HawkShack.com

Sorry if I've missed a few news cycles, but can someone explain why Senators Graham, Cruz, and Hawley are all over the news talking about child porn sentencing in regards to the nominee Judge Jackson? Was she involved in some kind of landmark ruling about this topic? I thought that Graham himself voted for her to be a district judge. For all 3 senators to be fousing on one topic in regards to her makes me think she is the face of a movement...

It's performance "art". They're trying for the best sound bite for Faux News.

The truth is she's exactly in the center of the national norms for such sentencing and yes, Graham has supporter her other steps up the judicial ladder.

Not surprised. The bar was already set with the Barrett confirmation hearings. Both sides will go for whatever chink in the armor they can find.

The main issue I saw in Barrett was less about her nomination than the speed with which they rammed it through. Considering Garland never even saw the light of day - both nominations being controlled by Mitch Mcconnell.

Maybe this should not be in the public eye so there would be no incentive to create a show.
It could be reported on and attended by reporters but politicians might not feign contempt
for the nominee in order to play to their base. At least it would tone things down a bit.

It’s a really bad serio-comedy featuring very sh*tty actors…..

NorthHawk wrote:Maybe this should not be in the public eye so there would be no incentive to create a show.
It could be reported on and attended by reporters but politicians might not feign contempt
for the nominee in order to play to their base. At least it would tone things down a bit.

I couldn't agree more. I'm sure this is not what the Founding Fathers intended.

What in the world are Senators asking the questions for anyway? Very few of them are qualified to even know what to ask. Have sitting justices ask the majority of the questions with Senators sitting in and and perhaps asking for the occasional clarification, then let the Senate vote.

The most amusing story to me was Ted Cruz showing anti-racist baby books, asking the woman if she knew about a school in the district where she sits on a school board, then the Ms. Brown explaining the school was a private school which the board she sat on had no oversight over, then the Fox News posting a story with a headline saying "Ms. Brown sits on board where school teaches critical race theory." It was such a blatant lie that I literally knew was a lie because I actually watched her response during the interrogation. Yet here is Fox News posting a blatant lie as a news story for its followers to read and possibly believe because they didn't watch the actual discussion.

The media is so full of agenda driven liars. How can you expect the American people to make good decisions when their information is so full of falsehoods? It's ridiculous.

MackStrongIsMyHero wrote:Not surprised. The bar was already set with the Barrett confirmation hearings. Both sides will go for whatever chink in the armor they can find.

The Barrett hearings? Those were tame compared to Kavanaugh. They went nuclear on that guy.

I kind of expect this at this point.

McConnell takes great pride in controlling the Supreme Court nomination process and stacking the court with "right" leaning judges that usually end up just being judges following the law because most lawyers just follow the law at that level. It's why they obtain the job. They are the people most schooled in the law and most likely to provide sound legal reasons for an opinion. Which is why even left leaning judges generally respect their right leaning colleagues on the Supreme Court because for all of them it's about providing a sound legal reasoning for support, rejection, or neutrality on a law.

c_hawkbob wrote:What in the world are Senators asking the questions for anyway? Very few of them are qualified to even know what to ask. Have sitting justices ask the majority of the questions with Senators sitting in and and perhaps asking for the occasional clarification, then let the Senate vote.

If qualifications were that important, we almost certainly would not have the nominee that we have. Biden obviously wasn't the first to do it and won't be the last, but he excluded the vast majority of candidates base on their race and sex, so by definition, the process is more about politics and social engineering than it is qualifications. I'm not saying that Biden shouldn't have nominated Justice Jackson as I do think there's an argument that they should be representatives of our society as well as judges. But it's clear that it's a political nomination in which qualifications are a mere afterthought, so why should we insist that the Senators asking the questions be 'qualified'? If they're chosen to, using Biden's words, 'look like America', then they should be actively questioned by officials elected by Americans.

But I do agree that the process is irrevocably broken. It's nothing more than a kangaroo court. They ought to ban all television cameras and video recording equipment and make a completely closed door process and we could do away with this political theatre.

I like your suggestion about the sitting justices participating in the process, but given that we've made it into a political decision, they should be consultants rather than the leads in the questioning.

Ms. Jackson was just confirmed by a vote of 53-47 in a near party line vote, with R Senators Collins, Romney, and Murkowski breaking ranks to vote for the nominee.

https://www.cbsnews.com/live-updates/ke ... ack-woman/

Thankfully it wasn't the kangaroo court hearing that dominated the Kavanaugh confirmation.

RiverDog wrote:Ms. Jackson was just confirmed by a vote of 53-47 in a near party line vote, with R Senators Collins, Romney, and Murkowski breaking ranks to vote for the nominee.

https://www.cbsnews.com/live-updates/ke ... ack-woman/

Thankfully it wasn't the kangaroo court hearing that dominated the Kavanaugh confirmation.

Good for her. I think it is important to have different representation on the court. It may be a body we like as removed from politics as possible, but in legal discussions at the Supreme Court level where law is affirmed as policy it is important to have adequate representation for various groups in America.

RiverDog wrote:Ms. Jackson was just confirmed by a vote of 53-47 in a near party line vote, with R Senators Collins, Romney, and Murkowski breaking ranks to vote for the nominee.

https://www.cbsnews.com/live-updates/ke ... ack-woman/

Thankfully it wasn't the kangaroo court hearing that dominated the Kavanaugh confirmation.

Aseahawkfan wrote:Good for her. I think it is important to have different representation on the court. It may be a body we like as removed from politics as possible, but in legal discussions at the Supreme Court level where law is affirmed as policy it is important to have adequate representation for various groups in America.

I have mixed emotions. Although I recognize the psychological need for such an important branch of government to, as Biden would say, "look like America", I don't like the idea of eliminating 90-95% of the viable candidates simply due to their race and gender.

RiverDog wrote:
I have mixed emotions. Although I recognize the psychological need for such an important branch of government to, as Biden would say, "look like America", I don't like the idea of eliminating 90-95% of the viable candidates simply due to their race and gender.

