...with all the acts committed by Trump's base that qualify as domestic terror events, at what point do we get to outright label him the leader of a domestic terror movement? Note the phrase 'death wish' in capitals to stress the thought to his followers.
Yes, Valeant, I saw this story.
Like I say, Donald Trump is the gift that keeps on giving.
Attacking McConnell's wife with his abusive and racist barrage is par for the course.
How anyone can think that such a coarse and calloused man can be a fearless leader is beyond me.
I wish that McConnell had the conjones to confront Trump and slap him in the puss on national television, just like the Chris Rock, Will Smith matter a few months ago.
Trump straight up programming his base with violent words against his political opponents. And his base will dismiss it and still support him.
"Attacking McConnell's wife with his abusive and racist barrage is par for the course."
you're absolutely correct; the statement about McConnell's wife was in incredibly poor taste. There can be no excuse for such poor judgement.
But while there is no excuse, racism has become the way of our nation in recent years, led by liberal politicians making points (and buying votes) with their racist actions and remarks. We have a President, highest office in the land, openly hiring people based on color and sex...and we cheer him for it. We have a Vice President (second highest office in the land) giving out FEMA dollars based on color.
Obvious and overt racism has become the way of our government...as long as it is directed against white males this time, as if those white males are the ones that were racist in the past. The only difference here is that the one is a Republican rather than a Democrat, and used words only rather than actions.
well said --- this White House and the Dem congress clearly race bait every chance they get. And whoever writes Biden's speeches, Oh my, he puts Joe you there with the best of the race baiters, in my view.
Hey, this kind of politicking has well worked for the Dems in the past, one must consider, some Americans appreciate it.
Because racism seems to be rising to the forefront these days is where lies my beef.
Wilderness, you can shelve the idea of Democrats buying votes. What do you think that the gun nuts and Bible Thumpers are doing if not buying and selling votes and favors?
We had Ronald Reagan in the 1980's stating that he wanted to put a woman on the bench. Is that not the same thing or is it different because she was white? Thurgood Marshall was appointed as the first Black Jurist by LBJ back in 1967. No one seemed to make an issue out of that.
If I were Biden, I would have handled the pre announcement of his intent a little differently. But, it is not unreasonable to be able to acquire qualified people that are not hidebound white males to sit on the court.
"Because racism seems to be rising to the forefront these days is where lies my beef."
All due to Democrats needing to make sure people of color vote as the Democrats expect them to do --- many need a bit of race-baiting to get on board. You know, made to feel they are lesser human beings and need the white man's (Democrats) help.
What have they done for people of color lately?
Offered them no bail, and more crime.
Have they offered any progress on Public education?
Have they helped financially? Or does this inflation hurt people of color far more than any other citizens?
So, who has this administration hurt? I would say many people of color.
So, yes racism is up at this point, it's election time, and you should be accustomed to that because this is not new, but out of dem's playbook.
Me waiting for Cred's response to the idea that racism is just an issue raised around election time and not due to the increase in racist rhetoric from the leader of the Republican party.
I dunno, the race baiter in Chief, Donald J. Trump has spewed his venom throughout too large a portion of the Republican Party and that issue is all the time, not just election time.
I vote Democrat for any number of reasons that are beyond race and equality issues, who would dare to say that I am being manipulated?
1. Being against privitation of public schools which is basically benefitting the rich and segregationists is an advantage for those that are of more modest means.
2. Forgiveness of much of the student loans benefit the poor and minorities disproportionately
3 inflation has been a global phenomenon not just experienced solely by the US and I don't blame Biden for it. I notice "crickets" over the fact that gasoline prices have fallen.
4. The bill that put a cap on medical expenses under Medicare benefits poor and disproportionately minority citizens, the same bill that Republicans voted against.
It is a war between haves verses have nots with the usually liberties taken by one group over the other and it is usually clear who is in which side.
The little bit conservatives say that Democrats do for poor and minorities is better than their doing nothing at all.
"If I were Biden, I would have handled the pre announcement of his intent a little differently. But, it is not unreasonable to be able to acquire qualified people that are not hidebound white males to sit on the court."
Of course it isn't. But that, of course, was not Biden's agenda; he intended, and said so, that he WOULD set a black woman on the court. The #1 priority was sex and race combination, not the best qualified.
And THAT is pure, unadulterated racism, nothing else. That you ignore it somehow (the ends justify the means?) simply indicates (to my mind) that you approve of that bit of overt racism. That Biden stuffed his cabinet with women and blacks, again making those two items a priority, just reinforces his racist agenda NOT to hire white males.
But, Reagan said that he would appoint a woman to the court in the Eighties, what was the difference? So, the priority was just gender, sexism, why does Reagan get a free pass? The best qualified according to whose perception, Donald Trump and rightwingers? There hasn't been any nominees presented by Democrats the that rightwing Republicans have not said were too radical.
So, why should I ever be concerned about their whining? I can make the same observation about Justice Barrett.
Yes Democrats tend to be more inclusive of representatives of all parts of our society which always make them better than Republican in my humble opinion, of course.
