LaxPower Back-Up Stick

jhu72 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 26, 2022 12:27 pm [

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 26, 2022 2:37 pm

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Sat Feb 26, 2022 10:34 am

youthathletics wrote: ↑Sat Feb 26, 2022 10:24 am

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 26, 2022 9:55 am

runrussellrun wrote: ↑Sat Feb 26, 2022 9:06 am

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 26, 2022 9:02 am

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Sat Feb 26, 2022 8:52 am

runrussellrun wrote: ↑Sat Feb 26, 2022 8:13 am

ggait wrote: ↑Fri Feb 25, 2022 7:02 pm

Farfromgeneva wrote: ↑Fri Feb 25, 2022 2:02 pm I read maybe one piece on the lady. I’m sure there’s politics involved but do people who really pay attention and aren’t just hysterical in either direction have any critical (not necessarily negative) observations of her candidacy?

Harvard College, Harvard Law School, SCOTUS clerk, DC Court of Appeals judge. Identical credentials to John Roberts and Merrick Garland.

Same/better credentials than the other SCOTUS judges.

As I posted before, there are TONS of people with these qualifications and they come in all colors, genders and ideologies. So it was completely ridiculous for right winger trolls to suggest that designating a black/woman somehow meant you had to cut corners on qualifications.

You only need to cut the corners on credentials if you are looking for activist conservative judges who also check some diversity boxes.

and all this time.....we thought actually, publically, advertize that they are only seeking a certain race to fill the job.....as wrong. illegal.

THAT.....is the problem. Can you imagine ANY other place getting away with such illegal employee hiring?

How about just nominate someone, without the "race" part

The more intelligent way to have done this was to never mention race or sex as a prerequisite for the job, and then go ahead and nominate her anyway.

yeah, like Reagan and Trump.

This was a no-brainer promise to an important constituency to rectify a 'miss' made over a couple hundred years.

And in no way compromised the quality of the potential nominee pool.

I think that's the eye-opener from all this. The tremendous quality of the pool considered.

And the final 3 were off the charts.

Why not nominate a NON-Ivy league graduate............talk about "misses".

Cosmo club member........yeah, THIS candidate really will speak for the "minorities" of this country..........

RRR, yeah a real shame she managed to get into Harvard, did so well that she got into Harvard Law, did so well there that she got a series of very high profile clerkships then a SCOTUS clerkship, all along crushing it, then high paid law firm only to chuck that to go be a public defender and fight for less privileged...she's the only (or one of the only) Scotus nominees to ever have defended anyone in a criminal case...then has over 200 opinions on successively higher judgeships...but hey, maybe not "black" enough for you?

Come on. All these potential nominees were incredibly well qualified. She should be overwhelmingly confirmed...but there are too many folks who think solely as partisans.

Including you? Is that not the entire point of this discussion. Partisan, applies to much-much more than political affiliation. I know you understand the argument, but you will never admit the mere fact that we 'have to' [insert race, edu institution] into our public discourse. It has become a perpetual flaw of our society. Why is it you only hear about this type of stuff when it only applies to law and the anything with .gov?

You seldom ever hear about race, or .edu backgrounds, when it comes to STEM. Which begs the question.....why is it that only the Ivy Leaguer's and lawyers seem to present themselves as the elitist's in the room, yet claim they are the furthest thing from it. It flirts with npd and narcissistic entitlement. Not implying this is you.

https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/educ ... -drew.html

We learned about him in elementary school.

Amazing how folks don't understand "why" we haven't heard about...

youth, not sure what you think I'm a "partisan" about. Yes, I was talking about "partisan" on behalf of a political party. Gotta vote against whatever the other party wants...that sort of partisan.

As an admittedly old-school moderate Republican, it's easy for me to say that voting "against", for partisan drill, is not the way it should be when in this sort of situation.

I'm a bit puzzled as to what your issue is with one's educational and then professional background being important to understanding the credentials and proven performance of someone being asked to do a very specific type of work.

We live in the Baltimore area...is it not reassuring when you know that the neurosurgeon working on your friend or family member went to XYZ undergrad and then Hopkins Medicine, did their residency at Hopkins, and has progressed to the top of their profession, performed hundreds of such surgeries, innovated cutting edge surgical procedures?

Don't need that for lots of things, but I know it's reassuring to me.

As to race and gender, yeah, it matters to bring more perspectives into these decisions. But I don't want just any ABC check the box person, I want the very best of the best. Thankfully, there are many such available...couldn't really say that 50 years ago...thank goodness we can now.

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Sat Feb 26, 2022 2:54 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 26, 2022 2:37 pm

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Sat Feb 26, 2022 10:34 am

youthathletics wrote: ↑Sat Feb 26, 2022 10:24 am

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 26, 2022 9:55 am

runrussellrun wrote: ↑Sat Feb 26, 2022 9:06 am

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 26, 2022 9:02 am

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Sat Feb 26, 2022 8:52 am

runrussellrun wrote: ↑Sat Feb 26, 2022 8:13 am

ggait wrote: ↑Fri Feb 25, 2022 7:02 pm

Farfromgeneva wrote: ↑Fri Feb 25, 2022 2:02 pm I read maybe one piece on the lady. I’m sure there’s politics involved but do people who really pay attention and aren’t just hysterical in either direction have any critical (not necessarily negative) observations of her candidacy?

Harvard College, Harvard Law School, SCOTUS clerk, DC Court of Appeals judge. Identical credentials to John Roberts and Merrick Garland.

Same/better credentials than the other SCOTUS judges.

As I posted before, there are TONS of people with these qualifications and they come in all colors, genders and ideologies. So it was completely ridiculous for right winger trolls to suggest that designating a black/woman somehow meant you had to cut corners on qualifications.

You only need to cut the corners on credentials if you are looking for activist conservative judges who also check some diversity boxes.

and all this time.....we thought actually, publically, advertize that they are only seeking a certain race to fill the job.....as wrong. illegal.

THAT.....is the problem. Can you imagine ANY other place getting away with such illegal employee hiring?

How about just nominate someone, without the "race" part

The more intelligent way to have done this was to never mention race or sex as a prerequisite for the job, and then go ahead and nominate her anyway.

yeah, like Reagan and Trump.