Exactly... or at least give us the illusion that you are looking at everybody and then the best overall candidate happens to be a black women instead of the current candidate who is just the "best black woman." Huge difference in my book. I'm always shocked when people are OK with what Biden has done with his appointments- from his VP nomination, to his cabinet selections, to his current Supreme Court nominee. Narrow the scope of your search to the best of some 1 to 5% sub-group of the population. I like my presidential appointees like I like my brain surgeons- the best of the best regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, etc... if we start playing equality games with these important positions we are going to get less qualified/unqualified people making important decisions that will, over time, lead to really bad policies in our country. I agree that we need diversity in politics, but at least give me the illusion that we are looking for the best of the best. I mean Democrats didn't even like Harris when she was running for the Dem nomination- and now she's VP? If Biden doesn't run next term most Dens don't want Harris as the nominee- yet she's a heartbeat at from the presidency?

My problem with that line of thinking is that there is only one "best available candidate" at any given time. There are always tiers, if a black woman was chosen from among those in the top tier because the court needs the diversity I have no problem with that. As long as she is in fact in that top tier, and all indications are that she is.

RiverDog wrote:I have mixed emotions. Although I recognize the psychological need for such an important branch of government to, as Biden would say, "look like America", I don't like the idea of eliminating 90-95% of the viable candidates simply due to their race and gender.

mykc14 wrote:Exactly... or at least give us the illusion that you are looking at everybody and then the best overall candidate happens to be a black women instead of the current candidate who is just the "best black woman." Huge difference in my book. I'm always shocked when people are OK with what Biden has done with his appointments- from his VP nomination, to his cabinet selections, to his current Supreme Court nominee. Narrow the scope of your search to the best of some 1 to 5% sub-group of the population. I like my presidential appointees like I like my brain surgeons- the best of the best regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, etc... if we start playing equality games with these important positions we are going to get less qualified/unqualified people making important decisions that will, over time, lead to really bad policies in our country. I agree that we need diversity in politics, but at least give me the illusion that we are looking for the best of the best. I mean Democrats didn't even like Harris when she was running for the Dem nomination- and now she's VP? If Biden doesn't run next term most Dens don't want Harris as the nominee- yet she's a heartbeat at from the presidency?

I do have some sympathy for Biden. He's trying to dance on the head of a pin. He knew that he didn't have enough support from moderates alone if he wanted to win the nomination and advance any part of his agenda, so he has to toss the progressives a bone every once in awhile to keep them in his camp.

With the exception of the fact that it's just a heart beat away from the most powerful position in the world, there is no more inconsequential position in government than the Vice Presidency. John Nance Garner, one of FDR's VP's, put it best when he said that the job "wasn't worth a warm bucket of pi$$." VP selections are seldom about governing, they're about winning elections. Besides, our electoral process hasn't done that great of job of advancing the best candidate, at least not recently. Some of our better Presidents have been accidental (Teddy Roosevelt, Harry Truman).

We have to recognize that for such a visible and high profile that SCOTUS has, visual appearances count. I'm not comfortable with the way Biden limited his choices and agree with you that it was a bad idea to make such a limitation so obvious, that he could have not made that statement then use as a factor in his selection process the psychological factors I mentioned. But he's not the first POTUS to ever make such a commitment. Ronald Reagan promised back in his 1980 campaign that his first SCOTUS appointment was going to be a female, and sure enough, we got Sandra Day O'Conner.

Being that It's not going to change the balance of power, at least for the time being, the Jackson nomination isn't that big of deal, at least it isn't to me. I'm just glad that it wasn't such a circus this time around.

c_hawkbob wrote:My problem with that line of thinking is that there is only one "best available candidate" at any given time. There are always tiers, if a black woman was chosen from among those in the top tier because the court needs the diversity I have no problem with that. As long as she is in fact in that top tier, and all indications are that she is.

I understand what you're saying- the top 5% of Judges or Senators, or whatever it may be has people of all ethnic groups so there's nothing wrong with picking the best minority of your liking out of that group. I don't really have a problem with that. My problem is more in terms of the thought process of eliminating 99% of the top candidates before you even start looking. I also think it devalues her nomination. She was the best Democrat Black Woman candidate- not necessarily the best Democrat candidate. Tell the world that you are going to find the best candidate, narrow it down to a few of the top and then she's still probably the choice, but the process we use is so backwards. It's like saying "I know a Back woman wouldn't be chosen if I looked at the best candidates so I'm going to narrow my search to only black woman and then pick the best of that group." Biden has been overly vocal about how he went about choosing his cabinet positions and never once did he discuss picking the best candidate it was about having the most diverse cabinet ever. We spend so much time focused on our differences that we lose sight of anything else. I don't care what your race, sexual orientation, religion, or political affiliation for that matter as long as you are going to do your best to uphold the constitution and protect out citizens.

mykc14 wrote:Exactly... or at least give us the illusion that you are looking at everybody and then the best overall candidate happens to be a black women instead of the current candidate who is just the "best black woman." Huge difference in my book. I'm always shocked when people are OK with what Biden has done with his appointments- from his VP nomination, to his cabinet selections, to his current Supreme Court nominee. Narrow the scope of your search to the best of some 1 to 5% sub-group of the population. I like my presidential appointees like I like my brain surgeons- the best of the best regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, etc... if we start playing equality games with these important positions we are going to get less qualified/unqualified people making important decisions that will, over time, lead to really bad policies in our country. I agree that we need diversity in politics, but at least give me the illusion that we are looking for the best of the best. I mean Democrats didn't even like Harris when she was running for the Dem nomination- and now she's VP? If Biden doesn't run next term most Dens don't want Harris as the nominee- yet she's a heartbeat at from the presidency?

We are not a meritocracy. That lie has been disproven again and again and again. I'm not even sure how you decide who is the "best" out of a group of judges. We all know the Supreme Court is politically based and they are very important in the policy affirmation process by creating legal standing for or against a particular policy. As long as the judge understands this process and how to apply it, then I'm good.

