+3 votes
34 views

3 Answers

+3 votes
by

Best qualified.Gender irrelevant.

+2 votes
by

"Should" be the best-qualified, of course, regardless of gender.  But just as "of course" (in fact, even more so), politics will play the predominant role.

So the Republicans will push for a conservative, strict-constructionist woman, and the Democrats will fight it, all the way to looting, burning and rioting in the streets by their more radical supporters, all in the name of "justice," irony of ironies.

by
+1

Tink, somewhat change of topic, do you know anything about this fellow, Former Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York Andy McCarthy...?

I found this segment on FOX, and felt I learned something from him. Do you see him as reliable?

(Just for the record, I am not as deeply opposed to the civil unrest as - I think - you are, because we seem to be out of options. My concern is that we seem unable to keep the protests from transforming into riots.)

I am looking at this topic especially since a comment by Daniel Ellsberg, his concern that within the next four months, President Trump could invoke the Insurrection Act, last used (you probably already know!) ...against the riots which came after the police who beat Rodney King in LA were acquitted. 

I also thought this interviewer, Melissa (someone), I thought she rather missed or glossed over one of his main points...but as you mention, sometimes you find on FOX things not covered elsewhere. Here is the clip...not meaning to give you 'homework,' just if you are interested! :)

by
+1

I really don't know anything about Andy McCarthy, but his points seemed perfectly reasonable on their face, namely that declaring "anarchist jurisdictions" is a political move with little legal enforceability, and that if the local authorities are unwilling to uphold local law, there is not much that can be done by the feds (I imagine he didn't mention the insurrection act because he probably didn't think its invocation was likely.)
   

I'm not opposed to peaceful protests (if that's what you mean by civil unrest), but when they devolve into criminal acts, abetted by local mayors and prosecutors who do little or nothing to stop them (except of course when their own skin is at risk; see below), then I think those officials are guilty of criminal nonfeasance of duty, if there is such a thing, and should be removed from office, if not immediately, then by the voters at the very next opportunity.



by
+1

Thanks very much, Tink -- I appreciated the statement from the mayor, another voice that truly needs listening, I will look up some details on Chicago at present, especially saying that there is no time in the past that is comparable to this one. And yes, that was the main point I took from Andy McCarthy and was surprised... "if the local authorities are unwilling to uphold local law, there is not much that can be done by the feds."

I am studying these views more than ever before, clearly the country as well as the world needs all of us now. I reviewed both MLK and Malcolm X this spring, and two guiding statements I took from Dr. King are, 1. Riots are the voice of the unheard, and (not really a contradiction, I think) 2. When you throw the first rock, or loot the first TV, you are no longer an activist you are a criminal.

by
+1

Well, my point in posting mayor Lightfoot's statement was to show that she was very quick to call the police when the protesters showed up at her house. Where was she when the businesses in downtown Chicago were being looted and burned? That's right, nowhere. The safety and property of the victims didn't matter at all...not in this unique time like no other... only hers did, of course.

by
+1

I didn't even realize that Tink -- her inconsistency there. It's not good...have you observed Mayor Lightfoot in better times? I ask that because she has dark circles under her eyes; is that just her normal appearance, or is that stress, can you speculate?

So many officials now seem to be making really poor choices. The point being that from my studies this civil unrest/rioting should have been totally predictable, based on the rapidly increasing income inequality and losses, desperation/anomie in the middle and working classes. The only real question being, when would a tipping point come...but seems to have caught gov largely blindsided, clueless, they can only debate violence...and like her, just missing altogether.

I am very concerned for our country now; for us to get through safely. I first learned from you the concept that violence, revolution, virtually never ends well...you were RIGHT.

That situation in Iowa where I got evicted, initially believing it was just one corporation gone rogue, and would soon be brought to heel by built-in democratic processes...HA! You and Marianne put me on the trail of discovering that Iowa situation is now systemic...so tragically.

Public officials like her, including Trump, aren't helping (imo) although as we have talked before Biden might be worse...one of the sources I trust suggesting that Obama the worst POTUS in a hundred years...have you had any luck looking for Cincinnatus yet?

by

I have seen her in better times... the dark circles were there then too, although perhaps not so pronounced.

Here is an interesting article and video clip.

https://news.wttw.com/2019/04/03/mayor-elect-lightfoot-mends-fences-day-one-transition

More later, when I have time.

+1 vote
by

Hello pbutterboy77,

I am giving you the cynical take on this, because of what I learned from my friend Lawrence Bloom on another Q/A site. He points out that the Supreme Court is no longer (if it ever was) an instrument of justice, but of political partisanship.

So whichever political party is in power, it is their DUTY to make a political appointment, the person most reliable to vote the party line. 

Lawrence told about one SCOTUS justice who was showing some dementia, and the justice said, "It doesn't even matter. All I need to be able to do is to vote the opposite of THAT guy (naming his colleague from the other party) and I am fine."

If you want to dress up the court with identity politics -- gender, skin color etc., yes why not that might make things look a little better.

;)

...