Ilya Shapiro DENOUNCES Georgetown U's Woke Censorship, Free Speech Threatened On Campus: Robby Soave
Vložit
- čas přidán 6. 06. 2022
- Author of Supreme Disorder, and former senior lecturer at Georgetown University Law Center, Ilya Shapiro, breaks down his decision to resign from Georgetown University.
About Rising:
Rising is a weekday morning show with bipartisan hosts that breaks the mold of morning TV by taking viewers inside the halls of Washington power like never before. The show leans into the day's political cycle with cutting edge analysis from DC insiders who can predict what is going to happen. It also sets the day's political agenda by breaking exclusive news with a team of scoop-driven reporters and demanding answers during interviews with the country's most important political newsmakers.
Follow Rising on social media:
Website: Hill.TV
Facebook: HillTVLive/
Instagram: @HillTVLive
Twitter: @HillTVLive
Narrowing a choice by color or gender exclusively will naturally limit choices that may be excluding candidates of better qualification. Case in point Kamala Harris.
Lies. Because she wasn’t even the most qualified within his short list. She’s a bad candidate period. I liked Val Demmings
Yeah, you must've hated it when Reagan narrowed his Supreme Court nominations to women after pledging to nominate a woman to the Supreme Court.
So you think Amy Coney Barrett, who was rammed through, and labeled as unqualified by the bar association, was a better choice? But you’re upset that the most qualified justice in the history of the court is black and a woman? Methinks there might be some issues here.
@@jamesprisciandaro3144 so, you're saying you're okay with sexist discrimination because Reagan did it first? Or you dont care either way?
@@ffffnnnnul2125 please refer to my comment above.
This guy could have taken the wind out of Briahna's sails by simply saying "maybe objectively wasn't the correct word".
True, but he didn't.
@@thespicypimp423 I don't think he even meant the word "objectively", based on his own reasoning. This guy is obviously a little slower when it comes to the notion of "choose your battles wisely".
He probably has too much pride. He is trying to be a martyr.
@@andrewflanders262 Exactly. I would think that as an author and attorney, he would understand that words matter. He lost that battle all on his own.
Exactly.... that would have shut her on up.
Our "feelings" is gonna get us in big trouble🤦🏽♀️
💯!
Yep!
Already have....
This was supposed to be a segment on censorship not on why he thought someone was a better candidate.
Not to belabor your point, but that's what Bri does...
She did make a good point he quit he was not cancelled so to speak. Not good on the side of the University but it's not a story of cancel culture.
This is also what happens when lawyers discuss things. They belaboring
Her point went directly to the claim of censorship. She was trying to give him the opportunity to make a logical, coherent argument, which the conclusion should not be censored. The two other options left was the argument he was making was racist or to understand where the mistake was made for future correction (which should not be punished)
She went prosecutor mode and instead of citing court cases he went on promoting his book. This made him look impulsive and not capable of weighing in on the subject to begin with.
Although Bri has a point, this is not the first black woman that could have gone on to the supreme court. Judge Janice Rogers Brown was nominated by Bush.
LOL... I read about her back then..... She was a solid Yes!
If you thought Clarence Thomas hearings were bad... worse would have
described the Brown hearings.
But from my understanding Bri’s main point was to get him to clarify what he meant by objectively more qualified. And even in the end she gave him the easiest, I’m not a layup question. He should’ve easily been able to say “yea hypothetically if every candidate had the exact same credentials then it is understandable to consider race and gender in aims of having a more diverse court with equal qualifications and experience”
but was never going to get the job, let's be honest. It was a purely token consideration (a Black woman had never been formally nominated before Jackson).
I think he meant "Objectively" like how people talk on twitter, not in the legal or literal sense. "LeBron James is Objectively better than MIchael Jordan"... Thats just how people talk on twitter. "I Literally almost died from walking a mile outside in the sun"...Objectively, literally in the online world shouldnt be taken seriously
@@spencerdickson9693 no I agree but I don’t understand why when Bri was pressing him on that verbiage he didn’t just say “it’s my opinion because of _______ ruling while serving on the district courts” or something like that. He really didn’t have to come off as if he was trying to skate around the question. On principle I understand and want to support his decision to leave. He stated an opinion and was hammered for it and next time he has an unpopular opinion he will be fired. But this interview wasn’t great and made him come off as someone who winks and nods to bad faith actors
- "What is a woman?"
- "I'm not a biologist"
Yeah terrible choice
Exactly! Then maybe you shouldn't be a JUDGE where you'll be required to make JUDGEMENTS on topics that you are not a professional expert. If that is the standard, then she'd need to recuse herself from 100% of trials.