I doubt Kavanaugh or Amy Coney-Barrett or Sotomayer or what not are the best as there isn't some competition between judges that makes that easy to determine. If all you're ever doing is picking some Harvard educated judge because they went to Harvard, then you're not really picking the "best", you're just limiting your choices to whoever made it into Harvard because it's a high quality school.

So the "best" has nothing to do with it. To me the questions should be as follows:

1. Is this person qualified? If qualified, then move to next.

2. Does this person provide something to the court we should have on there as the law of the land. A unique perspective, representation for a minority group that doesn't have a voice in legal matters, some necessary expertise that is missing. Once that is determined, then you move on to the affirmation process.

For political positions I am not interested in this mythical best as we are not a meritocracy save in a few areas like sports, which is why I like watching sports. Only in sports does performance absolutely matter and you can't get away with just knowing someone or being part of a select group. You have to be able to perform at a high level or you won't be on the field. In other areas of life, I look more at qualifications and even then I see tons of nepotism and who you know crap going on. Even for regular people getting jobs, I've seen it as more important and advantageous to have an inside voice supporting you in a company than to have some mythical idea of being the "best" candidate because I'm not sure how you determine that for the majority of jobs.

As far as I see Brown was qualified and brought a unique voice to the Supreme Court. So I thought it was a good confirmation. It wasn't like they chose some lower court judge with no experience and bumped her up because she was a woman of African descent. She had an excellent resume, was highly qualified, and the Democrats wanted to add some additional representation to the high court that reflects America.

She'll do fine. Just like Kavanaugh and Coney-Barrett and Gorsuch.

Aseahawkfan wrote:We are not a meritocracy. That lie has been disproven again and again and again. I'm not even sure how you decide who is the "best" out of a group of judges. We all know the Supreme Court is politically based and they are very important in the policy affirmation process by creating legal standing for or against a particular policy. As long as the judge understands this process and how to apply it, then I'm good.

I doubt Kavanaugh or Amy Coney-Barrett or Sotomayer or what not are the best as there isn't some competition between judges that makes that easy to determine. If all you're ever doing is picking some Harvard educated judge because they went to Harvard, then you're not really picking the "best", you're just limiting your choices to whoever made it into Harvard because it's a high quality school.

So the "best" has nothing to do with it. To me the questions should be as follows:

1. Is this person qualified? If qualified, then move to next.

2. Does this person provide something to the court we should have on there as the law of the land. A unique perspective, representation for a minority group that doesn't have a voice in legal matters, some necessary expertise that is missing. Once that is determined, then you move on to the affirmation process.

For political positions I am not interested in this mythical best as we are not a meritocracy save in a few areas like sports, which is why I like watching sports. Only in sports does performance absolutely matter and you can't get away with just knowing someone or being part of a select group. You have to be able to perform at a high level or you won't be on the field. In other areas of life, I look more at qualifications and even then I see tons of nepotism and who you know crap going on. Even for regular people getting jobs, I've seen it as more important and advantageous to have an inside voice supporting you in a company than to have some mythical idea of being the "best" candidate because I'm not sure how you determine that for the majority of jobs.

As far as I see Brown was qualified and brought a unique voice to the Supreme Court. So I thought it was a good confirmation. It wasn't like they chose some lower court judge with no experience and bumped her up because she was a woman of African descent. She had an excellent resume, was highly qualified, and the Democrats wanted to add some additional representation to the high court that reflects America.

She'll do fine. Just like Kavanaugh and Coney-Barrett and Gorsuch.

I tend to agree. Like it or not, SCOTUS appointments are highly political and except in a very general sense, has little to do with overall qualifications. Even their perceived liberal/conservative bias can surprise you sometimes. Dwight Eisenhower said that the worst damn fool thing that he ever did was to appoint Earl Warren to the court. Justice Anthony Kennedy was appointed by one of the most conservative POTUS's in the 20th century yet he turned into the court's swing vote. David Souter was appointed by a Republican president and ended up voting with the liberal wing. Fears that Donald Trump was trying to seed the court to suit his personal interests turned out to be unfounded.

I just don't like the signal it sends, that we're eliminating from the get go such a large number of candidates due to their race and gender. Isn't that the definition of discrimination? And at what point do we quit separating people by their race? What's the definition of a black? My two nephews are biracial, are they black or white? If their children turn out to be 25% AA, does that count as black? Where do you draw the line?

In any event, I, too, don't have any problems at all with Ms. Jackson and feel that she has something to bring to the overall court in the way of experience and points of view.

ASE and Riv- I think Ms Brown is going to do fine as well, I don't have a problem with the appointment. I disagree with the idea that we can't search for the best candidates. I also disagree with the idea that all you need is to be qualified and offer some sort of unique perspective. Once you have whittled down the candidates to the best then what sets one apart from the others could be based on some of the things that you discussed in #2, but to go straight from whose qualified to who has a unique perspective seems off base. I would say to be qualified for SCOTUS you would already be looking at how your decision are affecting all in our county regardless of race, political view, sexual orientation, etc. when speaking of SCOTUS nominations we don't have enough positions to represent every person in our country. Every person on the Supreme Court should be representing every person in our country and comparing their rights to our constitution. The issue with what Biden and Liberal Dems are doing goes beyond the SCOTUS nominations. It is an issue across government and it's long term outlook isn't good.

mykc14 wrote:ASE and Riv- I think Ms Brown is going to do fine as well, I don't have a problem with the appointment. I disagree with the idea that we can't search for the best candidates. I also disagree with the idea that all you need is to be qualified and offer some sort of unique perspective. Once you have whittled down the candidates to the best then what sets one apart from the others could be based on some of the things that you discussed in #2, but to go straight from whose qualified to who has a unique perspective seems off base. I would say to be qualified for SCOTUS you would already be looking at how your decision are affecting all in our county regardless of race, political view, sexual orientation, etc. when speaking of SCOTUS nominations we don't have enough positions to represent every person in our country. Every person on the Supreme Court should be representing every person in our country and comparing their rights to our constitution.

