Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
With this particular "president", it is not really about diversity, even though he'll lie and tell you that it is. Some of the appointees may be qualified for what's really important in a justice, but Barry will appoint even unqualified people regardless of moral structure just to create an unfair advantage in our court system. He's just going to create more chaos. To the left, it isn't really about doing the right thing, and that's what they're trying to bring on here.
The American Bar Association disagrees with you. They have determined that ALL of President Obama's appointees are qualified.
Judges are in place to decide law and not questions of fact. That, for the most part, is left to a jury. I have no problem with requiring that juries represent the community as a whole; however, I disagree that the judge must represent the community or countries demographics. There is objective criteria used to vet a candidates qualifications for being a judge.
Do you think when a judge puts a robe on, that he becomes a robot with a legal dictionary for a brain? A judge is a human being. Judges have biases, judges have gaps in their education, judges have gaps in their experience. People identify with people they think are similar to themselves. A single woman getting on a bus will look for a seat near another woman. People at social events will look to mingle with people they think are like them, based on a variety of social cues. They will look for someone who dresses and acts like they are from the same social class, or shares certain interests or characteristics with them. Judges are humans, they do this, too. They identify with some people and not with others. So you want judges in the system as a whole that represent a variety of backgrounds, and a variety of experiences, so that you don't have systematic bias in the legal system as a whole.
There is objective criteria used to vet judicial nominees. All of the candidates are qualified. Which, then, do you nominate? It's not wrong to nominate a candidate because that candidate will make the judiciary as a whole look more like the general population as a whole.
It's like a baking company has ten candidates for a secretarial position. All ten candidates can type and file, have great grammar, answer the phone well, they ALL meet the objective criteria. But one candidate won the Betty Crocker bake-off last summer. The secretary doesn't have to bake, obviously, but this one candidate brings a personal experience that is a potential asset to the baking company.
So if you have ten candidates for a judgeship, all ten candidates have graduated from good law schools, all ten did impressive clerkships, all ten have received various honors over the years, all ten are clearly qualified. But the district the judgeship is in is primarily Hispanic, and one judge is Hispanic, then maybe this one candidate brings personal experience and knowledge that is a potential asset to this district?
No ... I'm mocking your side ..... the quota crowd ... the eternal victim crowd who blame their own failures on others holding them back.
I don't relate to your assertion, because I haven't failed at anything.
Quote:
Never will one of you ever consider that you didn't get the job because there were 10 people ahead of you that were far more capable, smarter, and more driven to succeed on their own efforts, rather than trying to game the system and capitalize on on an artificially created advantage called "diversity".
You'll NEVER beat the white male .... you've had 10,000 years to do it, and failed. Your most modern attempts of convincing the majority that only white people can be racists, worked for a while ... but people are waking up, and realize who the real racists are.
Your destiny is failure, because your motives lack honesty and goodness.
Where's that denial of the Hitlerian philosophy again?
With this particular "president", it is not really about diversity, even though he'll lie and tell you that it is. Some of the appointees may be qualified for what's really important in a justice, but Barry will appoint even unqualified people regardless of moral structure just to create an unfair advantage in our court system. He's just going to create more chaos. To the left, it isn't really about doing the right thing, and that's what they're trying to bring on here.
Another one who can't stand the fact that we have a PRESIDENT who is black. Get over it, kid. Not a damn thing you can do about it.
According to the American Bar Association there are currently 1,116,967 lawyers practicing in the United States.
According to the American Bar Association there are currently less than 400,000 in their organization.
So my statement is FACT.
And your statement is WRONG.
Thanks for playing.
Yeah. You showed em.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.