Trump is rallying his base, and the base is really ticked off about the money being poured into the New green Deal. He is politicking, and clerly Mitch is in his sight. The base can't stand him. He is rallying the get out and vote.
His comment about his wife was nasty, uncalled for, and wrong in so many ways.
Yeah, I wasn't even going to touch the wife comment. But as a human with some decency, that would have been an automatic walk-away moment from being associated with someone who would publicize such thoughts.
Rallying his base with words like death wish? Since when is death wish associated with get out the vote?
Ok, I can see Trump having issues with the "old crow", McConnell, but why attack his wife? Wasn't she his Department of Transportation Secretary? Does he secretly abhor the people that he hires and puts into his cabinet?
Ironically, over 200 years ago, Trump's presidential model, Andrew Jackson, shot and killed a man in a classic duel over this man insulting his wife, Rachel Donaldson. It is good thing for Trump that Mc Connell is a milquetoast and that such disputes are not settled today as they were then.
Why attack his wife? I can only share a view. After Jan 6th Mitchs wife was one of the first to come put and blast Trump. On Jan 7th --
Chao resigns from Transportation Department, citing 'traumatic,' 'avoidable' Capitol riot.
It is very obvious when Trump feels someone has turned on him, he is done with them, they become an open target to his insults.
He seems to really dislike people that pull political ploys, such as Mitch's wife. She had his back throughout much of his term until she felt he was road kill, then bye-bye Trump. She jumped ship the day after Jab 6th occurred. Trump can't stand political ploys. Going with the wind is just something one can see, Trump can't stand.
Why attack his wife? I can only share a view. After Jan 6th Mitchs wife was one of the first to come put and blast Trump. On Jan 7th --
Chao resigns from Transportation Department, citing 'traumatic,' 'avoidable' Capitol riot.
Thanks, Sharlee, that explains a great deal of his reaction.
I do know that Elaine Chao was at one time an avid supporter of Trump. She stuck by him when he made the comment --- "and some were good people".
I think he really became angry that she bailed one day after the riot. Thinking her to be overly political.
Hey, who knows?
"With all the acts committed by Trump's base that qualify as domestic terror events....."
I see nothing ever changes around here with the Trump hate infestation! Am I to read this garbage and then be expected to pull up a chair and participate in a civil back and forth?!
I think not!
McConnell is useless and needed to go long, long ago; along with the other D.C. dinosaurs, including our useless Speaker, Majority leader and President, but first let's give them the time they need to finish destroying the Country? Is that the game plan which works for you!?
Yes, really. If you need an example of Trump hate, just read his racist and terror-laden social media post.
And as for a destroyed country, letting a deadly virus reach us, one that crushes supply chains and gives us less goods and services available, which puts millions out of work - where they got warnings of the dangers of two years prior - followed by an incitement of an attack against their own country, that kind of destruction was not in my game plan.
Sure there are problems in the country. The border has been a major problem long before Biden. Violating the human rights of children as a deterring method is not my idea of a game plan. The stock market is down because we're no longer propping it up with $1 billion in tax cut deficit spending that the American citizenry will have to pay in the future. That everyone knew would not pay for itself who has ever studied history.
But the fact that there is a refusal to condemn an easily notable post that could pose a domestic terror threat to McConnell, just as such criticism of the FBI led to an attack by one of his supporters on their offices in Cincinnati, let alone the racist attack on his wife, really surprises no one. In fact, it was expected from Trump's most ardent supporters.
If condemning his posts that clearly incite his rabid base to violence is 'garbage' to some, so be it. That just helps us realize who is not seeing them for what they are.
Rants like this are directed at his base support. Trump is dividing the Republican party and re-making it in his own image. I firmly believe that traditional Republican supporters will turn against him sooner or later. Ideally, he should stop this hijacking of a party with such a proud tradition and form his own group - it wouldn't get very far.
The Republican party is more than just a vehicle for this flawed man.
I like how the far-right claims that Biden 'hires' people. Political appointments are not 'hires' and are not governed by hiring rules. Nor does the Vice President give out FEMA dollars based on color, as the President authorizes FEMA dollars to go to states and local governments to distribute.
The only thing on display with those claims is an overt case of white victimhood. And 'poor taste' is a nice step in being able to admit it was openly racist. Someday, maybe some on the far-right will get there.
I would have to say the right understands racism far better than the left. Again, witness the left cheering overtly racist actions by our president - they obviously do not understand what the word (or the morality behind it) mean. Instead they make excuses such as Biden does not hire people, only appoint them, pretending that it somehow makes makes a big difference in who the paycheck goes to.
If giving a representative voice for the first time in United States history to a segment of the country is 'cheering overtly racist actions,' then no, the right does not understand racism much at all. Criticizing that is actually quite the opposite.
If hiring or choosing employees, or the giving relief funds, based on color (or sex or religion, etc.) is not considered racism then the left does not understand what racism is.
