Qualifications or Race and Gender?

[Aster]

5 hours ago, Phoenix_ said:

but it's also not necessarily a bad thing to aim to bring in a woman of color to the court. As long as whoever is brought in has the merit to back up their selection, I could care less. 

I fully agree with you, but does Biden really have to say that? He's making it sound like that's the only type of person he's looking for.

[Kieran]

5 hours ago, Autistic said:

My stance is the persons race doesnt matter. Cause even if they are black doesnt mean they are for black issues. In the end the most qualified person should get the role.

I think some people in this thread don't really understand or want to recognize the importance of diversity in establishments like this.

 

Most of us can agree a person's gender, race, etc. greatly impacts their life experiences and life perspectives. Anyone who can't agree on that has probably either been shielded from that reality or aren't mature enough to make that admission just yet.

 

Now, on the Supreme Court, a group which deals with a wide variety of issues affecting a wide variety of people, wouldn't you want the court to have a wide variety of perspectives and insights?

 

Diversity in the Supreme Court should be embraced; a diverse group will be able to see issues through a variety of different lenses and therefore make a stronger decision. This is why in most companies you'll find their board of directors are purposefully composed of a diverse pool of individuals: diversity brings needed important perspectives.

 

A Supreme Court lacking diversity will fail to bring in different insights and make a fair decision, just like how a fully Republican-leaning or Democrat-leaning court would also fail to do the same. In a way, I would argue bringing in more diversity and providing new life perspectives is a qualification for a position like this.

 

Notice how I'm focusing on positions meant for providing insight specifically, because we have people like this..

 

7 hours ago, Gentoo said:

The real pressing issue is why 75% of the NBA is black men despite only accounting for 7% of the population. You should get on that.

 

..who throw around these statistics yet blatantly ignore or fail to consider any differences between the US Supreme Court and an NBA basketball team. It doesn't require a lot of thought to realize how diversity in an NBA team (where all that really matters is your physical talents and basketball abilities) might not be as important as it is in the Supreme Court, where the justices have to discuss and rule on literally the most important issues in the entire country. I find it hilarious people still throw around this statistic thinking it holds any weight.

 

Do I think that Biden should solely be considering black female candidates for this new position? Not at all. However, too often when a headline like this pops up people fall back on the "I want the most qualified candidate for the position" stance without considering how diversity plays a role in that very position.

[Gentoo]

12 minutes ago, Kieran said:

I think some people in this thread don't really understand or want to recognize the importance of diversity in establishments like this.

 

Most of us can agree a person's gender, race, etc. greatly impacts their life experiences and life perspectives. Anyone who can't agree on that has probably either been shielded from that reality or aren't mature enough to make that admission just yet.

 

Now, on the Supreme Court, a group which deals with a wide variety of issues affecting a wide variety of people, wouldn't you want the court to have a wide variety of perspectives and insights?

 

Diversity in the Supreme Court should be embraced; a diverse group will be able to see issues through a variety of different lenses and therefore make a stronger decision. This is why in most companies you'll find their board of directors are purposefully composed of a diverse pool of individuals: diversity brings needed important perspectives.

 

A Supreme Court lacking diversity will fail to bring in different insights and make a fair decision, just like how a fully Republican-leaning or Democrat-leaning court would also fail to do the same. In a way, I would argue bringing in more diversity and providing new life perspectives is a qualification for a position like this.

 

Notice how I'm focusing on positions meant for providing insight specifically, because we have people like this..

 

 

..who throw around these statistics yet blatantly ignore or fail to consider any differences between the US Supreme Court and an NBA basketball team. It doesn't require a lot of thought to realize how diversity in an NBA team (where all that really matters is your physical talents and basketball abilities) might not be as important as it is in the Supreme Court, where the justices have to discuss and rule on literally the most important issues in the entire country. I find it hilarious people still throw around this statistic thinking it holds any weight.

 

Do I think that Biden should solely be considering black female candidates for this new position? Not at all. However, too often when a headline like this pops up people fall back on the "I want the most qualified candidate for the position" stance without considering how diversity plays a role in that very position.

To be quite blunt about it. Anyone who's been a circuit judge for 20 years is so far removed from any sort of poverty or life altering discrimination that it is the last thing they bring to the table. If you think that someone's skin color or possible experiences from childhood are going to offer a significant benefit to the court, that's cool, I disagree but I'm not going to go back and forth about it.

 

I think the meat and bones of this is that some people have a misconception that the Supreme court is about representation. It's not, hence why it's never been an elected position. It's about justice, objectivity, nonpartisanship. These people aren't meant to make laws or make sure people are heard. They're simply meant to RULE on things that have been proposed or that have happened. Whether things are constitutional, just, blah blah.

 

I don't mean to make the case that diversity is without merit in this, but I think it's necessary to qualify why specifically the Court currently needs it and why a candidate would bring something like this to the table. I don't think it's fair to say that someone would bring something like this to the table because of their skin, or to specifically propose that you're looking for a black female is a smart thing to do.

