
         
         Are you able to show some support for this statement? Maybe showing a district that specifically states that this is a part of their curriculum at some level? Where they state specifically which book is used & for which class? As a former educator, I can assure you that you can find all of the information on any school districts website throughout the country.  I've yet to see any credible evidence that this obscure theoretical construct that is used in law schools has been implemented in any meaningful way in any public school district.

         replyreport
   2. 79

      Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Well, Wilderness, this has got to be a burr in your saddle as you rarely initiate a thread.
      
      Yes, as a Black lefty, let me clarify.
      
      I DO NOT approve of President Biden's approach here. The only thing that I would have insisted on is that he not appoint someone to the court with an obviously rightwing bent judicial philosophy. Besides that, I don't care what color he or she is. I would prefer someone as white as wind driven snow over a Clarence Thomas, anytime. It was dumb for him to explicitly state that he would fill the position based on a race or gender preference.
      
      This pandering has made him look bad and lacking in the political sophistication that I may have found in alternate choices for the Democratic lineup for the Presidency in 2020.
      
      I need substantive policy initiatives from Mr. Biden, not symbolism or tokenism.
      
      But don't worry when it comes to race baiting and problems with race, Trumpians, conservatives, Rightwingers and Republicans have no peer.

      replyreport
      1. 96

         wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

         Oh, I think they have a "peer" all right; Biden has made it very clear that there can be no greater racist in the country.
         
         But kudos to you for recognizing just how far out of line he is.

         replyreport
   3. 89

      GA Andersonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      That's an interesting perspective. The prohibition seems clear, but so far the only support for it seems to be a political statement, (Pres. Biden's words).
      
      We will probably be getting a better explanation of what he really meant — he would like to nominate a black female for the job. Or something like that.
      
      GA

      replyreport
      1. 96

         wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

         I expect we will.  How it will be phrased, given his multiple statements as to his intentions, will be interesting.

         replyreport
   4. 76

      Castlepalomaposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      https://youtu.be/HCkx_x9FLJ8
      
      Race theory
      
      Our Prime Minister would call a unvaccinated person, a racist, woman hater and and extremist. Funny, I have not been called these things before. He must have mistaken me as a right wing nut job.

      replyreport
   5. 80

      Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this

      This should not surprise one... He is a dyed-in-the-wool Democratic politician. And this is a big part of his problem, he is very predictable, and for me -- I can't abide by this kind of politicking, it panders to the unintelligent, that do not see through this kind of ploy. Nothing had changed in the Democratic playbook for many years. This is pandering 101 at its best.  I sort of thought he would nominate AG Garland.  I mean he was sort of overlooked and in the wings.
      
      However, our society has changed, and the old politicking ploys are a thing of the past. This is one of Biden's biggest problems, you can't teach an old dog new tricks.
      
      "This not only violates our basic requirement of leaving racism at the door, but it also directly violates the civil rights act:"
      
      And yes this is a gimmie...  Most certainly violates the civil rights act.
      
      I hope this threat draws some attention it is current and needs to be addressed. Very interesting event.
      
      In my view, this will be one of the final nails for Joe.

      replyreport
   6. 59

      Fayetteville Fayeposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Since the Supreme Court first convened in 1790, 113 justices have served on the bench.
      
      Of those, 107 have been white men.
      There's nothing wrong with the court being more representative of the population.
      
      When the Innuit, or Native American population reaches the numbers of black women in our country (21 million in 2018) I'd advocate for their representation on the court also.

      replyreport
      1. 80

         Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this

         How about just the most qualified? It would seem the best option for our highest court.  I mean Biden perhaps should not have made such a statement, it does seem he pandered to a segment of society. Plus, not sure at this point in our history who is the most qualified. Could be a man, could be a Hispanic woman, could be a black woman, not sure he needed to pander.
         
