SCOTUS Catch-all | Shadow Docket

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 1K
  • Views: 52K
  • Politics 
ZenMode said:
Some time ago I criticized Biden's selection of Kagan as a SCOTUS justice. Not because I assumed she was unqualified, but because he called his shot that he was limiting his options to high melanin candidates.

The recent 8-1 (Chiles v. Salazar) where she was the 1 is, IMO, the second ridiculous position she's taken.
Click to expand...
Psssst...

Supreme Court Justice Biographies
 
ZenMode said:
Some time ago I criticized Biden's selection of Kagan as a SCOTUS justice. Not because I assumed she was unqualified, but because he called his shot that he was limiting his options to high melanin candidates.

The recent 8-1 (Chiles v. Salazar) where she was the 1 is, IMO, the second ridiculous position she's taken.
Click to expand...
Spoken or unspoken, the vast majority of candidates for any of the three branches of government have, for most of our country’s history and up through today, been by people who have decided to limit their options to “low melanin” candidates. Why you continue to refuse to acknowledge that is beyond me.
 
ZenMode said:
Some time ago I criticized Biden's selection of Kagan as a SCOTUS justice. Not because I assumed she was unqualified, but because he called his shot that he was limiting his options to high melanin candidates.

The recent 8-1 (Chiles v. Salazar) where she was the 1 is, IMO, the second ridiculous position she's taken.
Click to expand...
Boy this is one of your best
 
finesse said:
An atheist make a similar mistake as a believer in a god. They think that they actually know wtf is true about a universe almost 14 billion years old
Click to expand...
As explained by zeuxis, you have a misunderstanding about the word atheist. Atheism is not being convinced a god exists. That’s all it takes. It makes no positive claim about believing or knowing anything else. Most atheists are also agnostic.
Do you currently believe a god exists? If no, you’re an atheist too.
 
“Atheism, in the broadest sense, is an absence of belief in the existence of deities. Less broadly, atheism is a rejection of the belief that any deities exist. In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities”
 
Milk and Cookies said:
As explained by zeuxis, you have a misunderstanding about the word atheist. Atheism is not being convinced a god exists. That’s all it takes. It makes no positive claim about believing or knowing anything else. Most atheists are also agnostic.
Do you currently believe a god exists? If no, you’re an atheist too.
Click to expand...
How much of "I have no fucking idea" do you have trouble understanding? I think there may well be beings in the universe where the difference between them and gods to us would be moot. The might even be a "real" god but how would you know? More importantly, how is that ever going to matter to us? You can call it whatever you want, I don't know and I don't care.
 
finesse said:
How much of "I have no fucking idea" do you have trouble understanding? I think there may well be beings in the universe where the difference between them and gods to us would be moot. The might even be a "real" god but how would you know? More importantly, how is that ever going to matter to us? You can call it whatever you want, I don't know and I don't care.
Click to expand...
Welcome to atheism :)🎉
 
finesse said:
Just as long as there are no meetings nor organized groups.
Click to expand...
I remember when I was a kid and the idea of being a member of some kind of church was ingrained in my life experience, I wondered what it was like to go to an atheist church.
 
ZenMode said:
Some time ago I criticized Biden's selection of Jackson as a SCOTUS justice. Not because I assumed she was unqualified, but because he called his shot that he was limiting his options to high melanin candidates.

The recent 8-1 (Chiles v. Salazar) where she was the 1 is, IMO, the second ridiculous position she's taken.
Click to expand...
Whoops. Must have been sleep deprived. Jackson not Kagan.
 
sringwal said:
Spoken or unspoken, the vast majority of candidates for any of the three branches of government have, for most of our country’s history and up through today, been by people who have decided to limit their options to “low melanin” candidates. Why you continue to refuse to acknowledge that is beyond me.
Click to expand...
As I mentioned above....Jackson is who I was referring to.

We should expect most jobs to be filled by low melanin people. They make up the largest majority of the population, right?

The problem with limiting your selection pool to a tiny portion (highly qualified judges) of a group that makes up about 7% of the population is that you are more likely to get an unqualified candidate.
 
ZenMode said:
The problem with limiting your selection pool to a tiny portion (highly qualified judges) of a group that makes up about 7% of the population is that you are more likely to get an unqualified candidate.
Click to expand...
If you limit your selection pool to highly qualified black judges you are more likely to get an unqualified judge? Huh?
 
TangledUpInBlue06 said:
If you limit your selection pool to highly qualified black judges you are more likely to get an unqualified judge? Huh?
Click to expand...
Probably wasn't worded well.....

You want highly qualified justices on SCOTUS. Limiting your selection pool to a group that makes up about 7% of the country (high melanin females) is a bad idea. Then, you're even more limited by the fact that there are few high melanin female judges, which means the odds of getting an un/underqualified candidate increase significantly.
 
ZenMode said:
You want highly qualified justices on SCOTUS. Limiting your selection pool to a group that makes up about 7% of the country (high melanin females) is a bad idea. Then, you're even more limited by the fact that there are few high melanin female judges, which means the odds of getting an un/underqualified candidate increase significantly.
Click to expand...
I think your original statement that I quoted and responded to was probably closer to the truth than you realize. There, you correctly said the pool of candidates was made up of highly qualified judges.

You talk about odds as if this is drawing ping pong balls out of a hopper. The candidates for a SCOTUS seat are highly scrutinized. Their schools, their grades, their published articles, their speeches, their opinions and votes (if they are sitting judges), how they are regarded among colleagues and clerks, etc. They also undergo personal background checks. If they are nominated, they meet individually with members of the judiciary committee. They go through a public hearing. They require approval by the Senate.

I understand your argument about limiting your selection pool, and I've seen you state it before. I agree that Joe Biden did KBJ no favors in proclaiming he was going to nominate a black woman. But let's be real - there are highly qualified black women, and there is a process to make sure a nominated justice is highly qualified. If you have a specific reason to think KBJ is not as qualified as she should be, talk about that instead of odds.
 
Last edited:
05C40 said:
If an individual was born to parents who were not citizens, then that person would not be a US citizen. And if that person is not a citizen, then the children of that person are also no longer citizens. How many generations back would this cascade? The fact of birth in the US is an event with no ambiguity regarding citizenship. If birth is no longer a hallmark of citizenship status the result will be extremely messy.
Click to expand...
1775226438469.png
 
TangledUpInBlue06 said:
I think your original statement that I quoted and responded to was probably closer to the truth than you realize. There, you correctly said the pool of candidates was made up of highly qualified judges.

You talk about odds as if this is drawing ping pong balls out of a hopper. The candidates for a SCOTUS seat are highly scrutinized. Their schools, their grades, their published articles, their speeches, their opinions and votes (if they are sitting judges), how they are regarded among colleagues and clerks, etc. They also undergo personal background checks. If they are nominated, they meet individually with members of the judiciary committee. They go through a public hearing. They require approval by the Senate.

I understand your argument about limiting your selection pool, and I've seen you state it before. I agree that Joe Biden did KBJ no favors in proclaiming he was going to nominate a black woman. But let's be real - there are highly qualified black women, and there is a process to make sure a nominated justice is highly qualified. If you have a specific reason to think KBJ is not as qualified as she should be, talk about that instead of odds.
Click to expand...
I brought this up again because of another very confusing dissent on the Chiles case. Probably the most confusing yet and she utilized her option to read this dissent from the bench, which is even more odd.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top