I'm just trying to understand.
So you think medical schools or grad schools go specifically on MCAT scores or GPAs - and if they don't, you think they should stick to just test scores or GPAs to made admission decisions?
OT: Michelle Childs - USC grad
- Thread starter nikolas22
- Start date
I'm just trying to understand.
So you think medical schools or grad schools go specifically on MCAT scores or GPAs - and if they don't, you think they should stick to just test scores or GPAs to made admission decisions?
So Biden and Reagan were wrong to use race and/or sex. I know it happens, but why say it out loud?
Were you upset when Donald Trump stated that his next pick would be a woman when a lot of folks wanted him to pick Paul Clement or Noel Fransico?
You also think Trump was wrong too when he said his next pick would be a woman?
I don't recall you posting how wrong that was so just trying to find some consistency. It's just a bit odd that when he said his next pick would be a woman, bypassing some popular male candidates in the legal world, that Republicans didn't come on messages boards complaining about how it was wrong and it was sexist. Heck, the ones that commented just thought it was great.
But when Biden does it for a black female, it's suddenly a huge problem.
It would be nice if folks were consistent.
Last edited:
It was dumb, but I don't think he was being racist. Just loud and bawdy like he is.
Of course you don't recall me posting about it, you unnuanced dullard. I wasn't a member here until December of last year.
If Joe Biden really believes we need more black female judges and that the filibuster is really racist, maybe he shouldn't have voted against and filibustered George W's nomination of Janice Rogers Brown to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. (a first)
Twice.
Twice.
And it is the Senates job to decide if that nominee is qualified or not. In Obama’s case the senate felt he wasn’t qualified. Hence why his nominee was blocked.
You don't think it was racist or flirting with it closely that the only person he chooses to do this with was the first black president?
I thank McConnell for that, because if he had allowed a floor vote, I think Garland would be on the SCOTUS right now. People like Graham, Collins, etc., would've voted "yes."
Your timeline is a bit off.
The Senate didn't get a chance to determine that. As Republicans are now saying with Biden's next pick, they will get to decide if he's qualified by holding hearings and asking questions of the nominee and seeing how they react, how they respond.
Garland being blocked had nothing to do with his qualifications.
Before Obama had named Garland, and in fact only hours after Scalia's death was announced, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell declared any appointment by the sitting president to be null and void.
The following quote was made before Garland was nominated.
"Presidents have a right to nominate, just as the Senate has its constitutional right to provide or withhold consent," McConnell said. "In this case, the Senate will withhold it."
Yes, that's fine.
Of course, you have to be prepared for that to happen the other way eventually.
Michelle represented a partner and I in a civil suit bac in 1994 or so. Worked for Nexsen Pruett (sic). Awesome to work with. Congenial, professional and good at her job. Delightful human being. Don’t know her political views, but betting she will be a “moderate” and a good Justice. Always a smile on her face.
Won't happen. Biden already said he's nominating a black WOMAN.
Every time I post a reply, I then get the message that I have insufficient privileges to post here. It started last night. Like I'm banned for several minutes or longer.
Anyway, how many ways do I have to say I think using race and gender are wrong? I mean, you'll never get me to agree with racism and sexism just because you and adcoop are okay with some racism and sexism.
Just like you have to be prepared for Republicans not to punish their own over crazy comments when the Dems decide not to do it.
I don't think anyone expects people to vote for someone they find legally objectionable in nearly every way.
I mean, it's not as if Republicans always support Democratic selections.
But generally, I think Presidents should get deference on their picks unless something intolerable is discovered.
I think we've exhausted the fact that we disagree on this issue and won't agree.
Oh wow Garland is horrible! Thank God he’s not on the court. Don’t know much about Childs but she’s got to be better than some of the others. The quotes they’ve shown from some of those loonies are frightening. Sounds like some of them don’t care about the law they just want to be an activist on the Supreme Court. If Childs is fair that alone probably doesn’t apply to at least some of them being considered. It’s pathetic that Biden calls everyone racist then eliminates the majority of the population because of their race! Do as he says - not as he does. That’s our Prez!
That's pretty much how people like Graham see it. Whether it's Childs or not, as long as the nominee isn't a serial killer, she'll get plenty of R votes.
Ok. So you thought Trump was flat wrong. I got it.
You are the first person right winger I've heard say that so it took a minute to process.
Nah, I'm no right winger. I'm pro-abortion, believe in a social safety net, gay marriage, legality of drugs and prostitution.
you must hate the Republican and Democratic parties.
I mean the Dem party is for abortion rights and the social safety net , but at the federal level they won't do anything to legalize drugs or prostitution.
and Republicans are against abortion rights, want to largely dismantle the social safety net and won't do anything to legalize drugs or prostitution
Speaking of drugs
A Republican in in South Carolina is trying to get medical pot legalized right now in the SC Senate. Most of his co-sponsors are Democrats and Republicans are the ones fighting him the hardest.
I’m all for helping people in need but many have become to dependent on that safety net. The system needs to be reworked.
Right because we live in the Bible Belt. We will miss out of the tax money we could have made. Legalize recreational now and you are the only state around.
In the 1780’s, regulated meant well trained and ready to fight, not controlled.