I talked about the nomination with my black friend who is an Engineer in a very male dominated field, the only woman in their office btw. She said that she is reminded subtly at times that she punched the ticket for being female and black, what bothers her about all of this is that she wants to know that she was selected because of her qualifications. I would feel the same I believe. So the public will never respect a black woman in a position selected by the president if he announces that he will pick a black woman. I am not sure how to fix this but we could start by just being all Americans first?
👏
Absolutely. 100% agree. 👍🏿
Agreed.
THANK YOU. AMEN.
Woke policy: You're free to say anything that doesn't offend me.
Trump policy: You’re free to say anything that doesn’t offend me.
Extremist ideologues are exactly what they are but why do you conceal them to just the woke tribe?
Going to college was a little difficult because they involved in politics in almost every freaking class and argued so much wokeness. I felt uncomfortable because they were racist towards white people, I was witnessing racism obvious in front of me and when I pointed it out to a professors they got upset with me and told me I was incorrect in front of the whole class.
Briahna: "I don't mean to belabor the point."
*proceeds to belabor the irrelevant pedantic point for the rest of the segment*
Exactly how was it irrelevant? He made the point if saying "objectively better choice" and all she was asked him to do was clarify exactly how they were objectively better. It was part of the foundation of his whole argument. he didn't need to include that, he could have simply stated it's not a good idea to narrow your choices by race and gender and left it at that but he didn't...
@AndreVsHimself Again: It was irrelevant to the story.
This would be like her harping on a grammatical error in the article. Even if she was right, totally irrelvant.
The problem with KBJ isn't that she isn't qualified. It's that her qualifications came 3rd.
1 being a woman
2 being black
3 qualifications.
lol....and this is not something new...did you have this same energy for the decades of justices that were selected because 1) Male 2) WHITE and 3) qualifications or does your scrutiny only apply to when its done to benefit poc?
@@alorenzopadamsfilm7115 so your excuse for current discrimination is past discrimination? Nothing like a Democrat to say because of our parties past discrimination that we get to keep discriminating.
But when Trump repeatedly said his next SCOTUS Justice would be a woman, where was all this disgust? 🧐
@@aaronsondag8347 yea In some cases. And I’m NOT a democrat. Black people didn’t get reparations for a country they help build so why not
I like that she defended Guantanamo prisoners. She should have snapped back at Lindsey Graham and Cornyn because GW Bush and Rumsfeld WERE war criminals.
Choosing people for almost anything by race and gender is fundamentally wrong. Not just morally; it's a lousy way to make a decision.
Briahna's not wrong that there are historical injustices that have led to, for example, fewer women and fewer black people going to law school, which of course leads to fewer women and black people in the legal profession, and fewer candidates to draw from for judicial nominations and other positions of legal power.
But having a token black female SCOTUS justice isn't going to change anything about how the historical injustices have affected women and black people at large. It'll just temporarily elevate one person, with an asterisk, as Shapiro points out. And that asterisk stands for a fundamentally bad decision-making process rooted in the same problematic thinking that led to the historical injustices.
The way to solve those historical injustices is to get more women and black people into the legal profession, to develop their own minds and create a source of power that doesn't have to be propped up by the same institutions that oppressed them in the first place. If there are obstacles to that, let's identify those and get them out of the way, so that this change can happen in an organic, lasting way, and someday we can have a black, female SCOTUS justice who got there without some disingenuous white man picking her for diversity points.
I very much appreciate your comment. If we want to get a grasp of America's history we must document it, for example if you live in a town where Chinese migrants build railroads then we should have something to remind us, a mural or something so that awareness is raised, we should have much to remind us of who's land this was before the Explorers arrived, other countries have murals, plaques to remind the citizens of those who sacrificed before us. America has a brutal history, so do most European countries but they reckon with it and talk about it for the people to respect those that look different and not repeat the sins of their forefathers. I don't know if I expressed it properly but I think if we as a society see our history it would change our relationship with other ethnic groups.
As much as I hate woke culture, I have to laugh at right wingers and their constant need to be victimized and play the victim. You guys all belong on a soap opera. Whoa is me!! LOL 🤡
Most of the current justices don't have a decent resume, just that they are old white men.
It's not mere appearance; white men have an interest in keeping the status quo, and most white people have a blind spot to injustices that doesn't touch them.
Black women are necessary to be there!
I mostly agree but Shapiro comments were racist
@@Mont3000
What specifically was racist about what he said?
This is a lot of irrelevant talk masking what is a simple disagreement on affirmative action.
Edit: And my opinion is that he wasn't criticized for poor wording although that didn't help. It was open season on him because he doesn't support affirmative action.
And again Bri your issue is that Biden called it before he looked. And that approach will hurt people when and if down the road the politics changes again. And why Bri can’t understand this is because she doesn’t care to.
She wants to work for the White House eventually, so she’s afraid of crossing the woke status quo.