This was a no-brainer promise to an important constituency to rectify a 'miss' made over a couple hundred years.

And in no way compromised the quality of the potential nominee pool.

I think that's the eye-opener from all this. The tremendous quality of the pool considered.

And the final 3 were off the charts.

Why not nominate a NON-Ivy league graduate............talk about "misses".

Cosmo club member........yeah, THIS candidate really will speak for the "minorities" of this country..........

RRR, yeah a real shame she managed to get into Harvard, did so well that she got into Harvard Law, did so well there that she got a series of very high profile clerkships then a SCOTUS clerkship, all along crushing it, then high paid law firm only to chuck that to go be a public defender and fight for less privileged...she's the only (or one of the only) Scotus nominees to ever have defended anyone in a criminal case...then has over 200 opinions on successively higher judgeships...but hey, maybe not "black" enough for you?

Come on. All these potential nominees were incredibly well qualified. She should be overwhelmingly confirmed...but there are too many folks who think solely as partisans.

Including you? Is that not the entire point of this discussion. Partisan, applies to much-much more than political affiliation. I know you understand the argument, but you will never admit the mere fact that we 'have to' [insert race, edu institution] into our public discourse. It has become a perpetual flaw of our society. Why is it you only hear about this type of stuff when it only applies to law and the anything with .gov?

You seldom ever hear about race, or .edu backgrounds, when it comes to STEM. Which begs the question.....why is it that only the Ivy Leaguer's and lawyers seem to present themselves as the elitist's in the room, yet claim they are the furthest thing from it. It flirts with npd and narcissistic entitlement. Not implying this is you.

https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/educ ... -drew.html

We learned about him in elementary school.

Amazing how folks don't understand "why" we haven't heard about...

youth, not sure what you think I'm a "partisan" about. Yes, I was talking about "partisan" on behalf of a political party. Gotta vote against whatever the other party wants...that sort of partisan.

As an admittedly old-school moderate Republican, it's easy for me to say that voting "against", for partisan drill, is not the way it should be when in this sort of situation.

I'm a bit puzzled as to what your issue is with one's educational and then professional background being important to understanding the credentials and proven performance of someone being asked to do a very specific type of work.

We live in the Baltimore area...is it not reassuring when you know that the neurosurgeon working on your friend or family member went to XYZ undergrad and then Hopkins Medicine, did their residency at Hopkins, and has progressed to the top of their profession, performed hundreds of such surgeries, innovated cutting edge surgical procedures?

Don't need that for lots of things, but I know it's reassuring to me.

As to race and gender, yeah, it matters to bring more perspectives into these decisions. But I don't want just any ABC check the box person, I want the very best of the best. Thankfully, there are many such available...couldn't really say that 50 years ago...thank goodness we can now.

There is a poster on our forum who ridiculed Ben Carson upside down, backwards and sideways for being inept and incompetent. This poster is a white somewhat like myself cantankerous old guy who hates with due diligence even a successful black man. I correct that, a talented black pediatric neurosurgeon who happened to be a conservative Republican. The audacity of Dr Carson for straying off of the FLP reservation.

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 26, 2022 3:01 pm

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Sat Feb 26, 2022 2:54 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 26, 2022 2:37 pm

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Sat Feb 26, 2022 10:34 am

youthathletics wrote: ↑Sat Feb 26, 2022 10:24 am

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 26, 2022 9:55 am

runrussellrun wrote: ↑Sat Feb 26, 2022 9:06 am

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 26, 2022 9:02 am

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Sat Feb 26, 2022 8:52 am

runrussellrun wrote: ↑Sat Feb 26, 2022 8:13 am

ggait wrote: ↑Fri Feb 25, 2022 7:02 pm

Farfromgeneva wrote: ↑Fri Feb 25, 2022 2:02 pm I read maybe one piece on the lady. I’m sure there’s politics involved but do people who really pay attention and aren’t just hysterical in either direction have any critical (not necessarily negative) observations of her candidacy?

Harvard College, Harvard Law School, SCOTUS clerk, DC Court of Appeals judge. Identical credentials to John Roberts and Merrick Garland.

Same/better credentials than the other SCOTUS judges.

As I posted before, there are TONS of people with these qualifications and they come in all colors, genders and ideologies. So it was completely ridiculous for right winger trolls to suggest that designating a black/woman somehow meant you had to cut corners on qualifications.

You only need to cut the corners on credentials if you are looking for activist conservative judges who also check some diversity boxes.

and all this time.....we thought actually, publically, advertize that they are only seeking a certain race to fill the job.....as wrong. illegal.

THAT.....is the problem. Can you imagine ANY other place getting away with such illegal employee hiring?

How about just nominate someone, without the "race" part

The more intelligent way to have done this was to never mention race or sex as a prerequisite for the job, and then go ahead and nominate her anyway.

yeah, like Reagan and Trump.

This was a no-brainer promise to an important constituency to rectify a 'miss' made over a couple hundred years.

And in no way compromised the quality of the potential nominee pool.

I think that's the eye-opener from all this. The tremendous quality of the pool considered.

And the final 3 were off the charts.

Why not nominate a NON-Ivy league graduate............talk about "misses".

Cosmo club member........yeah, THIS candidate really will speak for the "minorities" of this country..........

RRR, yeah a real shame she managed to get into Harvard, did so well that she got into Harvard Law, did so well there that she got a series of very high profile clerkships then a SCOTUS clerkship, all along crushing it, then high paid law firm only to chuck that to go be a public defender and fight for less privileged...she's the only (or one of the only) Scotus nominees to ever have defended anyone in a criminal case...then has over 200 opinions on successively higher judgeships...but hey, maybe not "black" enough for you?

Come on. All these potential nominees were incredibly well qualified. She should be overwhelmingly confirmed...but there are too many folks who think solely as partisans.

Including you? Is that not the entire point of this discussion. Partisan, applies to much-much more than political affiliation. I know you understand the argument, but you will never admit the mere fact that we 'have to' [insert race, edu institution] into our public discourse. It has become a perpetual flaw of our society. Why is it you only hear about this type of stuff when it only applies to law and the anything with .gov?

