Supreme Court Nominee

[WuWei]

@PurpnGold

I’m waiting for you to quote me. Where did I say she wasn’t selected because she was a black woman? My position was always qualified black woman.

Emphasis mine.

Just can’t get past the drawbridge.

You just agreed with @Ben_Natuf when he said “not because she’s qualified” (your motte). You even quoted it.

[PurpnGold]

@WuWei

@PurpnGold

I’m waiting for you to quote me. Where did I say she wasn’t selected because she was a black woman? My position was always qualified black woman.

Emphasis mine.

Just can’t get past the drawbridge.

You just agreed with @Ben_Natuf when he said “not because she’s qualified” (your motte). You even quoted it.

Read the quote again.

@Ben_Natuf

she was nominated because she’s a qualified, liberal, black, (that thing that’s uncertain) . not because she’s qualified. all four variables are needed.

Again I agreed with all 4.

Are you ok this morning?

[gooddad409]

@Samm

@Borgia_dude

@Samm

It’s quite simple. Because he didn’t. Trump promised to replace in kind. Biden did the exact opposite.

It’s weird you think SC seats have female or male associated with them.

I never said any such thing. Are your arguments so weak that you have to make things up?

Question asked. Question answered.

[WuWei]

One your motte, 3 out on the bailey.

[gooddad409]

@Striker840

@tnt

@Striker840

Bzzzzzz, incorrect answer.
I have been quite consistent in this, she has faced this same Senator in a previous hearing, was asked the same question, should one not prepare for the chance that said Senator would once again ask the same question, especially considering the current political climate? I have also stated that I am not a fan of “gotcha” questions as well.

There are several other answers that are much better than “I am not a biologist”, she didn’t ask for context clarification, nothing.

OK.

Her answer is irrelevant because it was a dumb question IMO.

Agree it was a dumb question.
Answer though is not irrelevant because she had an opportunity to turn that question around. Instead she punted, you know damn well if parties were reversed you would be all over it.

It wasn’t a dumb question. It was asked to see if she would answer that a woman is a female or refuse to do so because she is in alignment with the woke lib transgender supporting crowd.

She refused to do so which revealed a great deal. This is why the libs are so pissed off at the question.

We already suspected that this was the only kind Brandon would support anyway.

[PurpnGold]

@WuWei

One your motte, 3 out on the bailey.

Well I tried.

Not sure how you have access to the entire internet and still get it wrong.

[Ben_Natuf]

not exactly wrong.

how many serving federal judges are not qualified? how many were disqualified due to a lack of qualification? i’ll help you out here… zero. the qualified qualifier is a kinard, there are no unqualified federal judges. since “qualified” is a non factor within the pool, that leaves only three qualifiers. liberal black woman. and biden never mentioned liberal as a qualifier. 97% of qualified persons were eliminated solely based on race/gender. of the 3% remaining, since there were only 3 finalists, 90% were eliminated because they weren’t liberal enough.

[Supreme_War_Pig]

@Ben_Natuf

what harm is caused by basing appointments on race? hmmmmm…

If everything else is equal, why is it a problem?

[Supreme_War_Pig]

@WuWei

@Supreme_War_Pig

Yeah? So? We already agree that nobody more qualified was passed over. If all else is equal, what actual harm is caused by that?

I didn’t agree to that at all. All else is never equal. For example, she is getting extra points for Harvard.

The harm is continuing to prefer race.

So, is being qualified a factor or not?

[Ben_Natuf]

why is it not a problem?

[Ben_Natuf]

if your pool is sitting federal judges? no, its not. they’re all qualified.

[Supreme_War_Pig]

@Ben_Natuf

if your pool is sitting federal judges? no, its not. they’re all qualified.

Okay. For some reason, this keeps wavering.

So, if all else is at least roughly equal, what is the problem with nominating a black woman?

[Ben_Natuf]

nobody said it was a problem to nominate one. how is it not a problem to eliminate 97% of the qualified pool based on race/gender?

[Supreme_War_Pig]

@Ben_Natuf

nobody said it was a problem to nominate one. how is it not a problem to eliminate 97% of the qualified pool based on race/gender?

Well, given that 99% of the court has been white, and like 95% has been male, with no black women. And most of those nominations excluded people of color and women.

Why not redress this imbalance? If we really are a country of equality, why not show it?

[Ben_Natuf]

equality =/= equity

however; there is equity

you cannot cure a wrong perception of racism with real racism

13% of the federal judiciary is black. 12% of the population is black. where’s the problem?

[PurpnGold]

@Ben_Natuf

13% of the federal judiciary is black. 12% of the population is black. where’s the problem?

Hmm. Got any stats on this?

[PurpnGold]

@Ben_Natuf

not exactly wrong.

how many serving federal judges are not qualified? how many were disqualified due to a lack of qualification? i’ll help you out here… zero. the qualified qualifier is a kinard, there are no unqualified federal judges. since “qualified” is a non factor within the pool, that leaves only three qualifiers. liberal black woman. and biden never mentioned liberal as a qualifier. 97% of qualified persons were eliminated solely based on race/gender. of the 3% remaining, since there were only 3 finalists, 90% were eliminated because they weren’t liberal enough.

Would you or I be “qualified”? If the answer is “no” the there must be some level of qualifications necessary.

You are selecting from a pool of law degreed judges/lawyers. That pool is already smaller than the pool would be if you allow college educated (no degree or law experience) judges.

[Ben_Natuf]

Active African-American Article III Judges - Minority Corporate Counsel...

there are currently 147 active article III judges who are black. there are 890 active article III judges.

147/890=16.5%

see, i was wrong. they are over represented.

[PurpnGold]

Thanks Biden and Obama!

[Ben_Natuf]

what a bunch of crap.

you are now trying to argue that elliminating 97% of the known qualified pool based on race/gender is somehow not so bad because of some imaginary number of other unknown people who may be qualified that were never and likely will never ever be looked at. do you somehow fantasize the statistic will somehow get better by doing this? Who else would be considered qualified? Maybe lawyers who have argued cases before the SCOTUS would. How many do you suppose there are? More importantly to your statistic, how many are black women? I’m guessing your statistic is going to get worse, not better.