Briahna is basically calling Mr Shapiro racist. Why would you do this. You're worried about student feeling safe in his class. What about all of the conservative student across the country that can't voice their opinions on campus without fear of repercussions or dismissals from campuss?
They aren’t ‘dismissed’ from campus, they are shown the abhorrent nature of their viewpoint and they run. Free speech is free speech, you’re entitled to voice your views on campus, and everyone else is entitled to shame you. It sounds like you might be looking for, dare I say it, a safe space.
Since when are students supposed to feel safe in class?
She’s not calling him racist. I actually still don’t understand what he meant that someone else was “objectively qualified”.
I'm a student at a large University right now, and the concerns about free speech are completely accurate. However, I disagree with your characterization of Brianha's question. He stated his preferred candidate was "objectively better." Three times she asked him to elaborate and he dodged the question. He could just have said it was a subjective opinion--but he refused. It's not like sports where you can use points per game, batting avg, etc. But he could cite some of their work---where he thinks his candidate excels. He just avoids the question.
Lesser black woman??? That deserves blowback especially because she was deemed highly qualified.
Briahna: "You must see".... no, Ms. Bias, he doesn't. And picking people based on race and gender is actually racist.
How many men have served as Supreme Court Justices. Was it wrong for them to be chosen?
If your main reason for hiring a person for the Supreme Court all the way down to a Dishwasher, because of their skin tone, or what’s between their legs, that’s totally wrong. Not to hard to figure out Brie.
Yet skin tone and between legs is why so many unqualified old white men sit on the Supreme Court as justices.
I never thought of the word "objective" as triggering.
Lol right????
The Woke have major issues with it because it's seen as a power move under the critical theory lenses. In their world all is subjective.
Because he misused it and isn’t man enough to say that he should’ve said subjectively. He still never gave an example of how the other person was better
People that get triggered when they are asked to define what a woman is get triggered by just about everything else too.
@@IAintTheDaddyMaury The reasons various people are groomed for specific jobs in Federal and State power structures are as boring to most people as watching paint dry. "Identities" are not relevant. The apparent relevance is just rabble rousing for TV watchers.
I love Bri, but this is the first time she really did belabor the point.
I'm pro free speech and against woke mobery, but the fact that the guy couldnt give a single reason why one nominee was superior is pretty sus.
That background. "Buy my book, buy my book, buy my book, buy my book" disguised as an interview.
He was still wronged.
His assessment of the situation is correct. He would've been under severe scrutiny over any of his actions
No such thing as consequence freeze peach like the kids say 🤷🏾♂️
@@TCt83067695 The actions he’s be facing consequences for are required by his job. If he’s commenting on things going on in court, like he said in the video he’s bound to say something that will rub SOMEONE the wrong way. If he has to go through an investigation every time he does his job he may as well not have that job
Director for the Georgetown Center for the Constitution is first and foremost a Public Relations position. Fair or not, he displayed a lack of public relations skills. If he wants to tweet whatever he wants, that is fine, but then a different position, such as simply Professor of Law, would be a "better fit."
@@reinsmano I don't understand. Are you suggesting consequence free speech is the way to go? Do you want to restrict other people's free speech right to criticize his future inartful/offensive tweets?
If not, then how do you expect the university to deal with the future backlash? Fire his inarticulate behind without doing proper investigation?
I'm not sure that's fair.
@@TCt83067695 The issue isn’t his takes being criticized, that’s being disingenuous. The school launching a full investigation on him as a result of said criticism is the issue. They shouldn’t have done anything, if you’re going to assume the worst interpretation of everything people say and fire them on that basis, you probably shouldn’t be anyone’s boss. That’s the whole issue, they didn’t punish based on a technicality and not just the fact that he can say what he wants as an individual and have opinions that differ from the school admin. That opens everything he says after to investigations from the school, probably over more minor things than what caused the first investigation
This was a segment about higher learning having a broad and open speech policy that they are not following in favor of feelings. Instead Brianna highjacked the segment to argue over the wording used in the tweet instead of the school not following their own free speech policy. She showed Robby complete disrespect and I'm sure she feel totally justified because in her mind her feels are more important than robby's segment.
Whenever you see the words diversity, equity and inclusion, run in the other direction. You're dealing with authoritarians.
💯💯💯
Gosh Brianna’s true image has finally emerged. She’s an insufferable race baiter
Yea, non authoritarians say things like ‘white only’! Cool argument bro.
Never fight back
@@Robert_Jacobs Found the authoritarian. You must believe with all your heart your'e a liberal, right?😂
Just remember every worthless policy and every problem in America and around the world can be traced back to a bunch of people that have degree's from the top colleges that says all you need to know about these degree's they appear to be nothing more then worthless pieces of paper.