We have seen government ordered racism in the past (capture of slaves, land ownership, voting, affirmative action, etc.) - we should have learned by now that racism is not something we wish to embrace as a legal standard. Democrats do not seem able to grasp this concept, instead promoting racism and using it to buy votes from others that find the practice acceptable and desirable.
Well since it's obvious that we cannot move past the fact that it's impossible to make it understood the differences between a hire and an appointment, let alone the prior examples of presidents wanting to nominate those from certain sexes or diverse backgrounds, let's at least look at some of the definitions of the word racism.
- the unfair treatment of people who belong to a different race; violent behaviour towards them
- the belief that some races of people are better than others, or a general belief about a whole group of people based only on their race
- prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized.
- a belief that race is a fundamental determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
- the systemic oppression of a racial group to the social, economic, and political advantage of another
In the most general sense
- unfair treatment of people of a particular race in a society especially to the benefit of people of another race
Now, if the claim is that white people are a marginalized group when looking at the Supreme Court, or men for that example, I don't think that the makeup of the court would support such a claim. Whereas, there has clearly been a systematic oppression that has allowed other sexes and races a political advantage in terms of this particular court based on history.
Using the most general definition of the term racism, yes, there is an argument. Using other definitions of the term that explain marginalized groups and factor in past systemic oppressions, this was an example of trying to give representation where none had previously existed in the previous 232 years of the court's existence.
I get the reasons why white men, one of the largest groups in the country, may feel marginalized these days. There are more opportunities for them to feel slighted since they are one of the two largest segments of the US population. But in terms of systemic oppression, it's not exactly close yet with what other races have had to endure.
And in terms of this position and the appointments, not until this one, has a president been labeled sexist or racist for wanting to have a certain type of representation that they preferred.
Was Trump a man-hating sexist for wanting a woman after Ginsburg, a woman-hater for considering three white men to replace Scalia? Was it racial to only nominate 16% of minority judges when the country is populated at closer to 25%? Would the right say Obama discriminated against Caucasians when he appointed 36% compared to a 25% US population? The claim exists for both of those examples as cases of systemic racism.
It's clear that we differ on a generalized sense of racism and one that considers historical and marginalized segments of the US populace. In this case, both of us can be right.
You got it the first try. "Racism
- the unfair treatment of people who belong to a different race
When Biden chose not to consider anyone not of the "proper" race and sex for a Supreme Court nomination it fit in perfectly with your definition. Racism, defined perfectly in your quote from Oxford.
It also fits perfectly with what I presume is your own words: "In the most general sense
- unfair treatment of people of a particular race in a society especially to the benefit of people of another race".
Again, racism exhibited and performed by the highest ranking official in the land.
"It's clear that we differ on a generalized sense of racism and one that considers historical and marginalized segments of the US populace. In this case, both of us can be right."
You are correct. If one takes a subset of hour history then you have the upper hand, for overt racism against those of dark skin (or even other nationalities) and women was prevalent. The problem occurs when you try to take the sins of our forefathers and use them to punish people today, people solely of one racial or sex. That's racism in a nutshell, as practiced today. Which you appear to approve of and which both of us recognize as racism.
'The problem occurs when you try to take the sins of our forefathers and use them to punish people today, people solely of one racial or sex. Which you appear to approve of and which both of us recognize as racism.'
As usual, the way something appears to someone on the far right is misconstrued. As this is not a job, but a lifetime appointment, to a court which determines the very fabric of the society in which the American populace lives, having more representation - after having been discriminated against for generations - is something long overdue.
What we on left look at are the other various definitions of racism and not just the more general one. We understand many want to stop at the most general sense of the word and the historical sins of our forebears should no longer be a consideration. Where different races and sexes are still paid lower wages for doing the same job. That's systemic. Where it's seen as racist for wanting a black woman on the court, but not sexist for wanting a man or a woman. For those that go there, at least be consistent with your -isms.
DEATH WISH - Rabid base....DEATH WISH - Rabid base.
Nope, even in caps, your words are much uglier, much nastier, much more divisive.
- having or proceeding from an extreme or fanatical support of or belief in something.
That's divisive? I really wish people would expand their vocabs to understand the variety of meanings words have.
Funny you'd use "rabid" when you were simply trying to express Trump supporters strong beliefs! So nice to know that a foaming at the mouth never entered your thought process, when choosing that particular word.
Less funny than troubling as I was using it to describe someone that got triggered to attack an FBI field office by ugly rhetoric because the FBI followed DOJ guidelines in executing a lawful search warrant. So the extreme and fanatical support seemed to fit just about right.
Which FBI field office was attacked by a Trump supporter(s)? When did this happen? What is the history of the Trump supporter(s)? What are the details? I have been otherwise engaged.... recovering from COVID and dealing with a hurricane, I've missed a lot of news.
This happened over two months ago, so the fact that you're unaware of it is an issue in and of itself in terms of your media consumption.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cincinnat … ice_attack
So you are dwelling on old stuff? Thought that I had missed something new. I am curious as to what this Wikipedia story offers, so I will look into their version.