You seldom ever hear about race, or .edu backgrounds, when it comes to STEM. Which begs the question.....why is it that only the Ivy Leaguer's and lawyers seem to present themselves as the elitist's in the room, yet claim they are the furthest thing from it. It flirts with npd and narcissistic entitlement. Not implying this is you.

https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/educ ... -drew.html

We learned about him in elementary school.

Amazing how folks don't understand "why" we haven't heard about...

youth, not sure what you think I'm a "partisan" about. Yes, I was talking about "partisan" on behalf of a political party. Gotta vote against whatever the other party wants...that sort of partisan.

As an admittedly old-school moderate Republican, it's easy for me to say that voting "against", for partisan drill, is not the way it should be when in this sort of situation.

I'm a bit puzzled as to what your issue is with one's educational and then professional background being important to understanding the credentials and proven performance of someone being asked to do a very specific type of work.

We live in the Baltimore area...is it not reassuring when you know that the neurosurgeon working on your friend or family member went to XYZ undergrad and then Hopkins Medicine, did their residency at Hopkins, and has progressed to the top of their profession, performed hundreds of such surgeries, innovated cutting edge surgical procedures?

Don't need that for lots of things, but I know it's reassuring to me.

As to race and gender, yeah, it matters to bring more perspectives into these decisions. But I don't want just any ABC check the box person, I want the very best of the best. Thankfully, there are many such available...couldn't really say that 50 years ago...thank goodness we can now.

There is a poster on our forum who ridiculed Ben Carson upside down, backwards and sideways for being inept and incompetent. This poster is a white somewhat like myself cantankerous old guy who hates with due diligence even a successful black man. I correct that, a talented black pediatric neurosurgeon who happened to be a conservative Republican. The audacity of Dr Carson for straying off of the FLP reservation.

Nope, Carson was a terrific surgeon...awful when he went into politics. Two very different fields.

runrussellrun wrote: ↑Sat Feb 26, 2022 3:06 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 26, 2022 2:37 pm

I'm a bit puzzled as to what your issue is with one's educational and then professional background being important to understanding the credentials and proven performance of someone being asked to do a very specific type of work.

For one simple reason........Ivy League or Howard U. law.......all have to pass the exact same BAR exam.

When know, Howard U. doesn't produce intelligent lawyers. Nor Maryland U law, for that matter
[/quote]

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Sat Feb 26, 2022 3:15 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 26, 2022 3:01 pm

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Sat Feb 26, 2022 2:54 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 26, 2022 2:37 pm

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Sat Feb 26, 2022 10:34 am

youthathletics wrote: ↑Sat Feb 26, 2022 10:24 am

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 26, 2022 9:55 am

runrussellrun wrote: ↑Sat Feb 26, 2022 9:06 am

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 26, 2022 9:02 am

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Sat Feb 26, 2022 8:52 am

runrussellrun wrote: ↑Sat Feb 26, 2022 8:13 am

ggait wrote: ↑Fri Feb 25, 2022 7:02 pm

Farfromgeneva wrote: ↑Fri Feb 25, 2022 2:02 pm I read maybe one piece on the lady. I’m sure there’s politics involved but do people who really pay attention and aren’t just hysterical in either direction have any critical (not necessarily negative) observations of her candidacy?

Harvard College, Harvard Law School, SCOTUS clerk, DC Court of Appeals judge. Identical credentials to John Roberts and Merrick Garland.

Same/better credentials than the other SCOTUS judges.

As I posted before, there are TONS of people with these qualifications and they come in all colors, genders and ideologies. So it was completely ridiculous for right winger trolls to suggest that designating a black/woman somehow meant you had to cut corners on qualifications.

You only need to cut the corners on credentials if you are looking for activist conservative judges who also check some diversity boxes.

and all this time.....we thought actually, publically, advertize that they are only seeking a certain race to fill the job.....as wrong. illegal.

THAT.....is the problem. Can you imagine ANY other place getting away with such illegal employee hiring?

How about just nominate someone, without the "race" part

The more intelligent way to have done this was to never mention race or sex as a prerequisite for the job, and then go ahead and nominate her anyway.

yeah, like Reagan and Trump.

This was a no-brainer promise to an important constituency to rectify a 'miss' made over a couple hundred years.

And in no way compromised the quality of the potential nominee pool.

I think that's the eye-opener from all this. The tremendous quality of the pool considered.

And the final 3 were off the charts.

Why not nominate a NON-Ivy league graduate............talk about "misses".

Cosmo club member........yeah, THIS candidate really will speak for the "minorities" of this country..........

RRR, yeah a real shame she managed to get into Harvard, did so well that she got into Harvard Law, did so well there that she got a series of very high profile clerkships then a SCOTUS clerkship, all along crushing it, then high paid law firm only to chuck that to go be a public defender and fight for less privileged...she's the only (or one of the only) Scotus nominees to ever have defended anyone in a criminal case...then has over 200 opinions on successively higher judgeships...but hey, maybe not "black" enough for you?

Come on. All these potential nominees were incredibly well qualified. She should be overwhelmingly confirmed...but there are too many folks who think solely as partisans.

Including you? Is that not the entire point of this discussion. Partisan, applies to much-much more than political affiliation. I know you understand the argument, but you will never admit the mere fact that we 'have to' [insert race, edu institution] into our public discourse. It has become a perpetual flaw of our society. Why is it you only hear about this type of stuff when it only applies to law and the anything with .gov?

You seldom ever hear about race, or .edu backgrounds, when it comes to STEM. Which begs the question.....why is it that only the Ivy Leaguer's and lawyers seem to present themselves as the elitist's in the room, yet claim they are the furthest thing from it. It flirts with npd and narcissistic entitlement. Not implying this is you.

https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/educ ... -drew.html

We learned about him in elementary school.

Amazing how folks don't understand "why" we haven't heard about...

youth, not sure what you think I'm a "partisan" about. Yes, I was talking about "partisan" on behalf of a political party. Gotta vote against whatever the other party wants...that sort of partisan.

As an admittedly old-school moderate Republican, it's easy for me to say that voting "against", for partisan drill, is not the way it should be when in this sort of situation.

I'm a bit puzzled as to what your issue is with one's educational and then professional background being important to understanding the credentials and proven performance of someone being asked to do a very specific type of work.

