• testfactor@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    45
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    2 months ago

    This is great and all, but does the 12th time you do something count as “making history”?

    You’d think after two or three you’d just stop counting.

    • ShadowA
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      He’s the first one to ever hit 12, so uh yeah, he made history.

      I’m surprised Trump had 2

      • testfactor@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        2 months ago

        I feel like “making history” implies that they did something that’s gonna make it into the history books and be taught to future generations.

        And like, maybe strictly, but like, which president appointed the twelfth black judge during their term? The twelfth female judge?

        The first of anything, yeah, that’s in the history books. Everything past that, maybe a footnote.

        A good thing for sure, but “making history”? The language feels strong to me.

    • Tolookah@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      When you get the 12th one in, your punch card gets filled and you get a free sandwich on your next visit.

    • Trantarius@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      I think “making history” has just become one of those phrases media uses all the time now. Kind of like how any dispute is now “slamming” someone, apparently. Or how anyone you think is wrong is “unhinged”.

      • Fosheze@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        2 months ago

        “Making some history” would be a great euphamism for taking a dump actually. Most of human history is just shit afterall.

    • NateNate60@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      2 months ago

      I’m guessing this would be more historical to LGBT people. If you’re a member of a group, I think you’re more likely to be excited to hear another member of that group being appointed to office.

      • zeroblood
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        2 months ago

        Especially with all the anti LGBTQ laws and stuff in the US.

      • testfactor@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        I feel like we’re abusing “historical” here. Is this something of particular note that’s going to be taught to future generations?

        Does the African American community know which president was the first to nominate twelve judges of color? Do women know which president was the first to nominate twelve women?

        This is a good thing, but like, it’s a good fun fact at best. I think saying it’s “making history” is overstating. It’d be like saying the person who has the Guinness World Record for longest handstand is “making history.”

      • anticolonialist@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        2 months ago

        It’s not historical to this queer, I dont care about someones sexual orientation, I care that they are able to do their job. Being LGBTQ+ is not a qualification for any job.

  • Supervisor194@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    So… this is great and all, but how come the senate will confirm any Biden appointments? One would think these days it would just be business as usual to deny all appointments if you control the senate. They face no repercussions for anything these days it seems.

    • Mister_Feeny@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      2 months ago

      Why wouldn’t they confirm his appointments? Senate is controlled by dems right now. They can either confirm Biden’s appointments, and have a dem judge, or not, which risks Trump making appointments to these same positions.

      Only time the judges don’t get confirmed at the end of a president’s term is when the opposing party controls the senate. See: end of Obama’s term and his appointment of Garland to the SC.

      • MegaUltraChicken@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        2 months ago

        Only time the judges don’t get confirmed at the end of a president’s term is when the opposing party controls the senate. See: end of Obama’s term and his appointment of Garland to the SC.

        This wasn’t the normal process and I don’t think it should be treated as such. It was a cynical ploy by the GOP to highjack SCOTUS. Unfortunately it worked.