Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : The Residential Real Estate Crash Index -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: MulhollandDrive who wrote (35785)	7/20/2005 8:45:53 AM
From: KM	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 306849

Neanderthallette would have been fine. One of the privileges of being elected President is the ability to appoint or nominate people of your political belief to these positions. No arguments there. But I think the makeup of the Supreme Court should at least vaguely resemble the makeup of the population who it represents. Judge O'Connor was an historic figure and this nomination demeans her position. My opinion. Bush is an idiot. This is something we here in Texas know implicitly.

To: MulhollandDrive who wrote (35785)	7/20/2005 10:40:51 AM
From: Amy J	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 306849

OT MulhollandDrive, Are you aware the courts have ruled against corporations and stated as law, statistics are facts not disputable by subjective opinion? While you have an opinion, the statistics and the facts show nearly no representation of women on the Supreme Court. The courts decided statistics are indisputable facts (lower courts of course, where there is diversity), when a class action case was permitted to proceed when the statistics made it evident a blatant case of discrimination was present. Any reason why the govt isn't held to the same high standard we have for our corporations? Any reason why a repeated pattern of hiring only men exists on the Supreme Court? It's truly amazing how some people think the USA is advanced for women, when in fact the USA is behind so many Muslim countries that are very open to having women as leaders - women Presidents are and have been leading many of the Muslim countries. At a minimum, you should be deeply, deeply concerned about statistics that show blatant hiring discrimination for the Supreme Court. Quite ironic, when you think of the law they violate. The big picture statistics prove there is a problem with diversity on the Supreme Court - all men on the Supreme Court but one. Amy J

To: MulhollandDrive who wrote (35785)	7/20/2005 11:07:29 AM
From: Amy J	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 306849

OT RE: "in fact, i would say the picking of roberts, if anything, underscores the fact we societally have come AWAY from the notion that gender should be a consideration" Actually, that was true a generation ago, with the Baby Boomers generation I believe, where it became PC (politically correct) to invalidate gender differences. But with Gen X and Gen Y generations, there now is a realization that it is invalidating to ignore the differences between men and women (as well as other areas of diversity), and in fact, if those differences aren't acknowledged, then those differences are granted no rights. I think it might have been during the baby boomer generation timeframe where some may have incorrectly assumed they had to deny any difference between people for fear of being labeled racists or sexist. Thus, that stuck a generation from advancing the rights of diversity.