 

And yeah statistics ha funny, I was bored and it got you heated. If you'll notice the post I quoted, it pulled random numbers from a very small group of people and used them as "clear evidence of systematic discrimination". Thanks for catching up.

[Aster]

3 minutes ago, Kieran said:

I think some people in this thread don't really understand or want to recognize the importance of diversity in establishments like this.

 

Most of us can agree a person's gender, race, etc. greatly impacts their life experiences and life perspectives. Anyone who can't agree on that has probably either been shielded from that reality or aren't mature enough to make that admission just yet.

Ok, I'll give a Black female this role in the Supreme Court, they might not be able to do their job on either side of the political party's, but a vote is a vote, and diversity matters, right... right?

 

8 minutes ago, Kieran said:

Diversity in the Supreme Court should be embraced; a diverse board will be able to see issues through a variety of different lenses and therefore make a stronger decision. This is why in most companies you'll find their board of directors are purposefully composed of a diverse pool of individuals: diversity brings needed important perspectives.

 

A Supreme Court lacking diversity will fail to bring in different insights and make a fair decision, just like how a fully Republican-leaning or Democrat-leaning court would also fail to do the same. In a way, I would argue bringing in more diversity and providing new life perspectives is a qualification for a position like this.

You have a point on the perspectives part, but with diversity, in the end it would still be a Democratic standpoint or a Republican standpoint regardless of what race and gender those people are. Your values are usually Democratic or Republican regardless of race and gender, there are some black people that are republican and some black people that are democrats. I really don't think race and gender matters over what you believe in(your perspective point). Just because it's a Black woman, doesn't mean she's been through what every other Black person has been through. Proving the point that race and gender is really just irrelevant.

[Bondairy]

7 hours ago, Gentoo said:

The real pressing issue is why 75% of the NBA is black men despite only accounting for 7% of the population. You should get on that.

 

You want to pick the people most qualified for the job, regardless of other aspects. 

????? Duality of a man.

[Kieran]

1 hour ago, Gentoo said:

I think the meat and bones of this is that some people have a misconception that the Supreme court is about representation. It's not, hence why it's never been an elected position. It's about justice, objectivity, nonpartisanship. These people aren't meant to make laws or make sure people are heard. They're simply meant to RULE on things that have been proposed or that have happened. Whether things are constitutional, just, blah blah.

 

I don't mean to make the case that diversity is without merit in this, but I think it's necessary to qualify why specifically the Court currently needs it and why a candidate would bring something like this to the table. I don't think it's fair to say that someone would bring something like this to the table because of their skin, or to specifically propose that you're looking for a black female is a smart thing to do.

Notice how I never argued the Supreme Court needs diversity for the sake of groups having representation. Diversity provides a variety of perspectives which I believe enables the Supreme Court to make fairer, more informed decision making. You don't believe any elected justice's background provides much new insight, which I believe it does, so I'll agree to disagree with you there. 

 

I think perspective and diversity is especially important as one of the jobs of the Supreme Court is to interpret the law - the concept of interpretation obviously being far from the idea you brought up that the Supreme Court is only about objectivity. I believe in those cases, having a diverse pool of perspectives is useful for making a better ruling. Seeing an issue through multiple lenses provides a clearer picture and leads to a better ruling. We all benefit from a court diverse with race, gender, professional background, and as you mentioned, free from partisanship.

 

Also, I guess congrats on using a dumb statistic and then backtracking and saying "muh.. I was just pretending to be an idiot. stay mad lul!" The joke really landed well given you had to explain yourself. If that's not what you were trying to do, then sorry you lost me.

 

EDIT: I also agree with your one point that Biden was stupid saying he was solely looking for a black female for the position. I think we can both come together and embrace the idea that Biden has mostly been a moron up to this point in his presidency.

 

1 hour ago, Aster said:

Ok, I'll give a Black female this role in the Supreme Court, they might not be able to do their job on either side of the political party's, but a vote is a vote, and diversity matters, right... right?

No one said to choose an unqualified candidate for the sake of diversity. You're arguing with nobody.

 

1 hour ago, Aster said:

You have a point on the perspectives part, but with diversity, in the end it would still be a Democratic standpoint or a Republican standpoint regardless of what race and gender those people are. Your values are usually Democratic or Republican regardless of race and gender, there are some black people that are republican and some black people that are democrats. I really don't think race and gender matters over what you believe in(your perspective point). Just because it's a Black woman, doesn't mean she's been through what every other Black person has been through. Proving the point that race and gender is really just irrelevant.

