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.
That's not necessarily true at all. Most qualified could be judged by a number of different criteria. When did anyone ever apply that standard to any other president's nominees? Every time a nomination has been made.
It could be argued that the Bar Association that evaluates nominees is the best group to determine if nominees are qualified. "Most" would be a purely subjective determination. But "qualified" would be a standard, in assessing if the nominee has the education and experience to fill the position they are nominated for. I don't think people on the street or partisan journalists are able to make the judgment if a nominee is "qualified", unless they have researched the nominee, and researched those who've previously held the position as well as those holding similar positions, and can make unbiased determination of qualifications.
For pro-life proponents, a judge who has the most impressive resume, but whose decisions have not been strictly pro-life, might be deemed the "least qualified." That is the nature of subjective determinations. If the judges appointed are qualified (and in the case of district and state-level federal judgeships, the White House rarely vets the nominees; the names of the nominees are provided by the states, and the White House selects from the choices the state has deemed acceptable), then that is sufficient. Because my "most qualified" and your "most qualified" will in all likelihood not be the same.
Last edited by DC at the Ridge; 03-04-2013 at 02:49 PM..
I believe Obama's nominations are vetted by the American Bar Association. I think this has been the case for most Presidents with the exception of "W". Having said that, a person's color or sexual orientation should not be the basis for the pick. In my view, affirmative action is discrimination by another name.
If you respect the founders original intent of the type of people they wanted to sit on the bench, then yes.
Yes, he is saying that black people should not be appointed to be judges. Seriously. He is saying this in 2013. City-Data has rules against racist posts, but he doesn't seem to understand that a post like this is, well, racist. (OAS, you do know that there are millions of African-Americans who are way smarter than you, right? Or does your little brain simply not comprehend this?)
To others: just because an article notes that some federal judge appointees will actually -- gasp! -- be from some groups that have historically NOT been judges, does not mean that said appointees are "not qualified." It does mean that in the not-so-distant past, they likely would not have even been nominated because they were not white and male.
Does this say that all white males are demons? Of course not. No rational person should read it that way.
Does this say that all white people should feel guilty because white people were favored in the past? Of course not. Again, no rational person should read it that way.
I am white but do not get all emotional and think the world is coming to an end simply because people who don't look exactly like me might actually have chances in 2013 that they did not have even a decade or two ago. I do not feel "white guilt" (I think that's ludicrous). I really hate it when these threads degenerate so quickly.
You can see from many posts in this thread that some posters are implicitly saying (sometimes without even realizing it) that white males are qualified, period (i.e. their qualifications are not questioned), but somehow the qualifications of any non-white-male ARE in question. Members of these other categories are often judged as if they are ONLY gay or ONLY Hispanic or ONLY black or ONLY female. Why is it so hard to believe that many are actually qualified to be judges, too?
So again: just because an article notes that some federal judge appointees actually will be from some groups that have historically NOT been judges, does not mean that said appointees are "not qualified."
No ... I'm mocking your side ..... the quota crowd ... the eternal victim crowd who blame their own failures on others holding them back.
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".
No ... I'm mocking your side ..... the quota crowd ... the eternal victim crowd who blame their own failures on others holding them back.
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".
I believe Obama's nominations are vetted by the American Bar Association. I think this has been the case for most Presidents with the exception of "W". Having said that, a person's color or sexual orientation should not be the basis for the pick. In my view, affirmative action is discrimination by another name.
I don't disagree with you that affirmative action is a form of discrimination, but I would point out that the American judiciary is not representative of the American population. Why is that a problem? Well, because the idea of fairness is an underpinning of justice. And we know that, we acknowledge that explicitly. A "jury of our peers", peers being people like us. A reflection of the community we live in, that is what a jury is supposed to be. The reason for a diverse judiciary is that in a way, the judge should reflect the community just as the jury does. With the power that a judge has, in court rulings, in jury instructions, in overseeing the conduct of the attorneys and witnesses and the jury itself, the judge is integral to fair and unbiased proceedings. We look to a "jury of our peers" as a way of minimizing bias. And having a diverse judiciary is also intended to minimize bias, not in every legal case, but in the whole process, because the ideal is that the diverse judiciary will mirror the diverse general population, in the same way that the jury is supposed to mirror the community. In the case of federal judges, the community is the general population of the state or district or of the entire country in which that court operates.
There isn't any objective criteria that we have to determine who is "most" qualified. We can objectively identify those who are qualified and those who are not, so the pool of nominees is always of qualified nominees, but the person actually nominated can also work to produce a fairer, more diverse judiciary as a whole.
A study from 2008 about the demographics of the judiciary versus the demographics of the relevant populations.
Of course they don't know. They're republicans, what did you expect? Anything veering from white male is going to be considered suspect. Plain & simple. As they've proven, racists.
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.
Status:
"College baseball this weekend."
(set 5 days ago)
Location: Suburban Dallas
52,685 posts, read 47,940,162 times
Reputation: 33840
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.
I don't disagree with you that affirmative action is a form of discrimination, but I would point out that the American judiciary is not representative of the American population. Why is that a problem? Well, because the idea of fairness is an underpinning of justice. And we know that, we acknowledge that explicitly. A "jury of our peers", peers being people like us. A reflection of the community we live in, that is what a jury is supposed to be. The reason for a diverse judiciary is that in a way, the judge should reflect the community just as the jury does. With the power that a judge has, in court rulings, in jury instructions, in overseeing the conduct of the attorneys and witnesses and the jury itself, the judge is integral to fair and unbiased proceedings. We look to a "jury of our peers" as a way of minimizing bias. And having a diverse judiciary is also intended to minimize bias, not in every legal case, but in the whole process, because the ideal is that the diverse judiciary will mirror the diverse general population, in the same way that the jury is supposed to mirror the community. In the case of federal judges, the community is the general population of the state or district or of the entire country in which that court operates.
There isn't any objective criteria that we have to determine who is "most" qualified. We can objectively identify those who are qualified and those who are not, so the pool of nominees is always of qualified nominees, but the person actually nominated can also work to produce a fairer, more diverse judiciary as a whole.
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.
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.
Please reference an unqualified person that he appointed.
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.
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.