Ideally, that's how it should work. But in practice, SCOTUS nominations are, have been, and always will be, highly influenced by politics. The Democrats and Biden are already using the nomination to fire up their base for the upcoming midterm elections. Choosing a nominee that is not a member of one of their core constituency groups would not have done anything to advance their cause. The ability of the POTUS to make SCOTUS appointments is one of the spoils of victory in a Presidential election. If you don't like the nominations or Biden's selection process, then elect a different POTUS.

I am more concerned with the confirmation process than I am the nominations. This one wasn't so bad. Ted Cruz tried on one occasion to link Ms. Jackson with critical race theory, which I thought was unjustified, but outside of that, it was a relatively dignified process compared to the circus the Democrats made out of the Kavanaugh confirmation. They need to adapt some sort of standards, like an FBI background check that would sort out the legitimacy of 37 year old accusations ahead of the confirmation hearings, legislation requiring that all members share any evidence they may have with the committee chairman/chairwoman and other members, closed door sessions prior to a nomination to agree on some sort of ground rules regarding the testimony of witnesses, etc. The Kavanaugh confirmation was nothing less than a kangaroo court, an opportunity for politicians to do some grandstanding and score points with their base.

They also need to come to an agreement on a time frame for confirming nominations so the party controlling the Senate doesn't arbitrarily hold up or expedite nominations to suit their political needs.

mykc14 wrote:The issue with what Biden and Liberal Dems are doing goes beyond the SCOTUS nominations. It is an issue across government and it's long term outlook isn't good.

Which is one of the reasons why the Dems are going to take a beating this fall in the midterms and why Biden is going to be a one term POTUS. I just hope to hell that the R's come to their senses and don't nominate Trump or a Trump clone or else we're going to be stuck with another 4 years of lunacy.

mykc14 wrote:ASE and Riv- I think Ms Brown is going to do fine as well, I don't have a problem with the appointment. I disagree with the idea that we can't search for the best candidates. I also disagree with the idea that all you need is to be qualified and offer some sort of unique perspective. Once you have whittled down the candidates to the best then what sets one apart from the others could be based on some of the things that you discussed in #2, but to go straight from whose qualified to who has a unique perspective seems off base. I would say to be qualified for SCOTUS you would already be looking at how your decision are affecting all in our county regardless of race, political view, sexual orientation, etc. when speaking of SCOTUS nominations we don't have enough positions to represent every person in our country. Every person on the Supreme Court should be representing every person in our country and comparing their rights to our constitution. The issue with what Biden and Liberal Dems are doing goes beyond the SCOTUS nominations. It is an issue across government and it's long term outlook isn't good.

I only care about what is real. There is no "best" for most jobs including judges. There is no scoreboard or some way to determine who is the best like there is in sports. There is only a way to determine if they are qualified. That is the simple truth of the matter for the vast majority of jobs.

I have heard "best man for the job" by folks most of my life. Then watched anything but that happen as who you know is far more important than how well you do the job. I have also seen a ton of people promoted by being at the right place at the right time. I have seen some people hired for a specialized skill, but that still doesn't mean they are the best at that skill. Then there is the corporate pay structure portion which amounts to most qualified person who will accept the amount of pay we intend to give for this position. There is a lot of factors in hiring process and "best" is one of the least quantifiable.

Best is about as nebulous and relative a term as there is. It's like the word "fair." It gets tossed around a lot with no criteria for how you would determine what it means in the context of a debate. Fair and best just sound good, but are meaningless words with few ways to determine how to define them for the vast majority of jobs.

That is why I go with qualified. There is a way to determine if someone is qualified for a given job including a Supreme Court Justice. As far as I could see, Brown was qualified. She had all the legal qualifications and experience necessary for a Supreme Court justice.

I don't much know how you would even determine "best" in terms of lawyers unless you were looking for something specific like "I need a prosecutor who wins murder cases" then you would find a lawyer who had a great record prosecuting murder cases. But a Supreme Court Justice is more of a generalist who needs to have a wide and varied knowledge of the law and the Constitution. It seems Brown had those qualifications.

I know where the idea of the best comes from. I hear it a lot. I haven't seen it in reality, but I hear it a lot. Usually from folks arguing against affirmative action or some similar program who used to get hired for being white and male and knowing someone else white and male in the company or institution they were hiring into with mythical stories of people scoring higher on aptitude tests that have nothing at all to do with the job in question. Never any discussion of how many decades of discriminatory hiring was in place that led to minority folks being unable to become the "best" because they didn't get access to the same institutions or jobs to gain experience to become the "best."

It's not an idea I buy into. It has too many historical issues and myths associated with being the "best" and the American meritocracy that never existed. So I just stick with qualified. We are not a meritocracy. Never were. So I'd much rather see an active hand in ensuring representation in government at all levels including the Supreme Court. I don't mind checking for qualifications first, but I don't want anything to do with nebulous ideas of best which I've seen as nothing more than code to keep certain groups out of the running because they never had a chance to join the institutions that lead to being the "best."

That's my view. I'll leave it there.

Aseahawkfan wrote:
I only care about what is real. There is no "best" for most jobs including judges. There is no scoreboard or some way to determine who is the best like there is in sports. There is only a way to determine if they are qualified. That is the simple truth of the matter for the vast majority of jobs.

I have heard "best man for the job" by folks most of my life. Then watched anything but that happen as who you know is far more important than how well you do the job. I have also seen a ton of people promoted by being at the right place at the right time. I have seen some people hired for a specialized skill, but that still doesn't mean they are the best at that skill. Then there is the corporate pay structure portion which amounts to most qualified person who will accept the amount of pay we intend to give for this position. There is a lot of factors in hiring process and "best" is one of the least quantifiable.

Best is about as nebulous and relative a term as there is. It's like the word "fair." It gets tossed around a lot with no criteria for how you would determine what it means in the context of a debate. Fair and best just sound good, but are meaningless words with few ways to determine how to define them for the vast majority of jobs.