We live in the Baltimore area...is it not reassuring when you know that the neurosurgeon working on your friend or family member went to XYZ undergrad and then Hopkins Medicine, did their residency at Hopkins, and has progressed to the top of their profession, performed hundreds of such surgeries, innovated cutting edge surgical procedures?

Don't need that for lots of things, but I know it's reassuring to me.

As to race and gender, yeah, it matters to bring more perspectives into these decisions. But I don't want just any ABC check the box person, I want the very best of the best. Thankfully, there are many such available...couldn't really say that 50 years ago...thank goodness we can now.

There is a poster on our forum who ridiculed Ben Carson upside down, backwards and sideways for being inept and incompetent. This poster is a white somewhat like myself cantankerous old guy who hates with due diligence even a successful black man. I correct that, a talented black pediatric neurosurgeon who happened to be a conservative Republican. The audacity of Dr Carson for straying off of the FLP reservation.

Nope, Carson was a terrific surgeon...awful when he went into politics. Two very different fields.

Dr Carson's goose was cooked after he embarrassed BHO at the prayer breakfast. That was before he became political. That is when the FLP long knives came after him with a vengeance. That is also when YOUR party latched onto to him as a potential asset.

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=dr ... &FORM=VIRE

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 26, 2022 3:36 pm

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Sat Feb 26, 2022 3:15 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 26, 2022 3:01 pm

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Sat Feb 26, 2022 2:54 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 26, 2022 2:37 pm

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Sat Feb 26, 2022 10:34 am

youthathletics wrote: ↑Sat Feb 26, 2022 10:24 am

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 26, 2022 9:55 am

runrussellrun wrote: ↑Sat Feb 26, 2022 9:06 am

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 26, 2022 9:02 am

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Sat Feb 26, 2022 8:52 am

runrussellrun wrote: ↑Sat Feb 26, 2022 8:13 am

ggait wrote: ↑Fri Feb 25, 2022 7:02 pm

Farfromgeneva wrote: ↑Fri Feb 25, 2022 2:02 pm I read maybe one piece on the lady. I’m sure there’s politics involved but do people who really pay attention and aren’t just hysterical in either direction have any critical (not necessarily negative) observations of her candidacy?

Harvard College, Harvard Law School, SCOTUS clerk, DC Court of Appeals judge. Identical credentials to John Roberts and Merrick Garland.

Same/better credentials than the other SCOTUS judges.

As I posted before, there are TONS of people with these qualifications and they come in all colors, genders and ideologies. So it was completely ridiculous for right winger trolls to suggest that designating a black/woman somehow meant you had to cut corners on qualifications.

You only need to cut the corners on credentials if you are looking for activist conservative judges who also check some diversity boxes.

and all this time.....we thought actually, publically, advertize that they are only seeking a certain race to fill the job.....as wrong. illegal.

THAT.....is the problem. Can you imagine ANY other place getting away with such illegal employee hiring?

How about just nominate someone, without the "race" part

The more intelligent way to have done this was to never mention race or sex as a prerequisite for the job, and then go ahead and nominate her anyway.

yeah, like Reagan and Trump.

This was a no-brainer promise to an important constituency to rectify a 'miss' made over a couple hundred years.

And in no way compromised the quality of the potential nominee pool.

I think that's the eye-opener from all this. The tremendous quality of the pool considered.

And the final 3 were off the charts.

Why not nominate a NON-Ivy league graduate............talk about "misses".

Cosmo club member........yeah, THIS candidate really will speak for the "minorities" of this country..........

RRR, yeah a real shame she managed to get into Harvard, did so well that she got into Harvard Law, did so well there that she got a series of very high profile clerkships then a SCOTUS clerkship, all along crushing it, then high paid law firm only to chuck that to go be a public defender and fight for less privileged...she's the only (or one of the only) Scotus nominees to ever have defended anyone in a criminal case...then has over 200 opinions on successively higher judgeships...but hey, maybe not "black" enough for you?

Come on. All these potential nominees were incredibly well qualified. She should be overwhelmingly confirmed...but there are too many folks who think solely as partisans.

Including you? Is that not the entire point of this discussion. Partisan, applies to much-much more than political affiliation. I know you understand the argument, but you will never admit the mere fact that we 'have to' [insert race, edu institution] into our public discourse. It has become a perpetual flaw of our society. Why is it you only hear about this type of stuff when it only applies to law and the anything with .gov?

You seldom ever hear about race, or .edu backgrounds, when it comes to STEM. Which begs the question.....why is it that only the Ivy Leaguer's and lawyers seem to present themselves as the elitist's in the room, yet claim they are the furthest thing from it. It flirts with npd and narcissistic entitlement. Not implying this is you.

https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/educ ... -drew.html

We learned about him in elementary school.

Amazing how folks don't understand "why" we haven't heard about...

youth, not sure what you think I'm a "partisan" about. Yes, I was talking about "partisan" on behalf of a political party. Gotta vote against whatever the other party wants...that sort of partisan.

As an admittedly old-school moderate Republican, it's easy for me to say that voting "against", for partisan drill, is not the way it should be when in this sort of situation.

I'm a bit puzzled as to what your issue is with one's educational and then professional background being important to understanding the credentials and proven performance of someone being asked to do a very specific type of work.

We live in the Baltimore area...is it not reassuring when you know that the neurosurgeon working on your friend or family member went to XYZ undergrad and then Hopkins Medicine, did their residency at Hopkins, and has progressed to the top of their profession, performed hundreds of such surgeries, innovated cutting edge surgical procedures?

Don't need that for lots of things, but I know it's reassuring to me.

As to race and gender, yeah, it matters to bring more perspectives into these decisions. But I don't want just any ABC check the box person, I want the very best of the best. Thankfully, there are many such available...couldn't really say that 50 years ago...thank goodness we can now.

There is a poster on our forum who ridiculed Ben Carson upside down, backwards and sideways for being inept and incompetent. This poster is a white somewhat like myself cantankerous old guy who hates with due diligence even a successful black man. I correct that, a talented black pediatric neurosurgeon who happened to be a conservative Republican. The audacity of Dr Carson for straying off of the FLP reservation.