I think all that this determines is your obsession with finding fault in others and your over-consumption of mainstream media.
Really, so you cannot recognize a link between Trump's verbal attacks on the FBI and one of his followers committing a violent attack on them within three days?
And two months is not old. Nor have the verbal attacks on the FBI and DOJ stopped from Trump. If a person does not see programming a rabid base to violence as fault, that's just a sad commentary on their belief structure.
"When Biden chose not to consider anyone not of the "proper" race and sex for a Supreme Court nomination". She was qualified - with more than four years experience as a judge. If that is the worst you can say about President Biden, I think the country is in good hands. (As opposed to the hands we were in for the previous four years.) He picked a member of a minority but also an underrepresented majority.
How about this..
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene accused Democrats of murdering Republicans in “killings” that she claims are underway. “I am not going to mince words with you all,” Greene said at Mr. Trump’s rally in Warren, Michigan, on Saturday night. “Democrats want Republicans dead, and they have already started the killings.”
This is unhinged. Republicans who don't denounce this and Mr. Trump's rhetoric are complicit.
The GOP strategy seems to be that if you can't give people a good reason to vote for you, scare them into believing terrible things will happen if they don't.
This tangent about racism and Pres. Biden's SCOTUS nominee is one that doesn't look as complicated as it is being discussed—if it is considered as an action, and not a level of an action. I think that view can discuss the 'is it or isn't it' issue without being bogged down, (or deflected), by the details of position or rationale.
Looking at Pres. Biden's nomination as simply an action of selecting someone for a position, the specific position and specific person are secondary details. I think that's a true and fair perspective—for a start.
If that is a fair representation of the discussion, then it is surely comparable to any other decision-making person doing the same thing in the private sector.
The only difference is the details of 'level' of the position being filled, i.e. janitor vs. CEO, or maybe government contractor vs. the executive branch.
Without those details there is no difference in the compared actions. That seems to make the 'qualifiers' used to justify the action proof of the claim that it is racism in play. That argument ends up as, 'Yeah, but .. . ' rationalization.
I guess that line of logic fails if I am wrong about racism being racism regardless of its level or perceived need.
Even in the private sector, once candidates meet the minimum requirements, the job does not always go to the most qualified. The candidate may have the most experience, but a personality fit is not ideal and a less qualified, but better fitted individual for a company's culture will get the job.
But all of that is separate from nominations made by the executive. Some need Congressional approval, many others are just the whim of the person selected for the office.
You skipped ahead of me. Do you not think the starting point for this could be the perspective I offered?
There's no need to go into the points you mention if we don't start with something we agree on—such as what the definition of 'IS' is. We'd just be arguing past each other.
If the starting point is the claim that this was a hiring similar to one that occurs in the private sector, then I wasn't skipping ahead so much as operating in a parallel plane of existence as nominations are not governed in the same way.
Not much chance for a discussion if you're on one 'plane' and I'm on another.
I contend that although the details of a private sector 'hire' are different from an Executive branch 'nomination', the actions themselves aren't different. Each is an action of 'selecting' someone for a position.
As I see it, your details of the selection don't change that. I think you might agree if those 'details' were about a declaration to only appoint a white man to a position.
'As I see it, your details of the selection don't change that. I think you might agree if those 'details' were about a declaration to only appoint a white man to a position.'
Honestly, this position has a lot to do with my acceptance, as this is such a unique one in our society, and the historical discrimination of women and people of color from it I just cannot strip away. Let alone what the position does and how that affects the entirety of the country.
If it were a normal job hiring, I definitely would have had an issue with Biden eliminating so many other races and genders from the pool based on laws. But knowing these nominations do not fall under those laws is a factor.
And like I noted earlier, that so many suddenly have an issue when past Presidents have done the same kind of elimination based on qualities like gender and stayed quiet, it behooves the question of why when it involves a certain quality as the one Biden chose, is it such a big deal? Partisanship or something deeper?
You seem to be saying that without the action achieving what you deem to be extraordinarily worthy and long-overdue goals, it would be as racist as was claimed.
That's the same as another noted: You agree it is racism in play, but because you agree with the 'ends' it isn't really racism.
That was my original point, something either is, or it isn't. The details of the 'something' don't change that, they only change acceptance levels.
You even say so when you say you wouldn't approve of Pres. Biden doing the same thing for "normal hiring." The action didn't change, but the level of its application did.
Moving to your 'plane,' if the winnowing of the selection pool ended with equally qualified candidates I can see the logic and benefit of race and sex being acceptable criteria. The difference is my acceptance is based on those criteria being the last applied, not the first. In Pres. Biden's action it was the first, (as noted by another, before I jumped in).
Yes, I can agree that based on the various definitions of racism, the one that is the most general, there is an element of racism in the way this was handled.
But can also argue that previous racism in excluding people of color and women from the process needed to be considered for this appointment. The selection pool is already automatically winnowed, often by political party. Discrimination already exists in the process, by political affiliation and sometimes even by sex. That things like sexism have been accepted practice in the nomination process, but that when race was added to the mix, suddenly the right has an issue. That discrimination is acceptable until it's directed against white people is where I have an issue with consistency.