No, they are not worthless pieces of paper. They are membership cards into the club of the elites and the Washington D.C. establishment. They are useless pieces of paper but they are not worthless pieces of paper.
"they appear to be nothing more then worthless pieces of paper"
Add: And 5-6 figures of student loan debt.
Wow that is the greatest policy of "Speech" published in a long time. Too bad Georgetown doesn't follow their own policy :(
Bri. how many Native Americans have served the bench? shouldnt they be at the top of the woke representation list? oh wait that doesnt fit the narrative.
Briahna “I don’t mean to belabor the point” Also Briahna-*spends 10 minutes belaboring the point*
Because Shapiro didn't answer the question.
Be ol boy could support his tweet. He’s playing victim while not being able to explain his stance which shows to me that he is acting in bad faith with the original tweet
It is what I like about her. 😊
If he would answer the question, instead of giving a politician's answer and dancing around, then maybe she wouldn't have to go after him. You WANT reporters or journalists to hold people to account. Or do you want to let them go scot-free? What is your complaint here?
Briahna needs to get her feelings out of the discussion. I know she just wants to debate him, but there’s a time and place. Robbie had to step in.
She completely missed the point. It’s a free speech issue, she is allowed to disagree with his assertion, what she doesn’t get is he doesn’t get the same freedom since he’s on the wrong side of the aisle. Her side will never stop in it’s censorship
One big problem with your statement. He wasn’t censored, he wasn’t fired, he resigned.
@@Robert_Jacobs but people who work for the university and students wanted him fired and demanded it. Also the guy is on the same side as them
@@aaronsondag8347 isn’t it their free speech to say that? He WASN’T fired
She understands that and said he shouldn’t have been reprimanded though..
@@Robert_Jacobs I think the months long investigation and shaming by the administration would constitute censorship, perhaps even workplace harassment.
Really wanted to hear this guy out but he’s not helping his case. Bri asked him twice, why “objectively” did he feel the other candidate was better than Jackson. Objective was the term he used to support his reasoning why he preferred the other candidate. He gave NO specifics, but only to say that he knows their records and that that could be up for debate. That DOES NOT answer the question.
Objective criteria are based on hard facts, figures, numbers, etc and usually are not up for debate. If a school’s criteria to admit students into school is at least a 3.7 gpa. That’s objective-there’s no debating that. Either the student has at least a 3.7 or they don’t. A subjective criteria would be something like “the student is inspirational.” Different people find different things inspirational and that is up for debate. I find him not giving ANY concrete example of the “objective” criteria used in his decision making suspect and unconvincing.
His point was that no one attacked his claim on the merits. His claim, even if it were wrong, was attacked in bad faith on grounds of supposed racism as a way of silencing dissent, of which it was clear from the context of the tweets that this was not the case as, Bri admitted in this segment.
She came prepared with her statement and her proof. Usually they will give you a list of questions that they're going to ask so you can prepare an answer, I am assuming that either they didn't tell him that she was going to ask that question so he could give a informed answer or he simply refused not to prepare. I'm going to guess she decided to ask a question that he wasn't prepared to answer. Which was to give substantive proof of his assertion about another person.
Agreed!
@@Beerbaby if he sent that tweet months ago then clearly he already had the proof of why the other candidate was objectively better. Especially since he’s not even progressive
@@steverose3157 which he still was unable to provide what the merits of his claims were by punting on the reasons why the other person was better.
Seems to me like he made the statement in order to be contrarian in bad faith
very qualified nominees like KBJ, who can't define what a woman is.
He quit. Theres no problem here.
Not sure why he's resisting elaborating why Sri was "objectively" the best choice, which is the literal word he used. He says such a position is debatable, but then that makes it subjective and not objective, which is Bri's point. If that was a poor choice of word then he should just say so before pointing out that that wasn't the main substance of the attacks against him anyway. Instead he dodges the question multiple times, which is suspicious.
This 👌🏽
Beyond suspicious.
You mean like 8:05 where he says his argument was inartfully phrased?
He wrote an article about it. Why not read that?
@@davidgoodnow269
These guys don't know what they want. He said immutable traits like race shouldn't be a determining factor...yet he said his candidate had identity politics on his side🤦♂️. All they care about is race and sexuality! They try so hard to be anti racist...that they end up being racist🤣
Oh no. I don't think this guy was trying not to be anti racist. Like at all. He was more interested in doing a misogonoir
I find his circumvention of answering even the essence of Brianna’s questions troubling….objective qualifications should be the standard period, but often with equally qualified candidates there is one outside factor or criteria that puts one ahead of the other.
She's such a distinguished Supreme Court Justice she can't even define a woman. These people are there to interpret law aka words written. What a joke
to be fair, the law's definition of woman changes depending on the context.