That is why I go with qualified. There is a way to determine if someone is qualified for a given job including a Supreme Court Justice. As far as I could see, Brown was qualified. She had all the legal qualifications and experience necessary for a Supreme Court justice.

I don't much know how you would even determine "best" in terms of lawyers unless you were looking for something specific like "I need a prosecutor who wins murder cases" then you would find a lawyer who had a great record prosecuting murder cases. But a Supreme Court Justice is more of a generalist who needs to have a wide and varied knowledge of the law and the Constitution. It seems Brown had those qualifications.

I know where the idea of the best comes from. I hear it a lot. I haven't seen it in reality, but I hear it a lot. Usually from folks arguing against affirmative action or some similar program who used to get hired for being white and male and knowing someone else white and male in the company or institution they were hiring into with mythical stories of people scoring higher on aptitude tests that have nothing at all to do with the job in question. Never any discussion of how many decades of discriminatory hiring was in place that led to minority folks being unable to become the "best" because they didn't get access to the same institutions or jobs to gain experience to become the "best."

It's not an idea I buy into. It has too many historical issues and myths associated with being the "best" and the American meritocracy that never existed. So I just stick with qualified. We are not a meritocracy. Never were. So I'd much rather see an active hand in ensuring representation in government at all levels including the Supreme Court. I don't mind checking for qualifications first, but I don't want anything to do with nebulous ideas of best which I've seen as nothing more than code to keep certain groups out of the running because they never had a chance to join the institutions that lead to being the "best."

That's my view. I'll leave it there.

I understand your view and thanks for sharing. I agree that many people are hired because of who they know and not because they are necessarily the best. I have been involved in hiring people many times (probably around 20) both as coworkers and people working under me and I absolutely try to hire the best person for the position. Qualified is a bare minimum requirement for me, but most of the time during the interview process the best candidate comes out. I wouldn't want to hire for a person and have 97% of the possible candidates crossed off the list before I even start.

mykc14 wrote:I wouldn't want to hire for a person and have 97% of the possible candidates crossed off the list before I even start.

Which is my big problem with his selection process, too. He used potential SCOTUS nominations in a bid for support from the progressive wing of the party. They're already out there using the nomination to fire up their political base in advance of the midterms. Qualifications had little to do with the selection except in a very general sense.

However, Biden isn't the first POTUS to use the nomination process for his own political purposes and won't be the last. It's not that different from what's going on in the NFL with the Rooney Rule and other initiatives designed to right a perceived inequity or social imbalance. It's sad that we, as a society, have not yet gotten to the point where Martin Luther King, over 50 years ago, so eloquently stated that a person should "not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."

90-odd percent of any group of applicants for any position that requires any level of expertise are always easily written off at a glance.

c_hawkbob wrote:90-odd percent of any group of applicants for any position that requires any level of expertise are always easily written off at a glance.

True, but not many are written off 18 months before the job opens up. Biden might as well have said that whites need not apply.

c_hawkbob wrote:90-odd percent of any group of applicants for any position that requires any level of expertise are always easily written off at a glance.

I don't think that is true and if that 'write-off' is because of race, religion, sexual orientation, etc.. it should be illegal.

c_hawkbob wrote:90-odd percent of any group of applicants for any position that requires any level of expertise are always easily written off at a glance.

mykc14 wrote:I don't think that is true and if that 'write-off' is because of race, religion, sexual orientation, etc.. it should be illegal.

There's no "should be" about it. According to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, it is illegal to discriminate based on race, color, sex, religion, and national origin in employment practices. In 2020, SCOTUS ruled that the act also covered sexual orientation as a protected status.

Interesting that Biden is violating federal law by essentially saying way in advance that he was basing his promotion decision on a specific race and sex of the candidate. I wonder if any judge that was otherwise qualified would ever consider filing a lawsuit against Biden. They'd have a damn strong case. There'd likely be calls for Ms. Jackson to recuse herself from the case.

Gosh, think of all the fun Fox News would have with a lawsuit like that!

c_hawkbob wrote:90-odd percent of any group of applicants for any position that requires any level of expertise are always easily written off at a glance.

mykc14 wrote:I don't think that is true and if that 'write-off' is because of race, religion, sexual orientation, etc.. it should be illegal.

I don't know what industry you work in but I am involved in the hiring for my plant and we're lucky if one in ten of our applicants is actually qualified. Whatever the race, religion, sexual orientation, nationality or what have you. We've got an opening for a Generation/I&C Technician right now and we went though over a hundred application to get 4 worth interviewing, and after those interviews the job listing is going back up.

mykc14 wrote:I understand your view and thanks for sharing. I agree that many people are hired because of who they know and not because they are necessarily the best. I have been involved in hiring people many times (probably around 20) both as coworkers and people working under me and I absolutely try to hire the best person for the position. Qualified is a bare minimum requirement for me, but most of the time during the interview process the best candidate comes out. I wouldn't want to hire for a person and have 97% of the possible candidates crossed off the list before I even start.

This is more interesting to me. What criteria do you personally use to determine the best? Do you have a clear definition prior to the interview process? A list of boxes checked?

I have interviewed many times and am also in a supervisor position. When you have multiple qualified people competing for the same job, how do you determine the best? Is it subjective based on you personal opinion or do you have objective method for hiring the "best"?

I do not myself. I know some places do a multiple interview process to try to determine the "best." Some of this has to do with skills tests such as how you handle a particular problem as well as getting a general feel for the personality of the individual. Other criteria are very subjective such as how well do I think this person will get along with the work team.

What metrics do you use to determine the best? How do you know this person was better when the other people that were competing were not hired? What if one of the people you could have hired were to go to another company doing exactly the same thing you're hiring for and their measurable metrics were all higher than the person you hired?

Not sure if you're in a job with measurable metrics for job performance other than some nebulous managerial assessment, but metrics for most jobs are extremely difficult to determine at best. I know a few like call time to problem completion in call centers or production levels such as how fast do you stock a grocery shelf or how fast can you weld car bodies on a production line to ensure we're meeting production quotas. Not every job has simple, measurable metrics and do you really go by who performs those metrics at the highest possible level meaning highest number?