And when I say normal hiring, I am referring to a non-appointment where US law applies. That these positions are exempt from those laws does change my acceptance of the choices a president will make.
And from that humble first-step agreement . . . we can get to your details.
I was never speaking to the points of the law or the legality of racism. Racism, even though frequently accepted and exempted from the law, is never right, so your points about 'the law' don't really affect the 'IS' determination.
I jumped into the discussion at the point of whether Pres. Biden's decision was racist, or not, (more accurately, I would politely substitute that racism was involved in his decision, rather than the inference that his decision was that of a racist). We seem to agree on that point but differ in acceptance of rationalizations.
I'm not making his selection process a big deal. I didn't have a big problem with it. My perception is that this type of thing is almost 'normal' in positions at the levels involved, (a nod to the truth of your 'higher plane'), in both the private and government sectors. My point was that reality doesn't change what was being discussed. You thought it did.
Ipso facto, I just had to 'sally forth, wielding my warrior pen on high.' ;-)
Did I? I've been humbly agreeing since page 1 that using a general definition of racism, there was an argument that is valid that there was an element of racism in this example.
But I also was arguing that past racism should also be a factor, as well as the stature of the type of position being considered here. Let alone the differences between a nomination and a hiring and how discrimination laws are not applicable to nominations, hence a certain historical level of acceptance.
I would highly disagree that "nominations" are not part of the law and ethics of racism. When ONLY black females are considered for a job post, when it is made clear that that is what the roster of possible candidates are, it is a racist based action. Whether someone else actually does the hiring or not, whether it is an "appointment" or not, when the entire slate of candidates were from a specific, defined, race it is a racist action. To try and make an exception for "appointments" is simply trying to excuse the racism inherent and obvious in the process.
Then I guess you never read this thing we have called the Constitution that states that the president "shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for."
It does not say hire. It specifically says 'appoint.' So if you can find the laws that apply equal opportunity to nominations, go for it.
And to ignore the entire history of accepted discrimination in nomination to carve out an exception against black females would also be a form of systemic racism.
You're saying that because discrimination occurred in the past (nominations) it should continue to do so in the future? Why not just go whole hog and say black slavery should continue as well? What makes one form of racism acceptable but not another?
We've worked as a nation for decades to eliminate racism from our culture, and to watch a President use it as a method of placating one race, or to buy votes for his party, is offensive to say the least. Past practices do NOT make it OK to repeat now.
What I'm saying is that these nominations have always been discriminatory in nature, starting with the fact that the President gets to rule out the opposing party altogether if wanted. How do you apply for these positions? You don't, because they are selected as a privilege by those we elect.
And what I'm actually saying is that for the entirety of our history, the American people have understood there is some discrimination in this process, whether it be political, gender, or even race in these nominations. But only when that discrimination either benefitted black women or went against white men, did the right suddenly have an issue. When Trump said he wanted a woman to replace Ginsburg, did his base suddenly scream discrimination that he ruled out qualified men? Heck, no. It was understood that he gets the privilege.
To me, this is an example of systemic racism - wanting something that has never been a benefit to one race to continue not happening for them. Have we had white men on the Supreme Court? Do we have some currently? Tell me then how that class of people is oppressed with a straight face.
That's pretty much what I said; it happened in the past so we can continue the practice. Not in my book; were that the case we would never advance.
But I'll just make one note here; Biden's discriminatory practice of considering only black women did not benefit black women. It benefitted one single black woman, at the expense of everyone else. Not blacks in general and not women in general.
You're absolutely right - it is systemic racism. Racism built into a system that accepts and promotes racism rather than equality. So on the one hand we hear cries about systemic racism and it's evils...while on the other it is wonderful and positive when it benefits the "right" race. Or sex.
Your complaints in this case, but not in others such as declaring that a woman will be selected, speak volumes. Only when a certain segment of the population is the beneficiary are you making it an issue.
And yes, having the perspective of a black woman on the court does help all black women. It's sad you cannot see that. Calling it Biden's discriminatory practice is also another fabrication as it has been the practice since the origins of our country, as I just explained.
How on earth does she help women.....she can't even define women!?!
"Your complaints in this case, but not in others such as declaring that a woman will be selected, speak volumes. Only when a certain segment of the population is the beneficiary are you making it an issue."
That is the point and I have yet to hear any sort of explanation inane or otherwise from the conservatives here to address it.
"And yes, having the perspective of a black woman on the court does help all black women."
Why? Do you think a black woman has a different perspective on what the words on our Constitution mean? Or do you think a black woman will legislate her "perspective" from the bench, ignoring our law?
Did you think that Justice Barrett would legislate her perspective from the bench, ignoring our law?
Would you automatically assume that the Black woman would have a perspective that would be so different from other left leaning jurors?
If her perspective wouldn't differ from the 'Left's norm', (as you describe it), then why was her skin color a priority for the selection and the foundation of its support?