That should be fixed and it should be consistent, but sadly that's not how it is irl.
Bri is part of the anti-whyte agenda
@@BDnevernind Glo bo Ho mo foot soldier
@@NikkiTheViolist not really. woman=adult human female
Ummm. He decided he was going to quit way before they made the decision. A simple request of, “is the current free speech policy still in effect?” would have generated an answer or requesting the college reiterate its free speech policy.
Too bad, it’s his prerogative. The university, ironically, should have chosen their words more carefully when citing the timing of his controversial statements as their reason for not reprimanding him.
@@David_1789 it is his prerogative but he should just be honest about what happened. He was going to quit no matter what was found. Now he gets to play the vindicated martyr. A better route would have been to play the leader “i have already apologized for my poorly worded post but I will not have my character impugned by a pretend investigation that goes against university free speech policies. The college has 48 hrs to end this investigation or I will sue the school, take the settlement, and then resign.”
I think you should of gone ahead, take the job and fight any further judgement on your views. Who else on campus will do this? This is a free speech issue which now you cannot address.
BJG is completing missing the point! The point is that you should NOT pick a SCOTUS based just on race or gender!!!
She purposefully missed the point because BJG actually believes that race and gender is an excellent way to pick people for powerful positions, so she had to bash the guest over the head with a minor semantic disagreement. She's a dedicated culture warrior and that's it.
Skin color should NOT be a criteria for employment as it arguably adds a component of discrimination. Period. When applied to a group, affirmative action as a concept, can be much more nuanced.
Is KBJ the best Scotus pick Biden could have chosen? Or just the best available black woman? I don't know and no one ever will. I would hate to be chosen in this way based on innate characteristics and not based on my skill. KBJ was not chosen based on skill.
Biden didn’t choose anyone. He doesn’t even know what day of the week it is.
They tried to silence him in the future so he decided not to go through the hassle. Understandable.
Can we all agree to reject Bri’s racist Marxist takes?
No.
She’s a midwit lunatic.
Nope
Yes she’s partisan hack. With her It’s never about figuring out the truth is always about “but the right”
It is sad to think someone so accomplished, smart, and strong be an advocate for racist quotas to be filled. Shouldn't we want the most qualified person rather than "the most qualified person with *specific designation" to be in positions of power in our court system and governing bodies?
The Us will have to devise some apolitical way of appointing justices and rediscover the advantages of having benches of neutral non-partisan judges who apply the law not make it
BJG seemed to have a rehearsed gotcha argument that clearly didn’t work irrespective of whether Shapiro’s assessment was subjective or objective, yet her persistence with it was cringe.
“All things being equal…”
Students might be concerned 😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣BJG is so woke.
Brianna is always obtuse on purpose
My god, no wonder Bernie's 2020 campaign sank - I had been excited about Brihana being on this show because of her proximity to Bernie, but she's totally Identity politics to the exclusion of substance. This segment is about a guy who opined on who would be the best progressive SCOTUS nominee and the hostile work environment that resulted from his phraseology, and she won't shut up about identity politics!
You are spot on. She should not be a host of this program because she displays little objectivity.
You can't have objectivity when most of your criteria are purely qualitatively subjective.
Its hard to have free speach when your head is in a gillotine. University bureaucrats are weak and falsely inshrining equality (virtue) when we all know positions are awarded through hiring commitee self-interest. Its a shame that being non-political, trumps brilliance . Only 13% of the US population is black so statistically its probably unreasonable to expect parity given the smaller pool? Supreme court judges should be exempilars in a legal specialization. I'd arguing expanded their numbers would dilute bias. Having justices hearing cases only along their declared sub-specializations may also make sense.
"Hearing," NO, absolutely not, because there need to be multiple viewpoints weighing factors. Having each Supreme Court Justice be a recognized expert, the very best, at a legal specialty to lead questioning and argument once the court closes for debate, ABSOLUTELY YES!
Even worse, Woe Biden only considered black women, which are a miniscule 6.5% of the population
Once again Brihana misses the trees for her ideological forest.
Possibly the best interview I've seen on the show so far. Both sides of the argument had very well articulated points offered in a cordial discourse. This is how all debates should be.
Nobody could get the wrong impression unless they wanted to.
Seems like any mention of Tokenism (the sister of nepotism) sets Briahana off. She must realize "Positive action hiring" is a two edged sord, often undermining qualified minority candidates. An apolitical method for Judicial selection would probably be better for enshrining division of power - with diversity of opinion not diversity of skin colour more important for the courts.(In Canada we have the apple analogy). Good of Shapiro (under attack) to say all candidates were qualified and can do the job. - but didn't seem like B was treating Shapiro as a guest - looked like she was ready to waterboard him. Her violent bent not enetertaining. - where did she get her law degree?
