comment: >
  
  I think the media is forcing that down your throat. That the skin colour is a bonus.
  Fact is the pigment of their skin now ISNT being held against their qualifications.
context: Biden is a white guy with many leeways to appoint people of color to positions of power.
  Obama said how a murdered kid might be his child and every news outlet made a living hell out of that innocent comment saying he was stirring racial sentiments.
  He had to walk on eggshells not to upset both republicans and white people in his own party by refusing to go too "woke". >
  
  Lesson is don't walk on eggshells because those people still win when you do that. How much police reform was there? That's what walking on eggshells gets you. >
  
  And there was still a massive backlash ie. Maga & Trump >
  
  I think the point is that he walked on eggshells and there was still a massive backlash.  If that's the response no matter what, then he should just do what's right. >
  
  If you're focused on results (and most of us in r/politics are), then Obama totally made the wrong play by catering to republicans, but if you're focused on your legacy, then Obama played it perfectly. Obama was a reasonable, middle-of-the-road democrat and the republicans still acted ridiculously and history will remember that.
  That said, I wish he put the needs of the country over his legacy as the first black president. We sorely need a progressive revolution and it's kinda icky that Biden has been more progressive than Obama while still being a far cry from what this country needs. >
  
  Biden is accomplishing more than Obama did in two terms, with the exception of the ACA. 
  Voting rights could be his ACA. >
  
  He's ordered far less bombs being dropped on foreign countries(Afghan's and the like)than any other past POTUS in decades.
  So far. >
  
  How many did trump order besides that one Iranian General he had drone-striked? I honestly don’t remember. >
  
  Remember when people thought Dems should have kicked Manchin out of the party in 2021? >
  
  Half of people are stupid. >
  
  ~~stupid~~ Uneducated.
  Which is part of the right’s strategy. >
  
  There’s a lot of stupid people too. You know, the ones that think Manchin should be kicked out of the party or primaried. >
  
  Also anyone who voted Trump in 2020. I'm sick of the "uneducated" excuse, in 2016 I sort of understood it, blah blah tuned out blah blah disillusioned blah blah.
  Being willfully ignorant no longer gets you the uneducated excuse, after 4 years of Trump you are a bonafide imbecile to vote for him again. >
  
  "Diverse" is fine, but is their judicial philosophy progressive? 
  In NY, Gov. Hochul just nominated the first Latino judge to be our new chief justice. Sounds great, right? But he's an anti-abortion, anti-union conservative. Oops?
  Edit: To be clear, my issue is with the article's framing, not Biden's nominees. They should be highlighting their pro-labor stances as the true sign of progress, not reducing them to the color of their skin. 
  If it were that simple, Clarence Thomas would be as much of an ally as KBJ. Clearly not the case. >
  
  What research have you done? >
  
  Clearly none. He’s “just asking questions” 
  … in a very misleading way. 
  To answer the question: these judges are quite  progressive overall >
  
  No, my point is that focusing on the racial/gender/sexual diversity of the judges as opposed to their judicial philosophy is unproductive. 
  If the article were titled "Biden's Judicial Nominees are the most Progressive and Pro-Union in Decades," I'd have no problem with it. >
  
  Unproductive to you.  There is value in diversity.  Not just in progressivism.  (This coming from someone almost too progressive for the Democratic party) >
  
  Why?  That's an odd and counter-productive position.
  Who got more done for the state of California and wider America from a progressive standpoint?  White Male Henry Waxman or multiracial (black/S Asian) Kamala Harris?
  It's very emphatically not even close.
  Of course there's "value in diversity".  The crucial point is that it's merely one aspect to a Progressive society. >
  
  I wasn't disagreeing with anything you said.  Just pointing out OP is giving no value to diversity. >
  
  This is good. The judiciary should reflect the community at large and only act in ways that protect the constitution and the community. >
  
  So why not get the most qualified in the position rather than concentrating on melanin? It wouldn't bother me if they were all black, indian, women, whatever long as they're the best for the position. I think this diversity first is nonsensical. >
  
  Lot of concern troll - ey takes about diversity .
  You know how I know these judges are more progressive and more likely to be public defenders ?  
  BIDEN APPOINTED THEM. And I read beyond headlines.
  Also, no one questioned when Trump's appointments just happened to be overwhelmingly Old white men. >
  
  
  overwhelmingly Old white men.
  
  For the lifelong seats, the GOP tries to pick younger candidates for example Amy Barret was in her late 40s. >
  
  I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: Biden doesn’t really have a choice in this. There is no telling if the Dems will retain the Senate in two years. They probably assumed they’d lose it this time around. 
  McConnell has made it clear that he has no scruples about holding up appointments for a Dem administration and driving through as many as possible under a GOP administration. Biden has to get in every appointment possible, because they are already behind the ball and seeing the damage a right-leaning partisan judiciary is doing. 
  They are trying to stop the bleeding, it will be 10+ years before we see the judiciary shift back to the left, but only if they push through as many as possible and get lucky with keeping the senate. >
  
  Just need to put five more judges on the Supreme Court >
  
  Who cares about their quality? Only diversity counts. If I was one of those nominees and POC, I would be fucking insulted. >
  