I was wrong her perspective based on the fact that Biden, a democrat selected her would have probably leaned left. But, Bush I appointed Clearance Thomas, who is most probably the biggest problem conservative on the bench, today.
Joe was trying to garner additional black support, ok. But again, I ask you, why did Reagan have to announce in advance that he was appointing a woman to the bench? Was OConner's gender a priority for the selection and the foundation of its suppoRt? Why would Reagan announce the appointment of a woman if he did not intend to attract their further support?
I don't hearing anyone making a big deal over a Rightwinger Catholic woman being appointed as compromising the integrity of the Constitution.
As with Valeant, you are attempting to say that because racism happened in the past it is OK that it happen now.
Is that really what you want to say? It was OK to send black people to the back of the bus then so it's alright now? It was OK to deny home ownership then, so it's OK to do it now?
It was OK to deny a job based on color so it's OK to do it now? Is that really where you want to go?
So, do you criticize Ronald Reagan for making a clearly sex based declaration in appointing Sandra Day OConnor?
Nope. Reagan was pandering just as Pres. Biden was.
That shouldn't be the argument. The argument should be about weighing benefits against costs.
I think the benefits of both decisions are comparable, but the costs aren't.
The costs of Pres. Reagan's discrimination was the nation's reaction to an instance of sexism. Pres. Biden's costs include that same sexism, plus the nation's reaction to an instance of racism. Those scales don't balance.
"The costs of Pres. Reagan's discrimination was the nation's reaction to an instance of sexism. Pres. Biden's costs include that same sexism, plus the nation's reaction to an instance of racism. Those scales don't balance."
Yet, The principle is the same, bias is bias.....
Was racism/sexism an acceptable practice then? Did Reagan refuse to consider any BUT women in his choice? We are a product of our environment, but the environment has changed and such practices are no longer acceptable. Don't forget that Reagan operated in the midst of affirmative action; institutionalize racism where government required hiring practices based on race.
Or do you wish to remain in the back of the bus forever? You didn't respond as to your personal feelings about continuing racist actions because you wanted the result Biden produced...
Reagan said at the time that he intended to appoint a woman to the bench. Biden's pledge regarding this appointment was no different than the one Reagan made back then. The practice was no more acceptable in 1981 than it is now. 1981 was not that long ago in relation to this issue.
It was more like the government required that qualified people NOT BE ExCLUDEd for superficial reasons, race being among them. Such was the case for me, that was what this really was all about. Since I pay taxes, I had a reasonable expectation for fair and equal employment opportunity.
Your Reagan rationale doesn't work. Reagan was discriminating too, the only difference is his wasn't racial, so it wouldn't be a racist discrimination, aka racism.
The quicksand you, (et al), are trying to build your defense on isn't whether the action was abnormal, or detrimentally bad, or justifiable, it is your, (again, et al.), refusal to understand that mitigations, (you've seen them in this thread), don't make something become not something.
Start with that agreement and then the discussion of the "whys" has room for considerations. Maybe there are times when it is acceptable to tolerate a degree of a known wrong, (racism in this issue).
For instance; Is it possible that choosing to nominate a black female justice would have such great added, (as in no jurist credentials or personal integrity had to be compromised), symbolic value to our society that it is worth tolerating a spot of racism?
That seems to be the point of most of the 'it-isn't-racism' arguments I've seen, so why not just say so and move on to defending why your mitigations, (the "whys"), do justify that bit of tolerance. I can see some maneuvering room there.
I've conceded the racism point for a while in this thread.
I'm still waiting for a response as to why those on the right, who have accepted this kind of discriminatory process for their entire lives like the rest of the country has, and as recently as Trump openly stating he would nominate a woman, are now up in arms.
This, to me, is the 2020 election all over again. Things that have been normal, legal, and accepted practices in our country, suddenly are seen by one side as untenable or illegal either by a lack of knowledge or straight up partisanship. The third option I've eluded to concerning systemic racism is also an option.
Those that are "up in arms" about Pres. Biden's decision are wrong to be "up in arms" because this isn't a 'new' thing to yell about. As you note, it is historically 'done all the time', but they are not wrong about the action being tainted by racism.
"I'm still waiting for a response as to why those on the right, who have accepted this kind of discriminatory process for their entire lives like the rest of the country has, and as recently as Trump openly stating he would nominate a woman, are now up in arms."
Perhaps because it's time (past time actually) for a change to the racism promoted by government. As the liberal party, touting that it is the one wanting change while conservatives forever remain stuck in the much, refuse to do it and instead promote racist actions of the past, it is time for conservatives to demand a change to match the ethical and moral standards of today.
That'd be great, if only conservatives could find the consistency to stand up against such discrimination across the board and not only in the few examples of it going against them. It's hard to see you guys as sincere when you accept it when your leaders are in power, clap along when they deny systemic racism exists, and act the champion when the opposing party is in office and attempts to combat such systemic racism by making the highest court in the land more reflective of the gender and racial makeup of the country.