Briahna, once again didn't do her homework about the timeline of his comments, it didn't have anything to do with anything other the narrowing of Biden's criteria limitations which he argues that in the position of Supreme Court should not be limited to race and gender but qualifications. If a Black Women ended up with those better qualifications, so be it. So predictable that Briahna refuses to see his distinction.
Time doesn't matter. He said she's objectively superior to any (black) person at any time. Turns out, he's wrong.
He subjectively believes that he's objectively the best.
The same way most people say "literally" when they're talking about something metaphorically. Colloquial language is a thing...
The fact that he did not want to explain why one judge was better qualify than the other says it all. Dude even got agitated. Great question from Briahna
A 5 minute segment isn’t the place for a deep dive on candidate merit, case rulings, background... that is easily a 20 to 30 minute discussion. Brihanna should know this and instead uses this platform to push a potentially “but this or that” as I’ve seen here do here countless times. What she SHOULD have done is ask for another time to go through his candidacy, maybe on her own podcast. What he did do was right to avoid anything taken out of context as there is no way a proper dialogue could happen.
I am interested though to know more about Sri
No Bri, you do mean to belabor the point. You don't want to discuss the actions of Georgetown. And when he is talking "bad faith", yeah, that would be you.
We are living the Salem witch trials
So is it really a bad thing that a "Supreme Court expert" that doesn't put thought into his wording is not filling a jo at Georgetown?
I wonder if Ilya Shapiro would maintain his "objectivity" if someone was questioning the qualifications of a Jewish supreme court judge. He fails to even acknowledge and engage with Brie's point and just gets super testy and agitated.
That's because she, and you, are willfully ignoring his point to play the victim. AGAIN!!!!!
@@reedwright301 tell me which part of brie’s words was her playing victim and which part of my words are me playing victim?
antisemitic comment? should i be disturbed? should i report?
@@peetky8645 yes! Report me to the IDF terrorists!
Plenty of Jews out there criticize other Jews. I'm betting he had opinions on Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
After watching this clip I’m starting to understand why Briahna calls her show the *bad faith podcast.* Also you can’t use the “all things being equal” argument when race and gender was used not just as a factor but a prerequisite for the job.
Bad Faith Bree owns a strawman factory apparently because she always got another one.
So the most qualified Supreme Court justice in the history of the court is bad….because she is ALSO black and a woman? Amy Coney Barrett got rammed through and the bar association called her unqualified. Where’s your righteous indignation there? That seems WAY more like affirmative action to me.
For years and currently this country used race in every aspect of life. Racist white supremacists always omit that. And notice it's always white males.
Yes, please Brianna, stay on topic. He said the candidate was the best candidate over everybody else, not just black women.
Intelligent black women bother you. We get it.
She asked what criteria did you use to say the candidate was objectively better.
Brianna, would you lead a discussion on: how to reconcile 2 conflicting values. Specifically: immutable characteristics of white and man were used to eliminate from consideration anyone who did not meet those physical guidelines. Good..bad..not a problem? Assuming bad...was it bad because immutable characteristics are not the basis for ability to do the job?...or...bad because you don't like the characteristics in use?...or...something else? Then.............
.............how do we decide in the present in light of those bad restrictions being used in the past? Do we use the same model...only change the characteristics? If so....when does that no longer need to be used? How do we reconcile the values of: each person on his/her actual merit with the values of different thinking/experiences/perspectives ultimately strengthening the overall decision-making and society by intentionally seeking/fostering such? (For ex.: Brown Jackson is the first Justice with experience as a public defender...diversity that matters. Coney Barrett did not go to an Ivy League school...diversity that matters. Other examples support diversity of thought/experience/perspectives, imo.)
Great segment 👏 @BJG the issue is free speech, not whether you agree or not.
@spider liberty She's also a Harvard grad that claims systemic racism still exists.
@@Dr.Frankensteen ummmm, my guy, systemic racism absolutely unequivocally exists. Just because she went to Harvard doesn’t mean racism suddenly evaporated. All you have to do is look at the sentencing of the same crime for black people compared to white people.
He can't answer a simple question?
And here I was thinking the right to free speech meant the guarantee of protection from government prosecution. Guess it's about private individuals now.
Thanks Briahna for holding him accountable for the statement. He had a really difficult time responding to the objective qualities that made Sri a better candidate.
As a discussion...I thought she did a poor job. Rising: We invite you on to discuss your views regarding (the lack of) free speech on colleges. Briahna: Not going to talk about that, instead...don't you see how some people might feel about what you said..... Viewer: you just proved his point. Without pushing the discussion about the shut-down culture and how speech now must first be checked regarding how some will hear it. As he said, the veto power. Not saying he's right or wrong. But that would have been a discussion worthy of Rising and of her. As it was, all she accomplished was....(imo) nothing. Sorry, I was very frustrated by her approach. And certainly the result was nothing.
