Do you support AFFIRMATIVE ACTION to pick the next Supreme Court Justice? (lawyers, racist)

[Weekend Traveler]

I read a few years that affirmative action was dead and organizations were going back to hiring people for their skills and talents instead of their race. What a dream.

Now that the Democrats are back in control it appears that the next Supreme Court Justice(s) need to be Hispanic Women. There seems to be no complaints in the media saying that instead they should select the most qualified person regardless of race and sex.

Why is it alright again to pick an affirmative action quota for the High Court?

[afoigrokerkok]

AA should NOT be used in making SC appointments.

I'd love to see a female or Hispanic justice (assuming they are the best candidate), but the decision needs to be a gender- and color-blind one.

[Lucario]

Originally Posted by Weekend Traveler

I read a few years that affirmative action was dead and organizations were going back to hiring people for their skills and talents instead of their race. What a dream.

Now that the Democrats are back in control it appears that the next Supreme Court Justice(s) need to be Hispanic Women. There seems to be no complaints in the media saying that instead they should select the most qualified person regardless of race and sex.

Why is it alright again to pick an affirmative action quota for the High Court?

I find it fascinating that when only white men were being hired for positions (most more mundane than the Supreme Court), folks like you weren't complaining too strongly. The only reason you oppose affirmative action of any kind is that now, white men aren't the only group being considered. It has absolutely nothing to do with skills, talents or qualification. If that had been the case, America, either in corporations or government, would never have had a need for affirmative action.

[Coolhand68]

Originally Posted by Weekend Traveler

Why is it alright again to pick an affirmative action quota for the High Court?

We did it for the presidency, why not the courts too? Lol.

[normie]

You're making it sound like all the nominees need to be hispanic women, but Sonia Sotomayor's the only one I know of. Diane Wood is not a hispanic woman, neither is Patrick Deval.

I love this argument that Obama should nominate the one single individual who has the best possible qualifications. Hahaha, if only life were so black and white, but I'm sorry, there's no such thing. It sounds like you want to give some sort of written exam, and the highest score gets the job.

It just doesn't work that way. The reality is: every time there's a SCOTUS opening there are always several extremely qualified people who could do the job. So qualifications alone can't be the basis for choosing a nominee.

Getting back to Sotomayor, IMO she does seem to have the inside track. Is it because she's hispanic? Partially, although I think it's her lower middle class background that matters more to Obama. He stated he wants someone with the appropriate judicial qualification as well as "empathy" for lower income Americans. One thing to remember, simply being hispanic does not mean you've had a lower income background. Many hispanic people have known nothing but privileged lifestyles.

By the way, here are my picks for all three of Obama's SCOTUS openings... and why I think they would be good choices:

http://www.city-data.com/forum/polit...minations.html Who would you pick?

[wehotex]

Originally Posted by Weekend Traveler

I read a few years that affirmative action was dead and organizations were going back to hiring people for their skills and talents instead of their race. What a dream.

Now that the Democrats are back in control it appears that the next Supreme Court Justice(s) need to be Hispanic Women. There seems to be no complaints in the media saying that instead they should select the most qualified person regardless of race and sex.

Why is it alright again to pick an affirmative action quota for the High Court?

The Hispanic women that you happen to be moaning about are highly qualified to become the next SC justice. Save your pompous racist talk for another topic. It is insulting that you would suggest that they would just pick this person out of thin air b/c of her gender or her ethnicity. White ppl have had "affirmative action" for centuries with no moaning from your ppl. However do you think that George W got to be POTUS. He had more AA in his lifetime than white on rice.

[Weekend Traveler]

The Sunday Morning Talk Show Hots all said that this job goes to a Hispanic. I am not making this up.

Every time someone talks about an issue where race is a consideration someone tries to shut them up by calling their point racist.

[Theliberalvoice]

Whoever is the most qualified and will do the better job.

Race and gender should not play a role in this.

[normie]

Originally Posted by Weekend Traveler

The Sunday Morning Talk Show Hots all said that this job goes to a Hispanic. I am not making this up.

Who cares what "all" the Sunday Morning Talk Show Hosts say? That's like giving importance to some opinion you read in a city-data forum. And just become some talk show hosts say a job is going to go to a hispanic does not mean they are endorsing the idea of Obama basing his decision using affirmative action.

[Katiana]

I remember one of Nixon's appointments being called mediocre, and a Nebraska senator said mediocrity should be represented too!

"Even if he were mediocre, there are a lot of mediocre judges and people and lawyers. They are entitled to a little representation, aren't they, and a little chance? We can't have all Brandeises, Frankfurters and Cardozos."[1]

Roman Hruska - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So much for "the best person for the job"!