Trump Judicial Nominee Refusing to Say if She Supports Brown v. Board of Education

[Zorba]

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/racism?s=t

Thanks for proving my point:

2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.

3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

 

[justoh]

Thanks for proving my point:

You forgot to link 1. "Such doctrine"

 

[Amused]

What about black people that want segregated schools? There was a fellow on the news a year or so back demanding that blacks have their own schools, banks, and currency. I don't think for a moment that this is any kind of movement, but it's obviously a desire held by some.

If you cannot see the difference between state mandated segregation (Apartheid/Jim Crow) and voluntary self segregation, you don't understand the concept of freedom, law, or simple logic.

The fact is, it was a racist state mandated policy designed not only to keep races seperate against their will, but to also keep an entire race down, mired in poverty. And it only truly ended in the 1960s. It was America's version of Apartheid.

See the concept is simple, if you want to segregate yourself, that's racial animosity (if the oppressed race) or racist (if the oppressing race) but legal. If you want to segregate others against their will, that's racist and illegal.

 

[interchange]

I agree with you, taking it at face value, but what worries me is (at least from the quote, I haven't watched all of the video) her lack of explicit communication on the topic which is obviously a skill that a judge must have in spades. Why on earth does she even mention her personal beliefs if they're irrelevant? It would be like a Catholic doctor mentioning his religious belief when talking about abortion, whether or not he then claims it's irrelevant, there's a reason why he chose to mention it. The fact that she wasn't explicit in her response leaves what she did say open to interpretation for possible implications. Furthermore, she talks about not wanting to criticise her bosses' rulings yet surely her job directly involves what her professional opinions are going to be about those rulings. The questioner seems to have a far better grasp of the importance of these questions than she does. It's very odd. I think she's hiding her motives with weasel wording.

I agree that it's concerning, but it's hard to simply rely on speculation. I think her comments need to be taken in context with her personal history of expressed opinions and actions and her professional conduct. I don't have any information about her in those regards. I would also think it reasonable here to treat a non-answer as disqualifying, but again anything other then "yes" is toxic.

 

[Amused]

You forgot to link 1. "Such doctrine"

Racism primarily requires belief in one's own racial superiority.

From your own link:

racism

[rey-siz-uh m]
noun
1.
a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human racial groups determine cultural or individual achievement,usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to dominate others or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others.

If a victim of racist oppression hates their oppressor, that is not racism.

No matter how much you want to project.

 

[justoh]

Racism primarily requires belief in one's own racial superiority.

From your own link:

racism

[rey-siz-uh m]
noun
1.
a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human racial groups determine cultural or individual achievement,usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to dominate others or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others.

If a victim of racist oppression hates their oppressor, that is not racism.

No matter how much you want to project.

What?

 

[Amused]

What?

Reading comprehension problems?

 

[Zorba]

You forgot to link 1. "Such doctrine"

Segregation is based a belief/doctrine that there are important differences between the races to such an extent that separating them is important. Government forced segregation is clearly a policy based upon and fostering that belief.

Edit: In practice it is actually generally used as way of keeping one race in their "place," which is obviously a doctrine.

 

[justoh]

Segregation is based a belief/doctrine that there are important differences between the races to such an extent that separating them is important. Government forced segregation is clearly a policy based upon and fostering that belief.

link? proof? What if i supported segregation just to irritate you? Does that mean I believe certain races inferior? How?

 

[Zorba]

link? proof? What if i supported segregation just to irritate you? Does that mean I believe certain races inferior? How?

And what if I burned your house down just to irritate you? Would I not be an arsonist?

Segregation existed in the US to keep black people in there place and was based on the fundamental idea of white supremacy. This is basic history, if you want a link go to a library.

 

[justoh]

Reading comprehension problems?

Feel free to explain yourself, or not. Did you have a point?

 

[justoh]

And what if I burned your house down just to irritate you? Would I not be an arsonist?

Segregation existed in the US to keep black people in there place and was based on the fundamental idea of white supremacy. This is basic history, if you want a link go to a library.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/arson?s=t

 

[Amused]

Feel free to explain yourself, or not. Did you have a point?

Do you? I explained myself perfectly.

 

[fskimospy]

link? proof? What if i supported segregation just to irritate you? Does that mean I believe certain races inferior? How?

‘What if I were an entirely different kind of shitty person?!’

Asking the important questions.

 

[Zorba]

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/arson?s=t

Well what if I didn't do maliciously? Hmm?

That is about as stupid as you saying "What if I just want to segregate black people to piss off other white people, not because I think blacks are inferior or because I want to hurt them?"

 

[justoh]

Well what if I didn't do maliciously? Hmm?