Basically, what's your criteria for best and how do you determine it?

RiverDog wrote:True, but not many are written off 18 months before the job opens up. Biden might as well have said that whites need not apply.

The Supreme Court is not a job for which you apply. It is a job you are selected for by a sitting president out of a variety of candidates to serve on a court that legislates the law of the land. The selection process is done to ensure adequate representation within the judicial arm of government. There are already sufficient numbers of white males and white women on the court for adequate representation. The court should reflect the people of the nation just as various other arms of the government represent the people of the nation.

This Supreme Court is not something voted on by the people. It is a selection process by political parties with agendas that are supposed to lead to adequate representation in the judiciary for each party and supporters of said party as well as a general representation of the varied people of America.

It's not an open hiring process where every judge submits their application. I'm not sure why anyone continues to try to characterize it as such.

It has been this way since it's inception as far as I know. It's much like sports or any other specialized job and not open to the public. It is instead governed and managed by a select few who are supposed to ensure adequate representation in the judiciary while at the same time ensuring the people are well-qualified.

I wish people on both political sides would stop pretending the Supreme Court is apolitical. It is not. The process for judge appointment is not apolitical. Once a judge is appointed, the hope is always they will be able to provide legal precedent and standing for Republican and Democrat agendas while at the same time ensuring the law is followed. There is also hope that it will adequately represent the American people as a whole.

It is not a "best person for the job" open hiring process. Everyone on this forum knows this. It doesn't suddenly make America a nation that doesn't engage in an open hiring process because sometimes government representatives take a hand in ensuring the judiciary adequately represents the people when it is their job to do so given it is not an open hiring process or open elections for Federal judges. It is the job of the Congress and President to ensure adequate and varied representation with sufficient qualifications for the Federal judiciary. I believe states vary as to whether judges are elected or appointed. So each state can manage their situation accordingly.

Don't worry, Martin Luther King's dream is alive and well for the majority of America. We have a vast and varied workforce from around the world. From what it sounds like your job had a varied work force. I know I work in Big Tech, their workforces are about as globally varied as they come.

Aseahawkfan wrote:The Supreme Court is not a job for which you apply. It's not an open hiring process where every judge submits their application. I'm not sure why anyone continues to try to characterize it as such.

That's highly debatable. A SCOTUS justice is a federal employee like anyone else. They draw a paycheck, are covered by health insurance, are eligible for a pension. They are subject to the same laws and protections as the groundskeeper at the Capitol or the cook at the White House. Past precedent has been to select a judge from the federal circuit court system, so realistically, that's the labor pool you're drawing from, and each judge that sits on a federal bench already has their 'application' in front of the hiring manager.

Aseahawkfan wrote:Don't worry, Martin Luther King's dream is alive and well for the majority of America. We have a vast and varied workforce from around the world. From what it sounds like your job had a varied work force. I know I work in Big Tech, their workforces are about as globally varied as they come.

Yep, the dream is very much alive and well. It can't help to be. And you're right, I did work with a diverse group of people, and I'm a better man as a result of that experience.

I have mixed feelings about this debate. On the one hand, I do not believe that we should be recognizing race, color, sex, religion, national origin, et al as a determining factor for any position in any way, shape, or form. It's something that we shouldn't be doing as a society, separating people into neat little groups. If we hope to progress as a society, we need to recognize that those differences don't mean squat. Besides, who decides which one of us is black and who is white? As much as a melting pot of races as we have become, that distinction is going to be harder and harder to determine as time goes on.

But on the other hand, I recognize the psychological need for certain segments of our society that have been disenfranchised in the past to see someone that looks and talks like them to succeed, to serve as a role model. SCOTUS appointments are unlike most others, as they are highly visible and last for decades.

Bottom line is that I don't have a problem with this appointment. I'm more concerned with the confirmation process than I am the nomination process.

c_hawkbob wrote:I don't know what industry you work in but I am involved in the hiring for my plant and we're lucky if one in ten of our applicants is actually qualified. Whatever the race, religion, sexual orientation, nationality or what have you. We've got an opening for a Generation/I&C Technician right now and we went though over a hundred application to get 4 worth interviewing, and after those interviews the job listing is going back up.

I work in education.I haven't had issues with unqualified applicants in positions I've been involved in hiring but I do know it happens, at any rate a disqualifying factor wouldn't be based on race, sex, or sexual orientation which is what happened with the SCOTUS position and other cabinet positions I have referenced.

Aseahawkfan wrote:
This is more interesting to me. What criteria do you personally use to determine the best? Do you have a clear definition prior to the interview process? A list of boxes checked?

I have interviewed many times and am also in a supervisor position. When you have multiple qualified people competing for the same job, how do you determine the best? Is it subjective based on you personal opinion or do you have objective method for hiring the "best"?

I do not myself. I know some places do a multiple interview process to try to determine the "best." Some of this has to do with skills tests such as how you handle a particular problem as well as getting a general feel for the personality of the individual. Other criteria are very subjective such as how well do I think this person will get along with the work team.

What metrics do you use to determine the best? How do you know this person was better when the other people that were competing were not hired? What if one of the people you could have hired were to go to another company doing exactly the same thing you're hiring for and their measurable metrics were all higher than the person you hired?

Not sure if you're in a job with measurable metrics for job performance other than some nebulous managerial assessment, but metrics for most jobs are extremely difficult to determine at best. I know a few like call time to problem completion in call centers or production levels such as how fast do you stock a grocery shelf or how fast can you weld car bodies on a production line to ensure we're meeting production quotas. Not every job has simple, measurable metrics and do you really go by who performs those metrics at the highest possible level meaning highest number?

Basically, what's your criteria for best and how do you determine it?

There's a lot there and I'll try to answer the best way I can. First off when I say "the best" that is based on the criteria we use (which I will explain late). It could turn out that, over time somebody would have been better or something like that but that's not what we are talking about- we are talking about the best candidate at the time of the interview.