  Expand the Supreme court!!! >
  
  More diverse selections than Trump? You don’t say >
  
  Yes trump bad, trump a very very racist bad man >
  
  I hope he makes sure to get them all in before the election. Just like some other did... >
  
  The responses in this thread show exactly why a progressive nominee will struggle with the POC vote. Progressives only care about progress, not representation, representation absolutely matters and this overwhelmingly white sub only seems to care about representation if they fit their values. Wonder why Bernie couldn't get much POC vote? He rarely ever talked about issues that POCs care about, but this sub just wants to parade around POCs that will do their bidding as opposed to doing what matters for POCs and taking their views into account >
  
  Yes, but there's no shortage of qualified diverse applicants. Its not a choice between the two, its the choice to not take both. >
  
  When do people understand diverse does not mean better or qualified. Pick the most qualified AND moral judge. >
  
  
  Charlotte Sweeney is the first openly LGBT woman to serve on the federal bench west of the Mississippi River and has a background in workers’ rights. Nina Wang, an immigrant from Taiwan, is the first magistrate judge in the state to be elevated to a federal district seat.
  Regina Rodriguez, who is Latina and Asian American, served in a U.S. attorney’s office. Veronica Rossman, who came from the former Soviet Union with her family as refugees, is the first former federal public defender to be a judge on the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
  With these four women, who were confirmed during the first two years of President Joe Biden’s term, there is a breadth of personal and 
  
  professional diversity
  
  that the White House and Democratic senators have promoted in their push to transform the judiciary.
  
  Second sentence. First 3 paragraphs. >
  
  Whatever gets the job done >
  
  Yes! 💯💯💯 >
  
  Nice >
  
  Now expand the supreme court >
  
  No one I’ve met likes him.  Bernie and Trump are still the two most liked.  What a joke our country has become.  News like this is absurd. >
  
  Quality over quantity >
  
  We don’t give af .. we want qualified people we don’t care what there skin color is >
  
  *their >
  
  Idc. I care about qualified people holding those positions, not their fucking race. This is so stupid. >
  
  I mean yeah Biden has very few nominations to make and he very clearly cares little about anything beyond color and race. >
  
  How so? These nominations were clearly based on the best person for the job, why do you assume they aren’t qualified just because they aren’t white? >
  
  Because its easier to think that. >
  
  Does diverse also mean qualified? >
  
  Yes, it actually does. Over 83% of Biden nominees were rated "Well Qualified" vs just over 68% of Trump's. For reference, the ABA ratings for the Biden Administration:
  
  As of December 1, 2022, the ABA had offered ratings for 132 of President Joe Biden's (D) nominees. The ABA rated 110 of those nominees well qualified, 20 nominees qualified, and two nominees as qualified and well qualified. 
  
  This compares with Trump:
  
  As of February 3, 2020, the American Bar Association (ABA) had rated 220 of Trump's nominees. Of these nominees, 150 were rated "well-qualified," 61 were rated "qualified," and 9 were rated "not qualified." [emphasis: mine] >
  
  
  ”9 were rated “not qualified.”
  
  And now at least one of those unqualified nominees has a seat on the Supreme Court. >
  
  Indeed. >
  
  The real issues /s >
  
  Don’t care, are they qualified . >
  
  What an annoying article title >
  
  Hey, who says the backgrounds of Republican judges aren't diverse? They nominated not just former prosecutors, but also attorneys for corporate polluters AND christian dominionists from religious law schools! >
  
  It’s doesn’t matter if they’d diverse, only thing that matters is they are fit for the position and care about upholding the laws and rights of people. This world is so backwards. >
  
  Maybe just appoint nice people, who are qualified. Focusing on race is boring and dumb. >
  
  "Diverse" is not important.  Smart, educated, and qualified are. >
  
  Having diverse experiences is in the interest of the Judiciary branch. >
  
  Diverse skin colors does not necessarily equal diverse life experiences. >
  
  How Naive. >
  
  And? >
  
  So he picked out names out of a list. This is not much of an accomplishment. >
  
  I'm really curious how average age has changed over the last 15 years. >
  
  thank goodness >
  
  Can't tell if Obama had his hands tied due to bonkers overzealous scrutiny/harassment and the weight of all black representation on his shoulders, or if Obama was just not actually that cool of a person as he was supposed to be.
  Maybe a little bit of both. >
  
  At this rate, Biden may overshadow obama’s legacy. He is getting more done in 3 years than Obama did in 8 years >
  
  Diverse as in Muslim, Asian, Black, Latino, and gay or? >
  
  ẞdb >
  
  Biden preserves normalcy and Constitutional integrity. >
  
  Diversity means nothing if their politics are shit. It’s like having diverse Nazi guards. >
  
  I couldn't care less about diverse.  Clarence Thomas is "diverse" and an asshole.  I want honest, impartial judges of any color, gender, etc. >
  
  
  I couldn't care less about diverse.
  
  You don't say? >
  
  So how do you know they are not also very qualified? Minorities and POCs can also be worthy of positions such as these 
  Do you just assume “diverse” = not worthy. Why do you have that instant judgment?
  And you call others racist lol >
  
  Well I sure as hell hope they have qualifications other than skin color. The fact that their pigmentation IS considered a qualification is racist. Attacking me doesn’t change that friend.