         This just set the stage for ripping whoever it is a new one. But that's nothing new,

         replyreport
         1. 59

            Fayetteville Fayeposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            Well , since wilderness brought this up on the basis of equality, people  being equal, can't we suffice it to say that any demographic could produce a highly experienced and qualified candidate?  Also,  How would you ever know if you've found the "best" of anything? It's sort of subjective also. But yes, Presidents have done this sort of politicking or identity politics in choosing their Supreme Court nominees for decades. Like I said Ronald Reagan singled out His intention to choose the first woman Justice. I don't remember any of this sort of outrage, do you?  Or when LBJ specifically chose Thurgood Marshall as the first black man to be nominated for the court? 
            But most recently Mr Trump used the same tactic with his nominee Amy Coney. He specifically stated he was going to nominate a woman. 
            I do agree though, There was no need for President Biden to signal his intention beforehand.

            replyreport
            1. 80

               Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this

               Point well taken Faye. I guess the temperature feels so high, this time around Biden's gesture was more prominent as pandering.  But, yes, other presidents have done this form of pandering using gender, and race to get a certain segment of our society to take note.

               replyreport
            2. 96

               wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

               "Well , since wilderness brought this up on the basis of equality"
               
               Not really; wilderness brought it up on the basis of a President intentionally violating one of our most sacred laws, in order to look good filling a position on our highest court.  It could not get any worse than the highest office filling the highest justice system seat by violating our laws.

               replyreport
               1. 59

                  Fayetteville Fayeposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  A President merely makes a nomination. The Senate does the confirmation hearing and ultimately the vote to accept or reject the nomination.  The Senate voted to confirm Sandra Day O'Connor 99-0 after she was nominated by Ronald Reagan, who pledged he would have the first woman on the Supreme Court. Was this a violation of law?
                  I'm just not all together certain that the civil rights act of 1964 covers the president's discretion in terms of nominations.

                  replyreport
                  1. 96

                     wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                     That is the entire point: the Senate cannot have a hearing without it being submitted by the President.  A submittal that is illegal as race and sex were used to make it.
                     
                     And yes, Reagan was just as illegal, assuming he really did consider only women.  The civil rights act does not indicate the President is exempt from its requirements; I quoted a part of it in the OP and there are no exceptions noted outside of religious organizations being able to discriminate in some cases.  A necessity as, for example, all Catholic priests are male and all nuns are female.  I'm not sure what would happen if a church hired all, or no, blacks - that might be interesting to see.

                     replyreport
2. 86

   Valeantposted 2 years ago

   Got to concede there is a point here.  If the candidates were equal in qualifications, then you could go with your own preference.
   
   But in trying to balance out the court to adequately represent the American people, adding a woman and one of color does make sense.  But it shouldn't be the starting point and likely not even something you speak of publicly as it could be a point to contest the nomination if the pool of candidates was restricted by race to begin with.
   
   The stats do note large differences in the racial nominations of judges:
   https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2 … al-judges/
   
   Trying to balance out the underrepresentation to the bench from the previous four years is a worthwhile goal.  But your point has validity and with such blatant openness about it, I wouldn't be opposed to seeing a fight over the nomination based the mistake.  It's warranted.

   replyreport
   1. 96

      wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      It will be difficult to fight on the basis of racism, as I have little doubt his candidates will be qualified (outside of a most definite bias for the left).  I certainly don't care what sex, or race sits on the bench as long as they stick to interpreting law and not making it as they go.
      
      I have to wonder though - when his list of candidates is composed solely of black women, will anyone at all sitting in Congress call him on the obvious illegality?  Or will they all sit back and pretend it isn't happening?
      
      Although that, too, is undoubtedly a part of his agenda; to choose someone that will make law - according to liberal policies - as they go.  It is the way of politics today; everything must match party politics or not be allowed.

      replyreport
3. 59

   Fayetteville Fayeposted 2 years ago

   President Biden stated:
   
   "I've made no decision except one: The person I will nominate will be someone with extraordinary qualifications..."
   
   I'd suggest  that someone of either gender or any race could fit this description.

   replyreport
   1. 86

      Valeantposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      The rest of his statement after the word qualifications is important.  Leaving that off is selective omission to try and change the point to be false.  Including it and the point is valid.

      replyreport
      1. 59

         Fayetteville Fayeposted 2 years agoin reply to this

         Well let me add this:
         President Biden's critics have a short memory. In 1980, Ronald Reagan used a similar demographic promise as he fought for support among female voters in his battle for the White House against Jimmy Carter
         
         At a news conference in October of that year, just weeks before Election Day, Mr. Reagan promised that, if elected, he would name the first woman to sit on the Supreme Court.
         He followed through on that promise with the nomination of Sandra Day O'Connor.
         
