Do you support AFFIRMATIVE ACTION to pick the next Supreme Court Justice? (impeachment, conspiracy)
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.
I don't know if that's true, or what you're basing this opinion on. But more importantly, does it matter? While all qualified candidates should possess a superior intellectual ability, is being "the most intellectual" an important qualification for being a justice? Some of the greatest intellectuals in history had terrible ethics, and often a lack of common sense--they would have made horrible justices.
Yes, it matters to me. For the highest court in the country, I want justices who have the highest intellectual capacity, especially in terms of being able to understand the subtle complexities of law, and remaining ideologically neutral in deciding law.
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:
Yeah, that Patrick Deval (!) is a real shooting star. Must be, Barry stole some of his comments!
Qualifications alone can't be can't be the basis? And don't crawl out over the use of "alone". We are talking about BASIS.
What should the qualifications be? Empathy? Being born poor and holding a grudge because life was tough? Being gay, then getting through law school? Half black, half white and yer mommy abandons you and you resent your decent white grandparents and learn to game every situation you find yourself in, make $$$ out of your gaming...purposely move to a hugely corrupt city, get with a disgusting flim flam man of God with connections...well you know the rest.
Oh, we all should kiss our ass good bye. That di&do in N. Korea knows we are in the hands of a mean little girl.
Affirmative action by the people selected Obama for president; and look where that got us? We have an incompetent boob for a President!
Justices should be picket for their knowledge, skill, and wisdom in deciding cases. They aren't there to represent individuals. They are there to decide cases. They aren't there to do social engineering, or to force some kind of "social justice" or anything else. Review of US Law, is what they are sent there to do (and they are not to consider another country's law, or international law in there deliberations).
I see affirmative action as a kind of institutionalized revenge. I would even argue it's too sloppy about identifying the people who did something wrong in the first place; it tends to lays the blame on "whites," period.
If you want to set a society straight from racism, it takes things like sacrifice, repentance, patience, and reconciliation. The law should not aspire to get inside peoples' hearts like "laws against racism" do. The law is a blunt instrument, very limited in what it can accomplish, so the law should humbly respect its limits. When a law reaches too far it becomes a vehicle for tyranny.
Any Supreme Court nominee will probably be someone born in the 1950's and going to law school and starting his/her legal career in the 1970's. This was a time when the overwhelming majority of first year-associates at white-shoe law firms and in federal clerkships were white males from wealthy and well-connected families. Even today, you will not BELIEVE how cliquish the legal profession is and how much it depends on lineage, pedigrees, exclusive clubs, etc. In the 1970's particularly, it was exceedingly difficult for a member of a racial minority to "make it" in the legal field, equally difficult for a woman, and nearly impossible for any person who was both. The most such graduates could hope for was a dead-end government job or a small personal injury/landlord-tenant/crim-defense practice. A minority female judge who managed to get an Ivy League (or comparable) education and land a job at a top firm in the 1970's isn't just qualified to sit on the Supreme Court -- she is exceptionally qualified and probably three heads above her white, male, Protestant peers.
Yes, it matters to me. For the highest court in the country, I want justices who have the highest intellectual capacity, especially in terms of being able to understand the subtle complexities of law, and remaining ideologically neutral in deciding law.
You won't find anyone remaining ideologically neutral. Because the people evaluating the opinions aren't ideologically neutral.
Yes, it matters to me. For the highest court in the country, I want justices who have the highest intellectual capacity, especially in terms of being able to understand the subtle complexities of law, and remaining ideologically neutral in deciding law.
But they all have the highest intellectual capacity. That's part of making the initial qualification.
A minority female judge who managed to get an Ivy League (or comparable) education and land a job at a top firm in the 1970's isn't just qualified to sit on the Supreme Court -- she is exceptionally qualified
An excellent point, indeed.
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.
Hell NO