No offense but I mostly don't know what you're even trying to get at here. News flash: not everything in life is going to be seen through a Republican or Democrat lens. Also, not sure if you know but the Supreme Court is also literally a nonpartisan entity - their job is to rule and interpret the law without their own political biases (although one could argue how well they actually accomplish that). I only brought up the Republican/Democrat analogy for my argument that no one should want a Supreme Court with a limited perspective. Diversity and justices with different backgrounds helps balance out any skewed perspectives on any given issue, leading to fairer interpretations and rulings.

 

 

[sWz]

I really wish we'd ascend from the caveman tribal level way of looking at race as something of significance at all. I see it as a similar vein to when a celebrity comes out as gay, like who cares? If anyone actually wants a society where we prioritize qualifications over race/gender/etc. then we should just shut the fuck up about it. That goes from regular ass people all the way up to the president.

 

7 hours ago, Phoenix_ said:

This isn't discrimination, the goal of Biden's statement is to actually push forward the opposite. He wants a black woman for the sake of diversity in the Court.

How is this not by definition discrimination towards a white man who might be more qualified for the job than the next black woman in the line for competence? 

 

If anyone actually gave a shit about diversity they'd blindly pick whoever is in the most ideal position for the job. If you wanna say some ridiculous shit like "blindly picking the most qualified will mean you only pick white men because they have the least societal setbacks!!!", then maybe just don't enter this conversation at all because you've been wearing a blindfold for the past half a century.

[Wawa]

22 hours ago, Aster said:

I wanted to get everyone's thought's on what Biden said, especially considering the current situation. Does it really matter what race and gender someone is, or are the qualifications more important in today's society?

 

It doesn't matter what race and gender someone is when it comes to qualifications.  What matters is what class you are, and you can bet your ass the next Justice will not serve the working class.

[All Ts]

There's no way anyone in this thread believes diversity trumps merit. If you do, I can promise you that there are scumbags in every group of people on earth no matter their race, sex, gender, background. It's ofc less likely to find as many candidates for this among minorities mostly due to past racism hurting economic conditions and many feeling the reverb of that still currently. However, I think coming out and deciding/communicating that any position is only for a woman, or only for one group of people is lacking in logic and unnecessarily controversial. The country currently needs less division and less arguments over semantic bullshit. Look at this thread, look at TV, look at any discussion relating to this issue. 

 

If you find a person deserving of the position, who is a woman or who comes from a minority group then the diversity is just a plus, it shouldn't guide your entire decision nor should you boil down an entire persons character because of it. Being recognized for a come-up, or breaking the odds is great (who doesn't love a good underdog story) but I think if a seat is chosen without careful consideration you can end up with a wacky motherfucker making decisions that will fuck the US over for decades. 

 

There are some stats used by @TheZZL to prove discrimination in the courts and suggesting that we can right these wrongs. I would caution using stats to prove a point because what you really did was run into the fallacy of causation with your statements. People fell hard for this trap when speaking on things like the gender pay gap for over a decade now, which is not even close to being explained by discrimination but mostly other factors such as motherhood. This kind of thinking isn't to say there isn't discrimination against minorities, women, or anyone for that matter but if you look at inequality as inequity the world starts to look a lot more sinister & the solutions people come up with are usually like shoving a square peg in a round hole.

 

As for speaking on people oppressed in the past set aside by economic hardship (mostly blacks), it's not as if we can magically generate qualified candidates to pick to somehow equal things out (although I'm sure there are qualified ones, I'm speaking more on the fact that race/diversity is in the discussion). If someone exists who is most qualified they'll get picked. If we assume good intentions by Biden his words mean he has already a list of these type of candidates. If we assume the worst he's probably trying to get reelected because many people do not like him. I personally think people are really weak in the head if they don't see it as a political move by him, whether agree or disagree. It's a bad move by a leader who claimed to want to bring people more together by not just hailing someone as a good choice because of their merit & not encourage more tribalistic nonsense bullshit.

[Kieran]

4 hours ago, All Ts said:

There's no way anyone in this thread believes diversity trumps merit. If you do, I can promise you that there are scumbags in every group of people on earth no matter their race, sex, gender, background. It's ofc less likely to find as many candidates for this among minorities mostly due to past racism hurting economic conditions and many feeling the reverb of that still currently. However, I think coming out and deciding/communicating that any position is only for a woman, or only for one group of people is lacking in logic and unnecessarily controversial. The country currently needs less division and less arguments over semantic bullshit. Look at this thread, look at TV, look at any discussion relating to this issue. 

 

If you find a person deserving of the position, who is a woman or who comes from a minority group then the diversity is just a plus, it shouldn't guide your entire decision nor should you boil down an entire persons character because of it. Being recognized for a come-up, or breaking the odds is great (who doesn't love a good underdog story) but I think if a seat is chosen without careful consideration you can end up with a wacky motherfucker making decisions that will fuck the US over for decades. 

I do think everyone can agree to this. No decision should be made solely for the sake of diversity. Biden is just stupid and trying to act woke by this move, case closed.