Nope, Carson was a terrific surgeon...awful when he went into politics. Two very different fields.

Dr Carson's goose was cooked after he embarrassed BHO at the prayer breakfast. That was before he became political. That is when the FLP long knives came after him with a vengeance. That is also when YOUR party latched onto to him as a potential asset.

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=dr ... &FORM=VIRE

Also quite the kook.
Some very, very strange "beliefs" beyond the political realm...

Maybe he was different, sharper, had his head screwed on, when he was younger coming up. My dad served on a school BD with him and found him always affable and a solid contributor. But somehow the wheels came off the bus as he grew older? Happens.

Look at Rudy.

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 26, 2022 3:36 pm

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Sat Feb 26, 2022 3:15 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 26, 2022 3:01 pm

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Sat Feb 26, 2022 2:54 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 26, 2022 2:37 pm

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Sat Feb 26, 2022 10:34 am

youthathletics wrote: ↑Sat Feb 26, 2022 10:24 am

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 26, 2022 9:55 am

runrussellrun wrote: ↑Sat Feb 26, 2022 9:06 am

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 26, 2022 9:02 am

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Sat Feb 26, 2022 8:52 am

runrussellrun wrote: ↑Sat Feb 26, 2022 8:13 am

ggait wrote: ↑Fri Feb 25, 2022 7:02 pm

Farfromgeneva wrote: ↑Fri Feb 25, 2022 2:02 pm I read maybe one piece on the lady. I’m sure there’s politics involved but do people who really pay attention and aren’t just hysterical in either direction have any critical (not necessarily negative) observations of her candidacy?

Harvard College, Harvard Law School, SCOTUS clerk, DC Court of Appeals judge. Identical credentials to John Roberts and Merrick Garland.

Same/better credentials than the other SCOTUS judges.

As I posted before, there are TONS of people with these qualifications and they come in all colors, genders and ideologies. So it was completely ridiculous for right winger trolls to suggest that designating a black/woman somehow meant you had to cut corners on qualifications.

You only need to cut the corners on credentials if you are looking for activist conservative judges who also check some diversity boxes.

and all this time.....we thought actually, publically, advertize that they are only seeking a certain race to fill the job.....as wrong. illegal.

THAT.....is the problem. Can you imagine ANY other place getting away with such illegal employee hiring?

How about just nominate someone, without the "race" part

The more intelligent way to have done this was to never mention race or sex as a prerequisite for the job, and then go ahead and nominate her anyway.

yeah, like Reagan and Trump.

This was a no-brainer promise to an important constituency to rectify a 'miss' made over a couple hundred years.

And in no way compromised the quality of the potential nominee pool.

I think that's the eye-opener from all this. The tremendous quality of the pool considered.

And the final 3 were off the charts.

Why not nominate a NON-Ivy league graduate............talk about "misses".

Cosmo club member........yeah, THIS candidate really will speak for the "minorities" of this country..........

RRR, yeah a real shame she managed to get into Harvard, did so well that she got into Harvard Law, did so well there that she got a series of very high profile clerkships then a SCOTUS clerkship, all along crushing it, then high paid law firm only to chuck that to go be a public defender and fight for less privileged...she's the only (or one of the only) Scotus nominees to ever have defended anyone in a criminal case...then has over 200 opinions on successively higher judgeships...but hey, maybe not "black" enough for you?

Come on. All these potential nominees were incredibly well qualified. She should be overwhelmingly confirmed...but there are too many folks who think solely as partisans.

Including you? Is that not the entire point of this discussion. Partisan, applies to much-much more than political affiliation. I know you understand the argument, but you will never admit the mere fact that we 'have to' [insert race, edu institution] into our public discourse. It has become a perpetual flaw of our society. Why is it you only hear about this type of stuff when it only applies to law and the anything with .gov?

You seldom ever hear about race, or .edu backgrounds, when it comes to STEM. Which begs the question.....why is it that only the Ivy Leaguer's and lawyers seem to present themselves as the elitist's in the room, yet claim they are the furthest thing from it. It flirts with npd and narcissistic entitlement. Not implying this is you.

https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/educ ... -drew.html

We learned about him in elementary school.

Amazing how folks don't understand "why" we haven't heard about...

youth, not sure what you think I'm a "partisan" about. Yes, I was talking about "partisan" on behalf of a political party. Gotta vote against whatever the other party wants...that sort of partisan.

As an admittedly old-school moderate Republican, it's easy for me to say that voting "against", for partisan drill, is not the way it should be when in this sort of situation.

I'm a bit puzzled as to what your issue is with one's educational and then professional background being important to understanding the credentials and proven performance of someone being asked to do a very specific type of work.

We live in the Baltimore area...is it not reassuring when you know that the neurosurgeon working on your friend or family member went to XYZ undergrad and then Hopkins Medicine, did their residency at Hopkins, and has progressed to the top of their profession, performed hundreds of such surgeries, innovated cutting edge surgical procedures?

Don't need that for lots of things, but I know it's reassuring to me.

As to race and gender, yeah, it matters to bring more perspectives into these decisions. But I don't want just any ABC check the box person, I want the very best of the best. Thankfully, there are many such available...couldn't really say that 50 years ago...thank goodness we can now.

There is a poster on our forum who ridiculed Ben Carson upside down, backwards and sideways for being inept and incompetent. This poster is a white somewhat like myself cantankerous old guy who hates with due diligence even a successful black man. I correct that, a talented black pediatric neurosurgeon who happened to be a conservative Republican. The audacity of Dr Carson for straying off of the FLP reservation.

Nope, Carson was a terrific surgeon...awful when he went into politics. Two very different fields.

Dr Carson's goose was cooked after he embarrassed BHO at the prayer breakfast. That was before he became political. That is when the FLP long knives came after him with a vengeance. That is also when YOUR party latched onto to him as a potential asset.

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=dr ... &FORM=VIRE

Also quite the kook.
Some very, very strange "beliefs" beyond the political realm...

Maybe he was different, sharper, had his head screwed on, when he was younger coming up. My dad served on a school BD with him and found him always affable and a solid contributor. But somehow the wheels came off the bus as he grew older? Happens.

Look at Rudy.