As I said before, if I were Joe I would have simply made the appointment of the current jurist without announcing such an intent in advance.
If you say that you intend to place a conservative on the court it does not necessarily say that that individual is the best qualified, just the most conservative.
So, technically, every selection involves some form of bias from the selecting authority, it is just the reality that some are more palatable and acceptable than others.....
Now we're on the same page. Now you're talking about the real issue: acceptance of a wrong because of perceived benefits.
As you say, Pres. Biden could have made the same choices without the pandering fanfare of his selection criteria announcements and this would have been a 'gray' area to argue about. With the publicity of his announcements he effectively rubbed the public's face in a black & white instance of racism. You are right, the difference is the nation's palatability of the action, not the action itself.
Making race more of an issue and a political divide.
Mr. Biden was politically pandering, where I do not really see the immediate benefit to our community of appointing a black woman to the court. After all, Clearance Thomas has hardly been an asset. I would want more direct approaches and remedies instead. But, it does make for good political theatre.
"As I said before, if I were Joe I would have simply made the appointment of the current jurist without announcing such an intent in advance."
But that wouldn't curry political favor the way his method did. And that is far more important than who sits on that bench.
No, and I didn't. It was Valeant that said it was advantageous to have a black woman's "perspective" on the bench, meaning that being black either reads a different Constitution or legislates her beliefs. But it wasn't I that made the suggestion.
Don't try and put the meaning of my words through your filter. That usually misinterprets things in a very incorrect way. You so often make assumptions about what others are saying, put words into people's mouths, and it's most often to an extremism not founded in any reality the original comment was meant.
It's one of the reasons I personally do not like conversing with you. You cannot grasp what is said unless you twist it to your own extremist view point.
In this case, by failing to understand how there are various views on how to interpret the Constitution and how those different views may benefit different subsections of the populace.
"In this case, by failing to understand how there are various views on how to interpret the Constitution and how those different views may benefit different subsections of the populace."
Of course there are; liberals typically find that the Constitution is "rubbery", subject to change according to today's needs without the necessity of going through a difficult process. Conservatives typically find that the Constitution means what it says, with the change only possible through that difficult process.
So...a black female will see it as changeable at will, doing so as she finds useful? I call that "legislating from the bench", whatever label you might apply.
The truth is that they all legislate their beliefs. It is the conservative that continue to imply that their beliefs corresponds with the "correct" interpretation of the Constitution. And to that, I say "rubbish".
LOL Are you truly implying that liberal decisions are not claimed to be the correct interpretation? Making them just so much "rubbish" as well?
Considering the different views that the current conservatives have on the Constitution from even previous Supreme Courts, example being Roe, is it really a stretch to think that there are not varying degrees of interpreting the document such as originalist, textualist, and living constitutionalism.
Or that one of those views of the Constitution would be more beneficial to certain races, considering an originalist view might still believe that black people should have less rights than white people.
That you automatically go to the extreme to question if a black woman would ignore the law is your usual exaggerated sense of things.
"That you automatically go to the extreme to question if a black woman would ignore the law is your usual exaggerated sense of things."
I didn't make the claim that being black and female would benefit any specific group of people; you did. I merely question why you think that is true. Personally, I cannot believe that any honest interpretation of the document would benefit any particular race or even sex (not the word "honest" - something legislating from the bench via a twisted "interpretation" is not.)
Ah yes, questioning by listing two inflammatory options. That a black female jurist might ignore the law or judge by perspective. As opposed to the most obvious one in that there are various theories on how to interpret the document.
And I'm sorry you cannot see how a living constitutionalism view that gave women body autonomy rights with Roe versus an originalist view that has stripped those rights away can benefit a race or sex. It's pretty clear to me.
A "living constitutionalism view". Meaning that the meaning of the Constitution can be changed at will, according to the desires of the court. And that view comes from dark skin and the lack of a y chromosome.
Is that your considered opinion? Even if I accept the (false) concept that it is changeable at will (I don't) I certainly do not accept that that opinion comes from high levels of melanin.
I think you misunderstand what is meant by living constitutional view. Think of this explanation:
A supporter of the Living Constitution would not necessarily state, for instance, that the meaning of "liberty" has changed since 1791, but it may be what it has always been, a general principle that recognizes individual freedom. The important change might be in what is recognized as liberty today but was not fully recognized two centuries ago. That view was enunciated for the Supreme Court by Justice George Sutherland in 1926:
While the meaning of constitutional guaranties never varies, the scope of their application must expand or contract to meet the new and different conditions which are constantly coming within the field of their operation. In a changing world it is impossible that it should be otherwise. But although a degree of elasticity is thus imparted, not to the meaning, but to the application of constitutional principles, statutes and ordinances, which, after giving due weight to the new conditions, are found clearly not to conform to the Constitution, of course, must fall.
-The document has not been changed, but situations that never existed in pre-industrial times have to be considered according to the intent of the framers.
Uh oh, I'll catch hell for this.
Generally, I don't agree with the 'living document' view of interpretation. Your explanation is not, (according to me), the view I usually see presented.