Black women, black men should never want to be picked because of their skin color or gender. That's for their benefit, our benefit, everyone's benefit except the person making the selection, which helps them sleep better at night and a lot of time hide their own biases.
It does not matter if he says objectively, it is still his opinion that based on resume one was more qualified. It is okay to have different opinions.
He is right though. Biden should have stayed silent about his VP and Supreme Court pick. You can let your critics say it is what you are doing, targeting a woman, minority, etc. but then you can come back with the "We only considered the best candidates" line. But by saying, we only want a woman and even worse, we only want a black woman you have already doomed them to lifetime criticism.
Bingo!!!!!
Then they could only be arguing over who was more qualified, which is subjective. Although we would all know just like kackle
You all think Brianna took this personally?
Director for the Georgetown Center for the Constitution is first and foremost a Public Relations position. Fair or not, he displayed a lack of public relations skills. If he wants to tweet whatever he wants, that is fine, but then a different position, such as simply Professor of Law, would be a "better fit."
Obviously katanji Brown Jackson is not smart because when asked "what is a woman" she thought that she would have to be a biologist to explain what a woman is.
Reagan :” I will name a woman to the SCOTUS”.
How can Ketanji Brown Jackson be qualified when she don't know what a women is and she is going to judge on these issues someday.
I think Brianna is a cold hearted woman cause she goes after the receipts like a hunter lol. I like having her on the show she isn't afraid to ask the question again when people don't answer. Keep it up! ❤
Right not afraid to ask a relatively random libertarian a question until he says “that’s my opinion it’s fine to have yours too.” Yea Really got him there. Just as long as it’s not asking questions of progressive leaning institutions she really goes after it
I think Briahna is demonstrating bad faith as usual.. she knew she had him in a corner with the unrelated choice of words "objectively better candidates", and so she pounded that, while ignoring the issue of Georgetown acquiescing to wokeness. She brought little of value to this segment.
@@tilleryinnovations592 it's not silly to believe that one candidate is better than another. Bri's "all things being equal" stipulation towards the end was truly silly. There's not such thing as two equal candidates in this universe.
@@andrewflanders262 she was playing the devils advocate , I don't think she took a side in whether she believed what the school did initially was wrong or not . However he wasn't there to discuss why he believed Jackson wasn't a good candidate, but his "objective " reasoning is key to his tweet.
@@neildeaton1183 well if he would have answered the question the first time maybe they would have focused more on what you said. I'm not taking a side by the way
His tweet was clear, and on point, which that Biden made his selection based upon race and gender, and not ability.
Except for the fact that catanza brown Jackson is more qualified than the last three judges that sat on the bench that had never even sat on a bench
@@RosieRoserules Huh???
"The original point I was trying to make with the tweet is now beside the point" She is repeatedly handing you a chance to exalt your candidate on a silver platter, a chance to rise above the bs and have your intended message heard, but you continually resist and would rather make a case for how what you said isn't racist. Either your candidate really sucks, or you really are a f-cking racist, and either way I'm amazed that someone who claims to be an expert on Supreme Court issues, which requires a keen ability to see the big picture, can be so clueless. I'm not often shocked by political stories and commentary, but this one is mind blowing.
He self canceled. Sorry but if you tweeted a clumsy worded statement that sounds racially insensitive, you deserve blowback. Plus he couldn't explain his preferred candidate record and why they was better. I wonder did he say the same for any other candidate? Good segment but he self canceled.
Exactly!! And is now wanting to play victim
"Sorry but if you tweeted a clumsy worded statement that sounds racially insensitive, you deserve blowback." Not if you clarified what you meant. Whether he was right about the other candidate's being better qualified or not, the point is that he was arguing that this SHOULD have been the criterion. Someone else could have countered that KBJ is better or equally qualified, which would have been fine. But, from a strategic point of view, if the Dems wanted KBJ because she was a black woman they could just have put her forward without announcing their reason. Whereas now they've made people suspicious of KBJ's suitability.
Brianna completely ruined this interview. We wound up learning nothing because it took her 20 minutes to understand what was going on
Robby has two modes:
Cancel culture bad
Government bad
Bri has 2 modes
Govt in charge of your life good
Capitalism bad
Oh maybe 3, white people bad too
And he's not wrong on those things, but he's not thorough in his analysis or his thoughts on why that is the case.
Love em both
Bri has one mode: annoying
She's obsessed with objective vs subjective. Does she actually believe that's what people were upset about?
Bri really missed the point here, as usual, because it went against her politics. She can't see that he also essentially said every white man was also inferior. Or every other race. She is such an ideologue that it really ruins her often poignant takes.
