Ruth Bader Ginsburg

[perrykneeham]

Jan 27, 2022 16:43:36 GMT flatandy said:

The best person for the job will be a black woman. The fact that she's a black woman will make her the best person for the job.

What is the job? Being a judge?

[flatandy]

It's being a supreme court justice.

[perrykneeham]

Why would being a black woman make her the best candidate? Are black and woman qualifications in jurisprudence or plain prudence?

[flatandy]

Is a football team with 11 goalkeepers better?

[perrykneeham]

Rubbish analogy. Black and woman are not competencies for being a judge.

[flatandy]

They are not disqualifying, despite what you may think. Why do you think it would be better to have a court made up of only old white men?

[perrykneeham]

They're not qualifying.

[flatandy]

They are in the circumstances.

[voice]

Yeah but no one's saying being female and black are qualifiers, only that given the make up of society putting the first black woman on the court will make the court more balanced, just as when Reagan put the first woman on the court, after making a similar pledge during his campaign. It will be the first time there have been 4 women on the court at once, and that alone makes it reflect better.

And there are a large number of very qualified people who could do the job, black brown and white, male and female, so it's not as if someone unqualified will get the job it's a choice based on wider considerations than being just a good judge.After all Barrat was chosen cos of her extreme religious views more than her competency.

[flatandy]

It's worth remember that this isn't really a "judge" in the sense that is normally used - although the mostly likely candidate is, actually a judge. They don't sit over trials. Instead they make judicial rulings on constitutional matters.

[perrykneeham]

Jan 27, 2022 20:21:17 GMT flatandy said:

They are in the circumstances.

Nah. There's no competency called black or woman. This isn't about nice-to-haves, unless it's a dead heat.

[perrykneeham]

Jan 27, 2022 20:25:21 GMT flatandy said:

It's worth remember that this isn't really a "judge" in the sense that is normally used - although the mostly likely candidate is, actually a judge. They don't sit over trials. Instead they make judicial rulings on constitutional matters.

Phew! Nothing important then. You should have said. They could have got the lady of the Tom and Jerry cartoons

.

[perrykneeham]

"wider considerations"

<snigger> that's what every bent boys' club says.

[flatandy]

Jan 27, 2022 21:57:34 GMT perrykneeham said:

Jan 27, 2022 20:21:17 GMT flatandy said:

They are in the circumstances.

Nah. There's no competency called black or woman. This isn't about nice-to-haves, unless it's a dead heat.

Why do you think it's a *ahem* race?

[perrykneeham]

I don't.

[flatandy]

Then why are you talking about dead heats? Also, can you let me know who you think is better qualified than someone like Ketanji Brown Jackson, and in what ways they are better qualified?

[perrykneeham]

You can have a draw in things that aren't races. It's an expression that implies parity. Ceteris paribus 'n' all that.

[perrykneeham]

Jan 27, 2022 22:09:32 GMT flatandy said:

Then why are you talking about dead heats? Also, can you let me know who you think is better qualified than someone like Ketanji Brown Jackson, and in what ways they are better qualified?

Not my area of expertise and not the argument, which you've clearly lost.

[flatandy]

I've already said that there are loads of equally qualified candidates.

[Psalms]

Being placed on the Court as a Black and a woman might color her opinions because she might feel obligated to decide according to the current trend of thought of the BLM movement or the present day Womans' rights thoughts (could be fickle).