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Sat Feb 26, 2022 3:55 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 26, 2022 3:36 pm

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Sat Feb 26, 2022 3:15 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 26, 2022 3:01 pm

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Sat Feb 26, 2022 2:54 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 26, 2022 2:37 pm

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Sat Feb 26, 2022 10:34 am

youthathletics wrote: ↑Sat Feb 26, 2022 10:24 am

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 26, 2022 9:55 am

runrussellrun wrote: ↑Sat Feb 26, 2022 9:06 am

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 26, 2022 9:02 am

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Sat Feb 26, 2022 8:52 am

runrussellrun wrote: ↑Sat Feb 26, 2022 8:13 am

ggait wrote: ↑Fri Feb 25, 2022 7:02 pm

Farfromgeneva wrote: ↑Fri Feb 25, 2022 2:02 pm I read maybe one piece on the lady. I’m sure there’s politics involved but do people who really pay attention and aren’t just hysterical in either direction have any critical (not necessarily negative) observations of her candidacy?

Harvard College, Harvard Law School, SCOTUS clerk, DC Court of Appeals judge. Identical credentials to John Roberts and Merrick Garland.

Same/better credentials than the other SCOTUS judges.

As I posted before, there are TONS of people with these qualifications and they come in all colors, genders and ideologies. So it was completely ridiculous for right winger trolls to suggest that designating a black/woman somehow meant you had to cut corners on qualifications.

You only need to cut the corners on credentials if you are looking for activist conservative judges who also check some diversity boxes.

and all this time.....we thought actually, publically, advertize that they are only seeking a certain race to fill the job.....as wrong. illegal.

THAT.....is the problem. Can you imagine ANY other place getting away with such illegal employee hiring?

How about just nominate someone, without the "race" part

The more intelligent way to have done this was to never mention race or sex as a prerequisite for the job, and then go ahead and nominate her anyway.

yeah, like Reagan and Trump.

This was a no-brainer promise to an important constituency to rectify a 'miss' made over a couple hundred years.

And in no way compromised the quality of the potential nominee pool.

I think that's the eye-opener from all this. The tremendous quality of the pool considered.

And the final 3 were off the charts.

Why not nominate a NON-Ivy league graduate............talk about "misses".

Cosmo club member........yeah, THIS candidate really will speak for the "minorities" of this country..........

RRR, yeah a real shame she managed to get into Harvard, did so well that she got into Harvard Law, did so well there that she got a series of very high profile clerkships then a SCOTUS clerkship, all along crushing it, then high paid law firm only to chuck that to go be a public defender and fight for less privileged...she's the only (or one of the only) Scotus nominees to ever have defended anyone in a criminal case...then has over 200 opinions on successively higher judgeships...but hey, maybe not "black" enough for you?

Come on. All these potential nominees were incredibly well qualified. She should be overwhelmingly confirmed...but there are too many folks who think solely as partisans.

Including you? Is that not the entire point of this discussion. Partisan, applies to much-much more than political affiliation. I know you understand the argument, but you will never admit the mere fact that we 'have to' [insert race, edu institution] into our public discourse. It has become a perpetual flaw of our society. Why is it you only hear about this type of stuff when it only applies to law and the anything with .gov?

You seldom ever hear about race, or .edu backgrounds, when it comes to STEM. Which begs the question.....why is it that only the Ivy Leaguer's and lawyers seem to present themselves as the elitist's in the room, yet claim they are the furthest thing from it. It flirts with npd and narcissistic entitlement. Not implying this is you.

https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/educ ... -drew.html

We learned about him in elementary school.

Amazing how folks don't understand "why" we haven't heard about...

youth, not sure what you think I'm a "partisan" about. Yes, I was talking about "partisan" on behalf of a political party. Gotta vote against whatever the other party wants...that sort of partisan.

As an admittedly old-school moderate Republican, it's easy for me to say that voting "against", for partisan drill, is not the way it should be when in this sort of situation.

I'm a bit puzzled as to what your issue is with one's educational and then professional background being important to understanding the credentials and proven performance of someone being asked to do a very specific type of work.

We live in the Baltimore area...is it not reassuring when you know that the neurosurgeon working on your friend or family member went to XYZ undergrad and then Hopkins Medicine, did their residency at Hopkins, and has progressed to the top of their profession, performed hundreds of such surgeries, innovated cutting edge surgical procedures?

Don't need that for lots of things, but I know it's reassuring to me.

As to race and gender, yeah, it matters to bring more perspectives into these decisions. But I don't want just any ABC check the box person, I want the very best of the best. Thankfully, there are many such available...couldn't really say that 50 years ago...thank goodness we can now.

There is a poster on our forum who ridiculed Ben Carson upside down, backwards and sideways for being inept and incompetent. This poster is a white somewhat like myself cantankerous old guy who hates with due diligence even a successful black man. I correct that, a talented black pediatric neurosurgeon who happened to be a conservative Republican. The audacity of Dr Carson for straying off of the FLP reservation.

Nope, Carson was a terrific surgeon...awful when he went into politics. Two very different fields.

Dr Carson's goose was cooked after he embarrassed BHO at the prayer breakfast. That was before he became political. That is when the FLP long knives came after him with a vengeance. That is also when YOUR party latched onto to him as a potential asset.

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=dr ... &FORM=VIRE

Also quite the kook.
Some very, very strange "beliefs" beyond the political realm...

Maybe he was different, sharper, had his head screwed on, when he was younger coming up. My dad served on a school BD with him and found him always affable and a solid contributor. But somehow the wheels came off the bus as he grew older? Happens.

Look at Rudy.

There is a plethora of odd balls in our political system. Most of them cover it up by being silver tongued political devils. It is funny how so many of them are highly educated lawyers. I think Dr Carson had his head screwed on perfectly strait. I think your opinion is off base and down right insulting to the man. Would you have rather had Dr Carson as POTUS or DJT??? I would have been comfortable as hell with Ben Carson. The only downside he had against him was not being a career politician.