That is about as stupid as you saying "What if I just want to segregate black people to piss off other white people, not because I think blacks are inferior or because I want to hurt them?"

You declared your intent. You said you'd do it to irritate me. ffs. Spare my house. Objective schon achieved.

 

[Commodus]

It's a pretty sad commentary on how far American conservatism has fallen when supporters are contorting themselves to pretend segregationism isn't racist.

By that twisted logic, Richard Spencer isn't racist -- he's just a poor misunderstood soul.

 

[mikeymikec]

I agree that it's concerning, but it's hard to simply rely on speculation. I think her comments need to be taken in context with her personal history of expressed opinions and actions and her professional conduct. I don't have any information about her in those regards. I would also think it reasonable here to treat a non-answer as disqualifying, but again anything other then "yes" is toxic.

I know very little about the ruling except that it was about segregation in schools. I could easily see a situation whereby a prospective SC judge says "I think the ruling was technically/professionally correct, though I have concerns about the wording of certain aspects of the wording used in the ruling that I think could be problematic in future, aspects X, Y and Z for the following reasons, A, B and C". Her concerns would therefore be out in the open for everyone to see. Her concerns and her reasoning wouldn't have any ideological roots, just technical ones that provide loopholes for people to exploit in future.

 

[interchange]

I know very little about the ruling except that it was about segregation in schools. I could easily see a situation whereby a prospective SC judge says "I think the ruling was technically/professionally correct, though I have concerns about the wording of certain aspects of the wording used in the ruling that I think could be problematic in future, aspects X, Y and Z for the following reasons, A, B and C". Her concerns would therefore be out in the open for everyone to see. Her concerns and her reasoning wouldn't have any ideological roots, just technical ones that provide loopholes for people to exploit in future.

Well, OK. So you've proposed a response which is not toxic. But it's one that allies even stronger with morality.

The problem is if someone has a legal argument against something that is at odds with the moral one. Of all things in society, racial discrimination is probably the most engendering of a split. If one gives credence at all to anything that appears racially discriminatory, they are categorized as racist. There is no complexity. It is absolute that a person is racist or they are not. I certainly agree that racial discrimination is amoral, but our splitting behavior makes us blind to see our own inevitable prejudice. So long as we can keep our selves on the side of "not racist", we can successfully ward off awareness of our imperfections. That is a barrier to progress. And this is why I lament what has happened in this proceeding. It is quite possible that her answering the question would include racial prejudice and that it should disqualify her from judicial appointment, but I would hope we as society could also make room for racial beliefs which are somewhere in the middle ground. Certainly flawed but humanly flawed and tolerable enough to allow expression in the service of examining and modifying rather than casting aside.

 

[dainthomas]

It's a pretty sad commentary on how far American conservatism has fallen when supporters are contorting themselves to pretend segregationism isn't racist.

By that twisted logic, Richard Spencer isn't racist -- he's just a poor misunderstood soul.

Modern republican logic states that making perpetrators/supporters of racism or any other kind of oppression feel bad is as bad as the oppression itself.

See also: #metoo movement, Charlottesville, etc

 

[HomerJS]

I know very little about the ruling except that it was about segregation in schools. I could easily see a situation whereby a prospective SC judge says "I think the ruling was technically/professionally correct, though I have concerns about the wording of certain aspects of the wording used in the ruling that I think could be problematic in future, aspects X, Y and Z for the following reasons, A, B and C". Her concerns would therefore be out in the open for everyone to see. Her concerns and her reasoning wouldn't have any ideological roots, just technical ones that provide loopholes for people to exploit in future.

Brown v Board essentially struck down separate but equal. It was a reversal of Plessey v Furgeson.

Justices talk all the time about settled cases when they give paid speeches or make forum appearances. Its already common practice for lawyers to steal ideas from other lawyers.

Conservative justices clam up during these hearings because they don't want their judicial philosophy married with real world cases because it may expose their true beliefs

 

[mindless1]

She showed reasonable restrain when asked instead of telling them to go fsck off and take their witch hunt elsewhere.

 

[brycejones]

She showed reasonable restrain when asked instead of telling them to go fsck off and take their witch hunt elsewhere.

lordy

 

[umbrella39]

What about black people that want segregated schools? There was a fellow on the news a year or so back demanding that blacks have their own schools, banks, and currency. I don't think for a moment that this is any kind of movement, but it's obviously a desire held by some.

Was this fellow nominated by Trump for a Judicial position? Your inane diversion was duly noted however...

 

[umbrella39]

She showed reasonable restrain when asked instead of telling them to go fsck off and take their witch hunt elsewhere.

Aptly named fucktard...