I have been involved in two interview process- one is for my peers (other teachers) and the other is for my assistant coaches.

Our interview process for teachers is as follows: application with 3 letters of rec. the interview committee will weed out any unqualified applicants (don't meet the basic qualification requirements). If you are qualified and do not have any red flags on your application you will get an interview (this typically will include 7-15 interviews, although for some positions it is has been as small as 2). This interview consists of typical interview questions combined with content specific questions and job specific scenarios. Each question scored on a rubric. The top scoring candidates will have at least two references called and former employer. They will then come back for a second interview (this is usually 2-5). In this interview they will give a short 10 minute sample lesson they have prepared beforehand and a second 10 minute impromptu lessons along with a few more content specific questions. These will again be scored based on a rubric. Typically by that point you have narrowed it down to two candidates after comparing the scores between the two interviews. There are a few subjective questions (how do you think this candidate will get along with students; peers), but by and large they are based on rubrics that each department has put together. The chosen candidate will then have one more interview with our superintendent.

My interview process for assistant coaches is similar but typically includes less applicants and in our first interview I will have them walk me through a position specific drill. I will also have players on my committee asking questions and working through his drill. If I narrow it down to a candidate I like, but don't really know personally I take him out to dinner with me and the other coaches just to see how the fit is.

I know you don't like the term "the best" and I understand what you're saying, but it seems like a lot of your objections are splitting hairs. We have a process that allows the cream of the applicants to rise to the top. There have definitely been positions where "the best" wouldn't have made the second round of interviews for a different position, but of the applicants the best was hired. Sometimes there have been 3 really good applicants and the one we chose might not have ended up being better in the long term than somebody else, but if we hire John Elway and the other guy ends up being Joe Montana I don't think there are going to be complaints- was Montana technically better, yeah, but maybe he isn't better on our team. At any rate this started with a discussion that we should be looking for the best candidates and not disqualifying 99% of the applicants before they even get a chance to apply.

c_hawkbob wrote:I don't know what industry you work in but I am involved in the hiring for my plant and we're lucky if one in ten of our applicants is actually qualified. Whatever the race, religion, sexual orientation, nationality or what have you. We've got an opening for a Generation/I&C Technician right now and we went though over a hundred application to get 4 worth interviewing, and after those interviews the job listing is going back up.

mykc14 wrote:I work in education.I haven't had issues with unqualified applicants in positions I've been involved in hiring but I do know it happens, at any rate a disqualifying factor wouldn't be based on race, sex, or sexual orientation which is what happened with the SCOTUS position and other cabinet positions I have referenced.

Cabinet positions are a little different than SCOTUS appointments or other positions within the government. They are part of the President's inner circle, advisers on matters that go beyond their individual departments. It would be like you or me hiring a financial consultant or attorney. We should be allowed to hire who ever we damn well please, someone that we trust and that we are comfortable with, attributes that may have nothing to do with qualifications. Congress does have a legitimate interest in reviewing and approving cabinet appointments, Lloyd Austin's appointment as Defense Secretary being a prime example as it raises legitimate questions regarding civilian control of the military, and there are laws that prevent a President from doing what Kennedy did when he appointed his brother as the AG.

But beyond that, Biden or any other POTUS should be able to appoint whom ever they damn well please to their cabinet positions. Like anything else involving a politician, these very visible appointments are turned into political tools to enhance the President's popularity. Pete Buttigieg, for example, had very little if any previous experience in transportation prior to his appointment as the secretary of that department, but it was a bone that Biden could toss to a major constituency that he could brag about in a political campaign. There's no getting around that.

RiverDog wrote:A SCOTUS justice is a federal employee like anyone else. They draw a paycheck, are covered by health insurance, are eligible for a pension. They are subject to the same laws and protections as the groundskeeper at the Capitol or the cook at the White House. Past precedent has been to select a judge from the federal circuit court system, so realistically, that's the labor pool you're drawing from, and each judge that sits on a federal bench already has their 'application' in front of the hiring manager.

ASF's point remains that it's a nomination not an application. Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't judges in the federal court system nominated as well?

On a related note, how many minority coaches are qualified to be head coaches in the NFL vs those that actually are? It's a rhetorical question. I mean, at least there is an application/interview process, but seems like way more minority coaches have the qualifications but not the title. At least there is a good amount of coordinators, but for some reason it's not resulting in more HC's.

I-5 wrote:ASF's point remains that it's a nomination not an application. Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't judges in the federal court system nominated as well?

Yep, they sure are. Just like cabinet positions, ambassadorships, chief financial officers, the FBI director, and a whole host of government positions. As a matter of fact, there are over 4,000 government positions that are appointed by the POTUS, 1200 of which have to be confirmed by the Senate:

Presidents are required to fill roughly 4,000 politically appointed positions in the executive branch and independent agencies, including more than 1,200 that require Senate confirmation.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... e-tracker/

I-5 wrote:On a related note, how many minority coaches are qualified to be head coaches in the NFL vs those that actually are? It's a rhetorical question. I mean, at least there is an application/interview process, but seems like way more minority coaches have the qualifications but not the title. At least there is a good amount of coordinators, but for some reason it's not resulting in more HC's.

First of all, what is your definition of a minority? For example, if I have 50% AA blood (like Patrick Mahomes), do I qualify as a minority? 25%? 12.5%? What's your threshold?

Secondly, are you suggesting that racism exists in the selection process, and if so, do you have any evidence beyond circumstantial?

And lastly, what solution do you have that would rectify the situation while still conforming to labor laws that prohibit discrimination in the workplace?

mykc14 wrote:There's a lot there and I'll try to answer the best way I can. First off when I say "the best" that is based on the criteria we use (which I will explain late). It could turn out that, over time somebody would have been better or something like that but that's not what we are talking about- we are talking about the best candidate at the time of the interview.

I have been involved in two interview process- one is for my peers (other teachers) and the other is for my assistant coaches.