         Also, that was not a selective emission on my part. I don't think the wording that came afterward really changes anything. It is apparent  that President Biden believes that black women specifically should have representation on the court just as Mr Reagan believed that women should have representation on the court. Again, I would just suggest that a highly qualified nominee can be found within any group, so why not strive for inclusion?

         replyreport
         1. 96

            wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            "why not strive for inclusion"
            
            Because the exclusions implicit in actions such as Bidens are illegal, immoral and unethical. 
            
            It is so much more important that everyone be treated equally than to have a pretty picture of a Supreme Court that caters to each and every minority that there is simply no comparison at all.
            
            Besides, are you going to promote having a Hispanic (male and female, of course) as well?  Male and female LGBTQ?  Male and female Amerindians?  Male and female Asians?  But don't stop there - include male and female Catholics, Protestants, Mormons, Adventists, Muslims, Buddhists, and every other religious persuasion.  I mean, as long as Equal Employment is ignored, hadn't we better flood the SCOTUS with every possibility from every interest group in the country?
            
            Long before you finish you will have a Supreme Court with a membership in the hundreds...all nominated with the intention of excluding everyone but the specific minority and sex that is currently up for grabs. 
            
            No thank you.  I prefer that racism, and sexism - discrimination of any kind -  be left at the door.  The civil rights act was supposed to stop such action decades ago - lets make it work as intended.  Not make excuses for violating it.

            replyreport
            1. 59

               Fayetteville Fayeposted 2 years agoin reply to this

               Your argument hedges on the  thought that a Black woman candidate will necessarily be “lesser” than others. That no matter how qualified a Black woman candidate might seem to be, that there must be a more qualified nominee out there whose spot she would be  undeservedly taking. I'm a form believer that There is a nominee among the pool of black women nominees who are just as qualified for the position as any of their counterparts regardless of sex or race. That's how inclusion and equality can coexist.

               replyreport
               1. 96

                  wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  No, my thought is very plain and simple.  Whatever the race, whatever the sex, whatever the sexual orientation, whatever the country of origin, whatever anything the best candidate should always get the job.  Any job.
                  
                  And when you exclude 93% of the population from consideration (everyone not a black female) then it is impossible to even try to find the best candidate.  It may indeed be a black woman but you will never know because you did not check.
                  
                  But in any case our law expressly forbids using sex or race as a prerequisite for a job.  It also expressly forbids using sex or race to exclude anyone (even white people) from consideration.  Which Biden is doing and with a vengeance.

                  replyreport
4. 79

   Credence2posted 2 years ago

   The President is looking for the best person for the job taking into account experience and consistent with his preference in judicial philosophy, as all Presidents have done.
   
   Just having a person of color there for its own sake is not the point of all of this. Having a black female appointed as a justice is just symbolic, only.  The President is free to appoint whomever he wishes, it was just smarter not to announce in advance the narrowing of eligible candidates based upon superficial qualities. I am interested in the judicial philosophy of the candidates not their color. The president has a full plates getting his agenda passed that will make the kinds of substantive changes from the status quo that will make a real difference. This, he needs to bear down on with greater zeal. As for the nomination, He or she is to replace a relatively liberal jurist with another one, no real change there.

   replyreport
   1. 96

      wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      "The President is looking for the best person for the job..."
      
      That he most certainly is NOT doing.  He is looking for the best black female for the job.  Illegally, unethically and immorally, but it is what he is doing.

      replyreport
      1. 79

         Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

         That is the problem, as I had explained earlier......

         replyreport
         1. 96

            wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            I understand that.  But your statement seemed, to me at least, to be making excuses to discriminate.  Your quoted statement was false on the face of it as well, which was all I pointed out.
            
            I'll add that your second paragraph fits my philosophy to a Tee.  Biden's appointment will be a "token", nothing more.  Just a show to gain votes.  I DO disagree that it would have been all right if he just did not announce his intention; intentions count for a lot and we're all fed up with hidden agendas from our politicians.  Keep it all behind a glass wall that we can all see through.
            
            If Biden is truly concerned about race and sex on the bench, let him put forth a list of candidates that reflect the makeup of the country, without excluding ANY race, sex or anything else.  Go beyond the law and include gender preference, political stance and all the rest of it, too.  That's the honest thing to do...but he won't, will he?

            replyreport
            1. 79

               Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

               I only discriminate to the point that I don't want any Robert Borks on the bench, no hard core conservative jurists and there are plenty of qualified moderate and more liberal candidates without that strong rightwing tilt.
               