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Sat Feb 26, 2022 3:57 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 26, 2022 3:36 pm

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Sat Feb 26, 2022 3:15 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 26, 2022 3:01 pm

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Sat Feb 26, 2022 2:54 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 26, 2022 2:37 pm

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Sat Feb 26, 2022 10:34 am

youthathletics wrote: ↑Sat Feb 26, 2022 10:24 am

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 26, 2022 9:55 am

runrussellrun wrote: ↑Sat Feb 26, 2022 9:06 am

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 26, 2022 9:02 am

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Sat Feb 26, 2022 8:52 am

runrussellrun wrote: ↑Sat Feb 26, 2022 8:13 am

ggait wrote: ↑Fri Feb 25, 2022 7:02 pm

Farfromgeneva wrote: ↑Fri Feb 25, 2022 2:02 pm I read maybe one piece on the lady. I’m sure there’s politics involved but do people who really pay attention and aren’t just hysterical in either direction have any critical (not necessarily negative) observations of her candidacy?

Harvard College, Harvard Law School, SCOTUS clerk, DC Court of Appeals judge. Identical credentials to John Roberts and Merrick Garland.

Same/better credentials than the other SCOTUS judges.

As I posted before, there are TONS of people with these qualifications and they come in all colors, genders and ideologies. So it was completely ridiculous for right winger trolls to suggest that designating a black/woman somehow meant you had to cut corners on qualifications.

You only need to cut the corners on credentials if you are looking for activist conservative judges who also check some diversity boxes.

and all this time.....we thought actually, publically, advertize that they are only seeking a certain race to fill the job.....as wrong. illegal.

THAT.....is the problem. Can you imagine ANY other place getting away with such illegal employee hiring?

How about just nominate someone, without the "race" part

The more intelligent way to have done this was to never mention race or sex as a prerequisite for the job, and then go ahead and nominate her anyway.

yeah, like Reagan and Trump.

This was a no-brainer promise to an important constituency to rectify a 'miss' made over a couple hundred years.

And in no way compromised the quality of the potential nominee pool.

I think that's the eye-opener from all this. The tremendous quality of the pool considered.

And the final 3 were off the charts.

Why not nominate a NON-Ivy league graduate............talk about "misses".

Cosmo club member........yeah, THIS candidate really will speak for the "minorities" of this country..........

RRR, yeah a real shame she managed to get into Harvard, did so well that she got into Harvard Law, did so well there that she got a series of very high profile clerkships then a SCOTUS clerkship, all along crushing it, then high paid law firm only to chuck that to go be a public defender and fight for less privileged...she's the only (or one of the only) Scotus nominees to ever have defended anyone in a criminal case...then has over 200 opinions on successively higher judgeships...but hey, maybe not "black" enough for you?

Come on. All these potential nominees were incredibly well qualified. She should be overwhelmingly confirmed...but there are too many folks who think solely as partisans.

Including you? Is that not the entire point of this discussion. Partisan, applies to much-much more than political affiliation. I know you understand the argument, but you will never admit the mere fact that we 'have to' [insert race, edu institution] into our public discourse. It has become a perpetual flaw of our society. Why is it you only hear about this type of stuff when it only applies to law and the anything with .gov?

You seldom ever hear about race, or .edu backgrounds, when it comes to STEM. Which begs the question.....why is it that only the Ivy Leaguer's and lawyers seem to present themselves as the elitist's in the room, yet claim they are the furthest thing from it. It flirts with npd and narcissistic entitlement. Not implying this is you.

https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/educ ... -drew.html

We learned about him in elementary school.

Amazing how folks don't understand "why" we haven't heard about...

youth, not sure what you think I'm a "partisan" about. Yes, I was talking about "partisan" on behalf of a political party. Gotta vote against whatever the other party wants...that sort of partisan.

As an admittedly old-school moderate Republican, it's easy for me to say that voting "against", for partisan drill, is not the way it should be when in this sort of situation.

I'm a bit puzzled as to what your issue is with one's educational and then professional background being important to understanding the credentials and proven performance of someone being asked to do a very specific type of work.

We live in the Baltimore area...is it not reassuring when you know that the neurosurgeon working on your friend or family member went to XYZ undergrad and then Hopkins Medicine, did their residency at Hopkins, and has progressed to the top of their profession, performed hundreds of such surgeries, innovated cutting edge surgical procedures?

Don't need that for lots of things, but I know it's reassuring to me.

As to race and gender, yeah, it matters to bring more perspectives into these decisions. But I don't want just any ABC check the box person, I want the very best of the best. Thankfully, there are many such available...couldn't really say that 50 years ago...thank goodness we can now.

There is a poster on our forum who ridiculed Ben Carson upside down, backwards and sideways for being inept and incompetent. This poster is a white somewhat like myself cantankerous old guy who hates with due diligence even a successful black man. I correct that, a talented black pediatric neurosurgeon who happened to be a conservative Republican. The audacity of Dr Carson for straying off of the FLP reservation.

Nope, Carson was a terrific surgeon...awful when he went into politics. Two very different fields.

Dr Carson's goose was cooked after he embarrassed BHO at the prayer breakfast. That was before he became political. That is when the FLP long knives came after him with a vengeance. That is also when YOUR party latched onto to him as a potential asset.

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=dr ... &FORM=VIRE

Also quite the kook.
Some very, very strange "beliefs" beyond the political realm...

Maybe he was different, sharper, had his head screwed on, when he was younger coming up. My dad served on a school BD with him and found him always affable and a solid contributor. But somehow the wheels came off the bus as he grew older? Happens.

Look at Rudy.

"Look at Rudy."

Look at Joe... 10 years at least past his sell by date.

runrussellrun wrote: ↑Sat Feb 26, 2022 4:30 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 26, 2022 3:32 pm

runrussellrun wrote: ↑Sat Feb 26, 2022 3:06 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 26, 2022 2:37 pm

I'm a bit puzzled as to what your issue is with one's educational and then professional background being important to understanding the credentials and proven performance of someone being asked to do a very specific type of work.

For one simple reason........Ivy League or Howard U. law.......all have to pass the exact same BAR exam.

When know, Howard U. doesn't produce intelligent lawyers. Nor Maryland U law, for that matter

Absolutely nothing against Howard.

'But facts is facts'. Howard is ranked 91st in law schools.
LSAT required is 153 with median GPA of 3.4...34% acceptance rate.

