The same employer had no problem ruling out any prospective employees who weren’t white and male for about 200 years, so it’s probably fine.
Why would you want them to ask such an asinine and stupid question?
I mean most of them are pretty stupid and asinine, but that one is even more asinine and stupid than even the terrorist pedophile sympathizer ones.
Your question is rooted in the presumption that that the president didn’t consider who was a qualified nominee until after he decides that he wanted to nominate a black female for this position.
But the consideration of who would make a good Justice (a president’s “short list”) is usually something that is done a long time before - as VP, Biden might have been in rooms where the qualifications, and potential candidates, where discussed. As a presidential candidate, he almost certainly discussed it with his team.
When he announced that he was going to nominate a black woman, it very could have been because he’d already considered the group of qualified candidates and determined that one (or more) black women were at the top of that list.
Meaning, in answer to your question, it would be okay to rule out all prospective employees if they are not black and female if you’ve already determined, based on a review of qualifications and other pertinent information, that your top candidates are in fact black and female.
I would guess he will use the same reasoning about “bipartisanship” that he used to sink the bills aimed at restoring voting rights certain states are limiting. If that is really an issue for Manchin then I could see him saying a straight party line vote, or close to it, is a problem for the country and Biden should put forward a nominee that will get major support from both sides.
Sure he could come up with a post hoc justification for voting against her. My question was why would he want to?
Because he’s got some hang up about this stupid idea important decisions like this and restoring voting rights should get bipartisan support. At first he said he supported the John Lewis Voting Rights bill and then pulled his support when no one from the GOP would get on board. I’m not sure WHY he is so beholden to the concept of bipartisan support for proposals from the Biden team. Maybe he likes the attention. Or maybe he’s just a piece of shit like I already said.
Or if he sees it as a valuable “quid pro quo” marker he can call in for the future.
Have they done the thing yet where she has to put her hand in the box while Josh Hawley holds the Gom-Jabbar to her neck?
I’ll give you a real-life example of something similar.
I was hiring for an IT position. I had opened the position up to applications with our recruiting folks. After the application period was concluded, I had 20 different candidates to look over. Out of those 20, only 2 were female, and unfortunately their qualifications fell very short of our requirements. I was looking for a full-time IT person who could hit the ground running immediately, and they had some limited helpdesk experience (mostly just answering phones and creating problem tickets for IT people to resolve) and it wasn’t a position where I could train someone from scratch to do IT stuff. So I ended up quickly narrowing the pool only to male applicants, even though diversity is something that my workplace values.
That was a case where I would have loved to at least bring in a female candidate for an interview but I just didn’t have the right people applying. I will say though, if I had, say, 10 top candidates, and of them only 1 was female, and I needed to bring in 4 for interviews, all else being equal I would have included a female. I would have done basically what Biden did.
Just out of curiosity, which three Rs do you think will vote for her (I’m assuming you think all 50 Ds will)? She got three R votes for her appellate court seat, but Graham is pretty clearly projecting that he will vote against her for SC. I cannot foresee any Rs other than Collins or Murkowski voting for her, and even they (especially Murkowski, who’s up for reelection this year) will be under tremendous pressure to vote no or abstain so that Dems can’t claim the vote was bipartisan.
I fear we may have gotten to the point where a Senate held by one party simply won’t confirm a SC nominee from a President of the other party — especially an R Senate and D President. The last Supreme Court justice to be confirmed when the opposition party held the Senate was Clarence Thomas over 30 years ago. And of course Rs stonewalled Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland when they held the Senate.
Collins, Murkowski, and a player to be named later.
Maaaybe an old school R whose already announced they’re retiring? Richard Burr voted for Trump’s second impeachment. Maybe Roy Blunt is sick enough of Josh Hawley getting all the attention in MO to vote aye.
Ben Sasse is an outside shot for a yes vote. He basically called Ted Cruz’s antics ‘jackassery’ yesterday… while sitting next to Ted Cruz.
Wrong forum. Deleted post.
Not familiar with Sasse’s body of work I take it?
That’s like saying just because you supported a candidate for governor last year, means you must support them running for president this year.
Justice Barrett had three years experience as a judge in a circuit court of appeals, versus Judge Jackson’s one year. Most of Judge Jackson’s judicial career has been at the district level, rather than appellate. This is very unusual. Justice Sotomayor used to be a district judge but she spent ten years on the court of appeals before being nominated to the Supreme Court. Justice Whittaker was the last Justice, aside from Sotomayor, to have ever served as a trial court judge.
I think the perspective she brings, having been a trial court judge for so long (and even a public defender for a couple years!), is the best merit-based argument in favor of her nomination.
Re: OP, I also think her nomination is virtually guaranteed to go through. On the off chance that a Democratic senator dies or something, it could tank.
~Max
I am. I said ‘outside shot’.
He’s against Trumpism and there’s is a very slim chance he’ll vote yes to send a message to his party about acting like grown ups.
You’d have to give me pretty great odds for me to bet on it.
As a conservative Republican, I would vote to confirm Jackson. I don’t agree with her political philosophy, but she is Biden’s pick and is qualified.
The accusations of being “soft” on child porn possessors are ridiculous as the penalties are draconian, and everyone, even prosecutors do what they can to lessen them to something very serious, yet reasonable.
Also, this idea that she will recuse herself in the Harvard case is a nice showpiece but means nothing. In no way would her vote make a difference in the outcome under any scenario. Say it is (with Jackson’s vote) a 5-4 to miraculously uphold Grutter and race preference admissions. If you take away her vote, it is a 4-4 tie which affirms the lower court and leaves Grutter in place. No difference in any scenario. Pretty brilliant tactic.
Actually, Max, that’s pretty much the exact opposite of what I said.
Oh, sorry.
~Max