Naw the dude just couldn’t support his original comments. She understood and SAID that he shouldn’t have been reprimanded for his tweets
Exactly, he never answered the question. All he had to do is answer the questions and he didn’t. The key phrase was “OBJECTIVELY”.
@Emily Stornetta so because his opinion as to why his preferred candidate was better was so thoroughly thought out and well researched that it would take hours to explain…..he couldn’t give ONE. SINGLE. Example? Come on. He got caught in a petty tantrum where he suffered nothing and couldn’t justify his position. This was Robbie’s friend hoping for sympathy.
@Emily Stornetta and do you have a problem that the most qualified Supreme Court nominee in the history of the court is a black woman? I would love to hear your outrage about Amy Coney Barrett being rammed through while the bar association called her completely unqualified.
I agree. I am glad she is back (and not the host from Monday). She knowingly misses the point though. She is very smart but unable to fathom that there are alternative viewpoints atop her blinding 'moral high ground.'
She just had a point to make with Ilya Shaperio and was hellbent on making it. Even though anyone that has ever heard her speak before (or could make up an Affirmative Action defense) would be able to put together what she tried to hijack the segment about.
an Elitist school like that... i am shocked ..!!! lol
At the very end, Bri finally got Ilya to say what she wanted him to say...
So much for objective
She was harassing him.
Bri, you are part of the problem. This is about free speech. Nothing more, nothing less. Does he have the right to speak freely? Do you and others have the right to criticize? Can both be done without it being policed by his employer, which you must understand is very important in academia. Ideas must be allowed to be expressed and debated freely in academia to advanced society and truth.
Excellently stated!!~*
Margaret, I can agree with the point you are trying to make, but Bri also repeatedly pointed to the fact that he WASN’T censored, he just didn’t like their justification. And when she asked him to explain his opinion on the tweets that caused the issue, he folded faster than a piece of paper. His point is hollow because he resigned, so this was just a glorified tantrum.
Bri needs to let guests finish their points before interrupting in an emotionally charged manner. She needs more patience. Glad she actually let him finish towards the end of the video. Talk about an awkward ending lol
Definitely! I have become annoyed at her role as co-host. She tends to steer the conversation away from the primary topic and cut off guests and Robby. Which is odd because I really enjoyed her as a guest or panelist.
Great segment. Nice to see a host push back and debate with the guest.
Bri is part of academia's anti-white agenda
The o word... So flawed and limited but still needed in human thought.
This dude could have had more credibility if he answered Bri’s Question about qualified candidates. If he truly believe the other candidate was objectively better he should have spent time explaining why?
robbie giving bri the side eye
I absolutely love Bri but this is 1000% not it. She literally just keeps questioning his political views while not understanding the dangers of censorship. She also advocates for safetyism when she asks him if other students would feel uncomfortable by his presence. HUGE miss.
She’s locked up in her idiotic mind & cannot understand other views. Smart people take bits & pieces from everything & everyone, but she can only take from her left progressive cronies.
What censorship tho? Who censored him?
Do words even have meaning any more?
Bri was right to call out the use of the term "objective."
My criteria are having clerked for an SC justice and having served as a judge on a federal court of appeals.
KBJ met both of these.
Since he is unable to verbalize, even in abbreviated form, the 'objective' reasons, and instead continues to skirt around this point, he makes himself and his opinions highly suspect.
That last part...I think Bri Joy is defending KJB's qualifications against the bad faith actors who are INDEED saying that she is NOT qualified and only got the job because she's a black woman. This professor is NOT saying that, he's saying that HE BELIEVES that she is not as qualified as another candidate. NOT as qualified and NOT qualified are two different things.
He comes off as bad faith though because he couldn’t even say why the other candidate was objectively better
Good job bri hold his feet to the 🔥
The part they don't get is "objective"
Objectively, she just won't let it go.
He never answered her question, which was not at all beside the point.
The issue isn't that anyone could be ranked higher than the guest's pick. The issue that Bri is intentionally missing is that a lot of qualified based on merit weren't even considered because the President was limiting the pool of candidates to only black women.
Bri asked the guy what his reasoning for others being superior on an objective basis, and he didn't give his reasoning. Seems like an opinion of his, which is SUBJECTIVE.
@@SteveJonesOwnsDSP and? Is being possibly wrong racist?
Where’s your complaint about Amy Coney Barrett being labeled as unqualified by the bar association? Ketanji is the most qualified in the history of the court
Your issue is that she is black and a woman? If someone else was more qualified, like he stated, she asked him REPEATEDLY why. Do you think he answered that question?
Because bri sucks
a specialist, who has a masters, who wrote a novel about his Supreme Court knowledge, is hard to question at times... maybe better questions..
Bro COOKED him.