Your explanation could be a view to consider, as a starting point. I bet we would find more agreement than expected—for the first few steps. It will be when the interpretations become interpretations of extrapolations that things will get bumpy.
My view of the 2nd Amendment is a simple example. The textual, (and originalists, and me), interpretation is that we have that right—unconditioned.
I perceive the 'living document' folks' interpretation of it to be a conditioned right, conditioned on the need for service in a militia.
Don't go off on a 2nd Amend tangent. I am only trying to explain the difference I see between textual interpretations and interpretations of extrapolations.
My perception, from past discussions of different stuff related to this 'interpretation' controversy, is that, usually, those folks' supporting arguments are almost always interpretations of extrapolations.
I agree with this. Those using a "living" Constitution always seem to wish to re-invent the meaning of the words, given that the conditions today are not those of yesteryear. Your example of the 2nd amendment is an excellent one; they required a volunteer militia, so only the army can have weapons as we no longer use a militia.
Conditions change, so the meaning of the text changes to what modern politics finds useful.
Actually, 'living document' people might understand that even the First Amendment has limitations when it imperils the nation or the populace, such as shouting fire in a crowded theater, so placing similar limitations on the Second when it leads to similar imperil shouldn't be much of a stretch.
It's much the same principle.
Yes, it should be too much of a stretch. And, no, it isn't the same principle. Regulating the activity of a right is a lot different than conditioning that right.
Conditioning a Right would be to say, 'Yes, you have a right to own a gun, if . . .
Regulating a Right would be like, 'Yes, you can own a gun . . . but you can't own that gun."
But, back to the 'living document' tangent.
I see regulating and conditioning in the same light. What my example set forth were limitations to the right itself that causes inherent dangers within a society.
Yes, you have the right to say words...but you can't say those words. That's about the same as you can own a gun, just not that gun.
Ahh, much better, I agree with this counter.
Knew I needed a drink.
"We'd just be arguing past each other."
Nothing new there.
That is usually the case at the start of political discussions, but ignoring the "details" of an argument in order to find a common starting point is possible.
Both Credence2 and Valeant come to mind as examples of past conversations where a small piece of common ground has been found. Mutual agreement probably wasn't the outcome, but at least all were talking about the same thing. I'm still working on that in this topic. ;-)
The idea that Biden's cabinet being made up of 45% of women is somehow an issue compared to Trump's of 18% is pretty laughable. That a nearly even split between men and women is something troubling.
Or that Latinos, Asian Americans, Native Americans and African Americans are all represented to give different views on policy is a bad thing is the example of wanting a continuation of the racism we have seen in our history. That 95% of this cabinet actually has prior government experience compared to 68% of the previous, also speaks to the qualifications of the nominees (not hires, again).
To nominate a person for what (s)he is rather than what (s)he can bring to the job is, I think, inherently wrong and potentially divisive. But affirmative action is not racist in the same sense as the subjugation of one race by another is. Racism is about dominance, and affirmative action (wrong though it might be) is preference.
I think how it is presented is the most harmful, whether its VP Harris with her deranged laughter talking about how certain segments of society deserve aid after a disaster, over others; or whether its the President coming out and saying he is going to choose a Black Female without any consideration to others, does not sit well with the American ethos of fairness and being the most qualified, which was what Equal Rights was supposed to be all about... not Equity... but Equality under the Law.
by Allen Donald 3 years ago
If I were voting, I'd vote to confirm Amy Coney Barrett for SCOTUS.I'd ask her some questions about her views on various settled cases, but that is not a litmus test for her confirmation. Her political views should have nothing to do with her confirmation. The only question that matters is whether...
by Sharlee 2 years ago
"There's no question, none, that President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of the day. No question about it," McConnell said at the time. "The people who stormed this building believed they were acting on the wishes and instructions of their...
by PrettyPanther 4 years ago
What would a person have to say for you to consider the remark to be racist?What would a person have to say or do for you to judge them to be a racist?This question is particularly for those who don't think Trump has made racist remarks or is a racist. I am just curious about where you would draw...
by JAKE Earthshine 4 years ago
As the USA Burns DOWN in Flames under illegitimate Donald's era of catastrophic chaos, for years now, I’ve been preaching to Americans about Trump’s and republican’s obvious fear and or allegiance to Vladimir Putin’s Russia: “Mitch McConnell is a Russian” trends after GOP senator blocks election...
by G. Diane Nelson Trotter 4 months ago
Why is Blankenship the leading GOP senate primary candidate in West Virginia?According to the polls, Blankenship is ahead of two other GOP candidates. Why?the former chief executive of Massey Energy, served a year in federal prison after being convicted of conspiring to violate mine safety...
by JAKE Earthshine 4 years ago
Are you gonna' let this republican rigor mortis looking weirdo named "Granny" Mitch McConnell who presides over one of our most impoverished states called Kentucky, take away what you've earned over the course of your life ?? I mean seriously, you must have known this was coming right ?...
Copyright © 2023 The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of The Arena Platform, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|