/townhall/ - Townhall

>>10520
Seems a kind of affirmative action -- technically wrong for a color-blind state.  But in a context of past wrongs, not something that gets me too worked up.

>>10520
>>10521
They should probably just pick a black woman and say "We have considered all the candidates and she's clearly the superior here". I mean, who needs to check what criteria they chose the candidate, huh?

In some ways it's dumb to just proclaim your intent on affirmative action.

>>10522
I gather there are 21.7 million black women qualified for the position.  (At least if https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/faq_general.aspx accuracy says there are no special qualifications).  Of course, most will not care for the job and many would not be confirmed.

>dumb to just proclaim your intent on affirmative action.
Probably.  It takes some kind of smart to become President, I think, but the exact quality is beyond me.

Racial discrimination is wrong, regardless of whether you consider it "positive" or not

>>10522

The proclamation gets him voter points.  It's actually entirely possible he simply doesn't choose a black woman now that he's already elected, but at the time it increased his chances of being elected by some unknown number.

The best way to approach things would have been for the President to have said: "I'm going to take into account personal backgrounds in terms of individual ethical character and diverse life experiences in order to prevent the Supreme Court from being bogged down into groupthink and cognitive bias from arguments that're excessively beholden to tradition".

And then, after appointing somebody (perhaps, yes, an African-American woman), remarking: "Her character and experience will make her an invaluable asset to the Court."

At least, that's what I think.