Harvard is top 3 with Yale and Stanford.
LSAT 170 + with median GPA of 3.75...acceptance rate of 7%

ok, UMD...47.7% acceptance rate in 2020.

In terms of who to hire to do closing on your house purchase, probably best to not care so much about those sorts of credentials, but instead focus on whether your lawyer has done lots and lots of closings and they are affordable.

Probably not going to recommend that same gal or guy to be on SCOTUS, though.

So now you are trying to tell us that TOP law firms in Washington DC, don't represent financial entities, that , umm....dabble in "housing".

This is reality, based on your "hypothetical": and why I think you are wrong, as to whom would make a better Supreme to represent most Americans.

One is trying to figure out a way to screw you, drafting legislation for banks, big pharma, etc. and the other is trying to make sure you DON"T get screwed.

The former, IS what we always get. A big time DC law firm, impeccable pedigree and access to welfare, called "banking regulation. The latter, has to keep up with all the newly invented ways of screwing you, (laws) Mr. garbage truck driver of teacher. \

so yeah............if you went to Ivy welfare to educate, but could only pass the DC bar exam (talk about jokes, most of us could pass it today ) .....and not Californias.

I mean, if exams aren't worth anything, why have them ?

"we see you went to Harvard, but could only pass the Samoan online bar exam.....welcome to the club"

seacoaster wrote: ↑Sat Feb 26, 2022 11:06 am

youthathletics wrote: ↑Sat Feb 26, 2022 10:24 am

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 26, 2022 9:55 am

runrussellrun wrote: ↑Sat Feb 26, 2022 9:06 am

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 26, 2022 9:02 am

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Sat Feb 26, 2022 8:52 am

runrussellrun wrote: ↑Sat Feb 26, 2022 8:13 am

ggait wrote: ↑Fri Feb 25, 2022 7:02 pm

Farfromgeneva wrote: ↑Fri Feb 25, 2022 2:02 pm I read maybe one piece on the lady. I’m sure there’s politics involved but do people who really pay attention and aren’t just hysterical in either direction have any critical (not necessarily negative) observations of her candidacy?

Harvard College, Harvard Law School, SCOTUS clerk, DC Court of Appeals judge. Identical credentials to John Roberts and Merrick Garland.

Same/better credentials than the other SCOTUS judges.

As I posted before, there are TONS of people with these qualifications and they come in all colors, genders and ideologies. So it was completely ridiculous for right winger trolls to suggest that designating a black/woman somehow meant you had to cut corners on qualifications.

You only need to cut the corners on credentials if you are looking for activist conservative judges who also check some diversity boxes.

and all this time.....we thought actually, publically, advertize that they are only seeking a certain race to fill the job.....as wrong. illegal.

THAT.....is the problem. Can you imagine ANY other place getting away with such illegal employee hiring?

How about just nominate someone, without the "race" part

The more intelligent way to have done this was to never mention race or sex as a prerequisite for the job, and then go ahead and nominate her anyway.

yeah, like Reagan and Trump.

This was a no-brainer promise to an important constituency to rectify a 'miss' made over a couple hundred years.

And in no way compromised the quality of the potential nominee pool.

I think that's the eye-opener from all this. The tremendous quality of the pool considered.

And the final 3 were off the charts.

Why not nominate a NON-Ivy league graduate............talk about "misses".

Cosmo club member........yeah, THIS candidate really will speak for the "minorities" of this country..........

RRR, yeah a real shame she managed to get into Harvard, did so well that she got into Harvard Law, did so well there that she got a series of very high profile clerkships then a SCOTUS clerkship, all along crushing it, then high paid law firm only to chuck that to go be a public defender and fight for less privileged...she's the only (or one of the only) Scotus nominees to ever have defended anyone in a criminal case...then has over 200 opinions on successively higher judgeships...but hey, maybe not "black" enough for you?

Come on. All these potential nominees were incredibly well qualified. She should be overwhelmingly confirmed...but there are too many folks who think solely as partisans.

Including you? Is that not the entire point of this discussion. Partisan, applies to much-much more than political affiliation. I know you understand the argument, but you will never admit the mere fact that we 'have to' [insert race, edu institution] into our public discourse. It has become a perpetual flaw of our society. Why is it you only hear about this type of stuff when it only applies to law and the anything with .gov?

You seldom ever hear about race, or .edu backgrounds, when it comes to STEM. Which begs the question.....why is it that only the Ivy Leaguer's and lawyers seem to present themselves as the elitist's in the room, yet claim they are the furthest thing from it. It flirts with npd and narcissistic entitlement. Not implying this is you.

And I thought you knew something about original sin. Guess not.

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 26, 2022 5:07 pm

This is reality, based on your "hypothetical": and why I think you are wrong, as to whom would make a better Supreme to represent most Americans.

One is trying to figure out a way to screw you, drafting legislation for banks, big pharma, etc. and the other is trying to make sure you DON"T get screwed.

Th

You seldom ever hear about race, or .edu backgrounds, when it comes to STEM. Which begs the question.....why is it that only the Ivy Leaguer's and lawyers seem to present themselves as the elitist's in the room, yet claim they are the furthest thing from it. It flirts with npd and narcissistic entitlement. Not implying this is you.

ggait wrote: ↑Sat Feb 26, 2022 7:57 pm

You seldom ever hear about race, or .edu backgrounds, when it comes to STEM. Which begs the question.....why is it that only the Ivy Leaguer's and lawyers seem to present themselves as the elitist's in the room, yet claim they are the furthest thing from it. It flirts with npd and narcissistic entitlement. Not implying this is you.

You obviously never applied to law school, attended law school, never tried to get a job at a law firm, never did any hiring for a law firm, and never talked to a lawyer or law student.

Had you experience with any of that, you would know that the legal industry (right or wrong) cares intensely about credentials. That's just how we are (right or wrong) and have been for forever.

What other industry would care (a lot) about whether you went to the 14th ranked law school in the country vs. the 15th? Any hiring partner in the country knows that there's the T14, and that school #15 is just not a member of that club.

And plenty of other industries are like that. Including tech. The programmers at Google come overwhelmingly from a small set of engineering schools.
Just like their founders do -- Bezos/Princeton, Gates/Harvard, Page and Brin/Stanford, Zuckerberg/Harvard....