I struggle to see how you’re going to have one person who is clearly and unambiguously better for this job than several others.

Lord_Griff wrote:

* pittapattapittapattawhooooooosh! *

Look, now they’re screaming because you’ve skinned your knees and there’s blood all over the Axminster.

mistercrayon wrote:

He’s basically stated on the record it’s an unfair completion. If you can’t see how that would make it worse than I’m not really convinced about your other points.

If by "make it worse" you mean the reaction of racist and sexist right wingers, then I could not give a fuck

Funkstain wrote:

Again. It only undermines the candidate in the eyes of those who would always have undermined them.

Just gonna have to disagree on that one. Factually that is correct. I disagree with it as a method - not worrying about the rest won't solve the problem. On a pure point of selection by merit it does the person a disservice to be selected in that scheme. So even filtering racists and sexists out, there will be those who will doubt the suitability of the person selected.

I'm not saying I have a solution. No-one does. This is damn hard stuff. It's been tried before. I gave an example. It doesn't work.

Race is a distraction if you are thinking about the supreme court. Economic background is more applicable - having a range of those who got to be in the frame from different economic starting points is more important.

Which isn't to say that a diverse panel isn't needed, but this kind of thing is a sticking plaster for more deeply rooted, generational, systematic change that isn't happening very quickly.

poprock wrote:

handsofblue wrote:

Which isn't to say that a diverse panel isn't needed, but this kind of thing is a sticking plaster for more deeply rooted, generational, systematic change that isn't happening very quickly.

I think you need these sticking plasters in order for the slower change to ever begin.

True, but I think we need something more like gaffa tape. But I then get stuck on what gets people of minority background or experience into the higher echelons of power. Unless they were born into power to begin with. In which case they're a different kind of minority.

But, as has been pointed out by Funk; isn't race and gender the point of the appointment? To fill in the blind spots of the group as a whole? It's not just about the individual qualifying, it's about the supreme court functioning as a whole?

This has nothing to do with equality of outcomes. It's not about it not being fair that a black women has not been on the supreme court before.

It's to do with appointing a person who will bring some balance to the court, provide a certain perspective that is currently lacking, and also potentially act as a source of inspiration for a large section of society that feels disenfranchised or underrepresented in government.

In this situation the best person to achieve that outcome happens to be a black (or Latino) woman.

poprock wrote:

But, what if say the selection pool is 80-90% white middle/upper class male and 10-20% other. Won't the 'selection process' reflect the majority population of the selection pool rather than the national make up? How can one address this issue without upsetting the majority of the selection pool mentioned above?

You can’t address that quickly without being accused of tokenism, which is what’s happening. You need to address it long term by creating a more equal society (providing access to education and opportunities at every level of the legal profession). And you aren’t likely to get that without more diversity represented at the top, so you do a bit of tokenism to get things started.

Or at least, I think that’s a fair oversimplification.

Not an oversimplification, rather the heart of the issue.

As stated by others the appointment won't be based on merit and the best qualifications, it's political based on party allegiance and political orientation (with a bias towards male and white).

I mean, Kavenaugh (almost a rapist) is in there.

The calls to improve structural racism and education standards are worthy and of course part of what should be the strategies to improve society, but I don't see how they are an alternative (like, one or t'other) to deliberately selecting a more diverse candidacy for high office.

It is a good thing to have more diversity and not only because of representation. It DOES lead to wider experience and knowledge gains, which DO lead to better decisions. It's a net gain, and the bad press positive discrimination gets seldom takes this into account. Yes it opens people up to accusations of tokenism and gesture politics, but as I say I believe that's more symptomatic of the deeper rooted structural problems of racism and misogyny, and I simply don't believe that a judge with the education, experience, knowledge and background of someone potentially nominated to the Supreme Court will worry too much about it, and will feel undermined by it - they will get on with the job of being an excellent judge.

But sure it's just an opinion. What isn't, is that we need more diversity at the top levels of civil and corporate societies and the sooner the better.

hunk wrote:

But, as has been pointed out by Funk; isn't race and gender the point of the appointment? To fill in the blind spots of the group as a whole? It's not just about the individual qualifying, it's about the supreme court functioning as a whole?

So what about disability then? What about LGBTQ+ Youth? The old? What about vegans? Why pick colour and sex?

davyK wrote:

hunk wrote:

But, as has been pointed out by Funk; isn't race and gender the point of the appointment? To fill in the blind spots of the group as a whole? It's not just about the individual qualifying, it's about the supreme court functioning as a whole?

So what about disability then? What about LGBTQ+ Youth? The old? What about vegans? Why pick colour and sex?

Disability is good, yep, and being LGBTQ+, definitely worth getting them involved (although considering the age profile of Justices, it would be odd if none are suffering from an age-related disability). They’ve got age covered, veganism is a choice, not a characteristic. Anything else?

Davy, do you agree that it's an issue that no black woman has ever been appointed to the supreme court? If you don't, why not?

If it is because it should be based on merit, how does that square with the article yoss posted.

I love the idea that creating “equal opportunities” (for what? Artistic flourishing? Judicial excellence? Capitalistic endeavour? Gap year travelling? Illness avoidance? Freedom from Domestic abuse?) is somehow “not meddling” as if it wouldn’t take vast amounts of wealth redistribution, strategic long term structural change in all gov departments and deployment, and total societal change to achieve;


Whereas making sure there is proper representation of a significant minority group (black people) and a equal group (women) on the most important court in the land is “meddling” which I assume is a bad thing

As for picking one minority over another: you’ve been called out for that one, it’s not zero sum and better representation and diversity is to be encouraged wherever it starts.

Finally your last sentence gives you away: equal ability and effort linked to outcomes. Either you believe that a black woman has put at least equal effort and has equal ability to be on the court, and therefore we’re a-ok according to you, or you don’t, and then you need to examine yourself.