(02-02-2022 10:29 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-02-2022 10:07 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(02-01-2022 11:59 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-01-2022 11:27 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-01-2022 10:58 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  So why do we still need what is essentially a carve-out? Why is there push back any time a Republican suggests the above??

Damn good question. Waiting to hear Lad's answer.

Well, he's had every chance, and he has been on here, so I guess we can forget about him addressing the questions.

And this is what bothers me. If I suggest that 'they' take every opportunity to call 'us' racists, they fight back like wounded dogs... but when I ask the very questions that allow those who are somewhat less polite and/or 'rougher' to do so, they are completely silent. So no, they don't directly call us racists, but they certainly don't seem to have a problem making the same arguments that we do (in this case about racial equity progress) and then don't even THINK about supporting that same comment when we are attacked by people 'on their political side'. At best we get a ... well that may have been hyperbolic...

(02-02-2022 08:42 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I see no reason why a black female justice would add anything of value to the court simply because she is black or female. We already have a black justice and three females. What we don't have is intellectual diversity, and that is something that is badly needed. Someone whose entire legal education was received east of the Hudson River, and whose legal career has been conducted within 200-300 miles of that river, is not well equipped to understand the issues raised by most disputes in Wyoming or Idaho or Montana. Not to mention the problems inherent in having issues like church-state disputes being decided by a court with one of nine members from the plurality religion (Protestant Christianity) in the country.

The population of the USA is about 15% black. The composition of the court is 11% black. Not a huge difference. The population of the USA is slightly over 50% female. The composition of the court is 33% female. Arguably, the addition of one or two more women would make the court more representative of the population. A Hispanic female Protestant from the 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, 9th, or 11th circuit would be a nominee to make the Court more representative of current USA population.

How about an Asian female? Native American or Pacific Islander? There has NEVER been one on the SCOTUS I don't think. No representation at all.

I'm "silent" because this conversation has happened countless times on here and the same points go back and forth and back and forth and back and forth.

I find this back and forth far, far, far less worthwhile than the posts I do respond to.

Let's not act like I made one comment and ran away. There has been a robust back and forth already.

There seem to be fundamental disagreements about how we all view race and racism in this country, and what are or are not appropriate responses to it.

Actually lad, this current trip circumnavigating the various rationales has been quite illuminating.

You have specifically and explicitly stated (at this point) "I think there are sufficiently qualified individuals of all races/genders. As we have all discussed, there has been substantial progress on racial issues, so much so that you can find eminently qualified individuals of all races and sex."

You have never said this before. So, no, this* particular conversation has *never* occurred before..... and we have *never* heard you make that particular point before.

Now that you have said that, I think Ham's two short questions are highly germane. I would love to hear an answer to those two questions, notwithstanding any other points that have flowed in this conversation.