               Conservatives have hidden agendas, that skullduggery that took place regarding McConnell's atrocious manner of replacing Justice Ginsberg's indicates that they are hardly innocent of duplicity and dishonesty.
               
               There is nothing wrong in my opinion to consider that the makeup of the court should reflect wide and diverse backgrounds and not be fixed solely on white males. No problem, F. Roosevelt brought a Jewish man onto the bench, LBJ, Thurgood Marshall, and Ronald Reagan, Sandra Day O'Connor. No one considered any of these candidates 'tokens' . But of course, we should lead with qualifications, first and foremost. But in the real world that does not happen without some politics coming into play.
               
               In the sense that I might consider the announced intent as a form of pander, well that might be just be me. He opens himself to criticism that he  could well have avoided.
               
               It can be a token as long as this person qualified for the job. Because, in a sense they are all tokens with political philosophy playing a role in selection, as I heard that Amy Barrett was relatively light in the experience department so her only saving attribute was that she is extremely conservative. So, I guess we, on the left, are entitled to our day in court, no pun intended. Conservatives filled the bench with three of their judicial preferences, I can have one.

               replyreport
               1. 96

                  wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  I don't have a problem with the makeup of the court reflecting the makeup of the country either.  Of course, with only 9 justices it cannot possibly reflect all the special interest groups we now see to have.  Not even that of race, given at least 5 and probably more races in the country and that doesn't even begin to address all the other concerns, beginning with sex. 
                  
                  It is truly unfortunate that we cannot find justices that will rule by law and not political leanings.  For me, that is the primary point after experience and knowledge of law; that rulings reflect the law not the desires, morality, philosophy or anything else of the judge.  The court is not the place to make law - that is the purview of Congress and the President - and rulings should reflect that.

                  replyreport
5. 91

   Stephen Tomkinsonposted 2 years ago

   Gosh! You Americans are certainly having fun arguing about interpretation. Your history, your Constitution, and your economic power are leading you up so many different blind alleys that it's hard to see how your (in so many ways, admirable) society can possibly survive.

   replyreport
   1. 79

      Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Particularely, in these times, I have asked myself that question more than once.

      replyreport
   2. 96

      wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Like Credence, I have wondered that many times.  Although I have seem many changes in my 70 years, and some in the area of our culture or philosophy, I would not expect to even recognize what the United States will become in the next 70 years.  I fear It will have very little of what I value and cherish about our country left.

      replyreport
6. 94

   Readmikenowposted 2 years ago

   I wonder if biden would nominate a white male who identified as a black female?  That is certainly possible with liberals today.  What could be more inclusive? You've got just about every possible demographic.

   replyreport
   1. 69

      KC McGeeposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Well when criminal, marxist Liberals Democrats embrace CRT, this is the kind of racism you're going to get. They got what they voted for.

      replyreport
      1. 59

         Fayetteville Fayeposted 2 years agoin reply to this

         No one has embraced CRT.

         replyreport
         1. 69

            KC McGeeposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            Other fine example of a criminal marxist Liberal democrats lie.

            replyreport
            1. 59

               Fayetteville Fayeposted 2 years agoin reply to this

               Well maybe you'd supply some foundation for your accusation with fact. Cite some documented exaamples that are grounded in reality. Otherwise you are making baseless inflammatory statements.

               replyreport
               1. 69

                  KC McGeeposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  You see, that's the entire problem with crimnal marxist liberal Democrats ..................they don't give a damn about fact, It's their way or no way. That's how marxism works.
                  
                  Have a good day.

                  replyreport
   2. 89

      GA Andersonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      " a white male who identified as a black female"
      
      That brought a chuckle. And when I remembered that white woman that claimed she was black, (head of some black organization),  your thought about today's liberal climate stole that chuckle.
      
      GA

      replyreport
      1. 94

         Readmikenowposted 2 years agoin reply to this

         The other question you have to ask yourself is if a black female identifies as a white male, would she be eliminated by biden for consideration to be a supreme court justice?
         
         I call this a liberal conundrum.

         replyreport
         1. 89

            GA Andersonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            I call it a funny mental picture show.
            
            GA

            replyreport
7. 86

   Valeantposted 2 years ago

   As I mentioned in the other thread, this is an appointment and not an employment opportunity.  Pretty sure Presidents have always used cronyism and their own personal biases for centuries in making these appointments.
   
   And they are exempt from the laws you cited.

   replyreport