I agree. But the only person talking about legalizing recreational pot is Joe Cunningham who will run against McMaster in the Fall.
But too many Conservatives in South Carolina will make sure he has no chance and Pot has no chance.
In the 1780’s bear arms literally meant to carry firearms during military service.
He's goes to another one and knocks it out of the park. You are going to have setbacks in life and everything is never going to be totally fair. I just believe that if people meet a minimum standard, then an institution can pick who they want. There is more to life than an LSAT score. Usually, the best people in something do not fit the socially accepted criteria. Usually, greatness cannot be explained. The greatest football player that ever lived (Tom Brady) retired today. He ran a 5.0 forty, His body looked terrible, and he was a 6th round pick. He willed himself to be what he was. An institution should be allowed to see things outside of an SAT score to determine success. The reason I am adamant about this is because I lived it. I have a friend that is a successful lawyer right now that probably fits the criteria you are complaining about. I came along in the era where the LSAT was under the 0-48 scoring system. I had a much higher LSAT score than this guy and had options with regards to law schools coming out of undergrad. My friend barely got in. He had close to the same grades that I did in law school. So, I am just not a proponent of the LSAT being a true indicator of academic success. Frankly, some schools are going away from it and I predict many others will follow.
Finally, you act as if the PWIs (Predominantly White Instituions) are the only ones that have to abide by the Civil Rights Act. HBCUs have to abide by it as well and white students are taking advantage of it all the time. Approximately 40% of North Carolina Central's law students are white. People need to know this when they whine about things not being fair. Just because you don't consider those schools as good enough for your son doesn't mean that the rules don't apply across the board. The rules are not designed to discriminate against your son or any other person that has a problem with the Civil Rights Act. The legislation is to keep measures in place where you don't have blatant, and unchecked discrimination. Could that legislation have an undesired impact on select students. Yes, it will. However, to think Black people should just trust American institutions that they will not be discriminatory in the future is naive at best. There are too many indicators in employment, lack of equal pay that point to the contrary. Issues of Race and Gender will always be with us. We can't deal with that the best that we can by denying that those issues exist.
Last edited:
So, the only way to fight racism and sexism is to formalize racism and sexism in law. Absurd.
Hopefully the Supreme Court will put an end to this stupidity in the near future. We have laws on the books against sexism and racism, and a court system to punish anybody that breaks those laws. Force companies to defend their hiring and pay practices if accused of misconduct, and punish them if necessary. The current solution is just lazy and hypocritical.
...and that's your opinion. That's fine. Personally, I have no issue with it. I just disagree and expressed that. Just like I can't sell you on the advantages of the Civil Rights Act, you can't sell me on the "just trust us" approach on how to deal with race issues. People will always butt heads on this issue and I accept that. Just to add. There were only 26 minorities in my Law School graduating class. I think about 22 of us made it to the end. There are 38 minorities in the Class of 24 at USC. This is in a class of about 240 people. I presume a majority of those minorities are close to or above the mean with regard to academic criteria. So, what are we talking about? 4-5 spots a year? More white guys bomb out in their first year than this.
Last edited:
That is not what the Civil Rights Act does. If you really knew how hard it was to get a Civil Rights case against a company or institution past summary judgment, you would be laughing at your statement. Most people have a knee jerk reaction to the Civil Rights Act because they think it is taking something away from them. They have not read the law and have no idea how it is applied. They just a know a Black guy/female got something, God forbid.
That's not true. Sure all judges have some opinions overturned by an appeals court, that's why we have an appeals court where the opinion is scrutinized by a panel of judges and not one judge. However, the number she has had overturned in the short amount of time she has been on the DC circuit court is absurd. However, to say the sitting judges all had a number of opinions overturned is a gross misrepresentation of the truth. As far as Trump's nominees I was never a fan of Kavanaugh getting the nomination and he has proven me right to this point. I put him in the same category as Roberts. I did like the Barrett nomination. I am a huge fan of Thomas and Scalia. I just hope Alito and Thomas can hang on until there is another conservative in the White House. The problem with the court is that is being used to legislate rather than the Congress doing the job it was charged with. You want to make law you get it through both chambers including the 60 vote threshold of the Senate and send it to the President's desk for signature. You make these representatives put their name on the roll and be held accountable by their constituents. I am not a fan of the nuclear option. More legislation needs to be regulated back to the states as it was intended. We are a Republic, not a democracy.
Do you realize how many Conservative justices that served in circuit courts have had their opinions overturned time and time again by the DC circuit court?
Or how many times the SCOTUS overturned the circuit courts in the last 20 years?
I mean I don't want to argue about this but having your opinions overturned is not a sign of a bad judge - unless your opinion is that a lot of Conservative justices are bad judges too.
I mean just look at how often the conservative justices on the Supreme Court disagree with Clarence Thomas and write their own dissents (meaning they don't agree with Thomas' dissent enough to sign it) - who is held up by Conservatives as the near perfect Conservative justice.
EEOC was created by the CIvil Rights Act. But the EEOC only applies to the employee/applicant/employer relationship.
The Civil Rights Act is much more encompassing. - or was - it was weakened a bit regarding voting rights by the SCOTUS recently.