Our interview process for teachers is as follows: application with 3 letters of rec. the interview committee will weed out any unqualified applicants (don't meet the basic qualification requirements). If you are qualified and do not have any red flags on your application you will get an interview (this typically will include 7-15 interviews, although for some positions it is has been as small as 2). This interview consists of typical interview questions combined with content specific questions and job specific scenarios. Each question scored on a rubric. The top scoring candidates will have at least two references called and former employer. They will then come back for a second interview (this is usually 2-5). In this interview they will give a short 10 minute sample lesson they have prepared beforehand and a second 10 minute impromptu lessons along with a few more content specific questions. These will again be scored based on a rubric. Typically by that point you have narrowed it down to two candidates after comparing the scores between the two interviews. There are a few subjective questions (how do you think this candidate will get along with students; peers), but by and large they are based on rubrics that each department has put together. The chosen candidate will then have one more interview with our superintendent.

My interview process for assistant coaches is similar but typically includes less applicants and in our first interview I will have them walk me through a position specific drill. I will also have players on my committee asking questions and working through his drill. If I narrow it down to a candidate I like, but don't really know personally I take him out to dinner with me and the other coaches just to see how the fit is.

I know you don't like the term "the best" and I understand what you're saying, but it seems like a lot of your objections are splitting hairs. We have a process that allows the cream of the applicants to rise to the top. There have definitely been positions where "the best" wouldn't have made the second round of interviews for a different position, but of the applicants the best was hired. Sometimes there have been 3 really good applicants and the one we chose might not have ended up being better in the long term than somebody else, but if we hire John Elway and the other guy ends up being Joe Montana I don't think there are going to be complaints- was Montana technically better, yeah, but maybe he isn't better on our team. At any rate this started with a discussion that we should be looking for the best candidates and not disqualifying 99% of the applicants before they even get a chance to apply.

Even when I read this, I don't see best. You're pulling from a pool of applicants that applied to your particular school, that were qualified, and then passed the measurable rubrics you use. This process likely helps weed out weak candidates, but does not obtain the best as the best may not even have applied or you may just have gotten the person that interviews the best while someone else may not interview well but be good in the classroom. How would you even know or measure it? On top of that, how much does pay level influence whether you even attract the best candidates? How much does location influence whether you get the best candidate? What do you do if several candidates score the same on the rubrics or you dismissed a candidate in the pre-qualification process that may have outscored everyone else? How do you know you obtained the best? How do you measure it once they have the job?

That's why I see the word best the same as I see the word fair. They don't mean much because it could be you simply obtained the person who scored the highest on your rubrics who passed the initial qualifications who applied to that particular job for that level of pay in a given area. So it is pretty rare that someone obtains the "best" person because the field is always limited for whatever reason.

Even in the case of Supreme Court Justices and judges in general, I doubt many of them are the "best." The "best" people in law are likely some high paid lawyers working for some corporation or doing class action lawsuits for immense money that wants nothing to do with the public justice system. We rarely get the best candidates in public office for anything. We mostly get qualified and maybe high performing candidates who seek a career in public service.

Some people like working for the government or public entities and trying to help as they can. Whether they are the "best" or not I don't much care about. I just need qualified, passionate about that particular line of work, willing to work for the pay and in the area that they are needed, and experience is also nice but that can take time. I wouldn't worry about the nebulous idea of "best" or believing in the meritocracy myth. I just go with qualified and truly desires to the do the job well. I imagine most of the teachers that pass your process fall into that category. They really wanted to teach. They spent the time to learn how. They are willing to go through the process to enter the profession, then build from there. If your process finds qualified candidates who are wiling to do their "best" that is more important to me.

It's nice to see your school has a good vetting system in place to find quality candidates.

RiverDog wrote:First of all, what is your definition of a minority? For example, if I have 50% AA blood (like Patrick Mahomes), do I qualify as a minority? 25%? 12.5%? What's your threshold?

Secondly, are you suggesting that racism exists in the selection process, and if so, do you have any evidence beyond circumstantial?

And lastly, what solution do you have that would rectify the situation while still conforming to labor laws that prohibit discrimination in the workplace?

What do you mean racism? This word gets tossed around a lot. It does not mean what you think it means. Racism has a very specific meaning that gets used far too often.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racism

You can ensure adequate representation within government without racism. When you appoint someone of a particular skin color or ethnic background to ensure adequate representation, it is not racist. Racism implies you think someone is inherently superior because of their race. That is not what is occurring when the government is taking measures to ensure adequate representation.

It is documented fact that America was a very racist nation with whites taught they are superior to every other minority group. This affected the ability of minority groups in America to obtain jobs, build wealth, enter the education system, and nearly every aspect of American life for hundreds of years. It also created a de facto system that caused whites to hold all the economic and political power for years. It was only by policies that directly required representation in the government and the economy that caused this to change.

If the power base that allowed white racism and specifically white male racism to flourish without some good people who were also white males to realize this was occurring and take steps to dismantle it including programs like affirmative action, then this nation would still be in a very dark place.

And it is not racism at all the measures these folks took to make that change happen. It was a necessary countermeasure to the existing racism that was causing power to be concentrated within a single group of people aka white males. This is all documented fact and not disputable.

Now in the modern day the question becomes have we sufficiently torn down this system that existed where we no longer need these measures? Given I'm certain that you are not a racist Riverdog, I think you fall into this category of thinking. And that I somewhat agree with. There has to be a point where we take of the guard rails that we built to dismantle racism and let the nation move forward without the level of social engineering that was required to dismantle the racist hierarchy that was originally built.

I personally don't know if we reached this level yet. I'm pretty sure we will reach it. Things are way better than your and my parents generation. But not sure we're there yet. That is why I'm fine that Brown obtained the position because her becoming a Supreme Court Justice takes us one step closer to when we can remove the measures taken to counter the original problems in our nation.

We'll get there. Not likely in your lifetime, but at some future point. We're moving in the right direction. I'm ok with you and mykc arguing the counterpoint because I think it is all of our hopes that we reach the point where race doesn't matter and isn't necessary policy point for either party as adequate representation occurs naturally.