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.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: greenspirit who wrote (115880)	7/19/2009 6:59:20 PM
From: Bread Upon The Water	Respond to of 541915

I believe she was selected first of all because of her gender as the DEMS want to get back to having a another woman on the court to make up for the loss of Sandra Day O'Connor. I also believe that the nation as it is becoming more and more "ethnic" will be better able to incorporate the SC's decisions into its culture if it feels the court understands what that culture is. And isn't that the way it should work? Would you want a SC that is culturally obtuse? There's the law, but at the SC level often its the perception of the law and its role that is the deciding factor.

To: greenspirit who wrote (115880)	7/19/2009 7:40:37 PM
From: Mary Cluney	Respond to of 541915

<<<Do you believe as a society, we should select Supreme Court nominees based on their racial identity, when others who are far more qualified are available?>>> Days when 88% of the judges are white and or are male are over. Less than one half of our population are male and fairly soon more than one half of our population will be non-white. Can you name any person that is more qualified to be on the SC than Judge Sotomayor?

To: greenspirit who wrote (115880)	7/19/2009 7:58:51 PM
From: Paul Kern	Respond to of 541915

Rambi - do you believe a Hispanic or Latino person, simply because of their racial identity is better able to adjudicate the law? Do you believe that rich white men, simply because of their racial identity are better able to adjudicate the law? Do you believe a racist, self hating black man, simply because of his racial identity is better able to adjudicate the law?

To: greenspirit who wrote (115880)	7/19/2009 9:41:55 PM
From: Rambi	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541915

1) "SIMPLY" because of racial identity? Sotomayor has an impressive, lengthy resume with a solid paper trail of opinions. The Republicans were unable to find anything very damaging which is why they tried to hang their hats on her wise Latina comment. It didn't work, because most people interpreted it as the idea of bringing different views to the table, not a claim to superiority. Or hey, maybe they agreed with her. No one should be nominated on the basis of ONLY gender or race, or being good friends with the Pres. (Sorry, Harriet) 2) Affirmative action was necessary. For a long time, minorities were struggling for jobs and education and against extreme prejudice. As in segregation, a legal kick in the pants was unfortunately needed. It would have been nice if we were capable of correcting our own crappy behavior, but we weren't. It is no longer as necessary as it was, and I am hoping that the courts will begin addressing the cases of reverse discrimination. 3) Sotomayor is a highly qualified jurist. You may not like her rulings, but there is no question about her qualifications equaling and perhaps even surpassing those of some of the other justices. Do you have another liberal name in mind you think would have been "far more qualified"?? Harriet Miers on the other hand was a stunningly inferior and unqualified choice- rejected by both sides. I don;'t care if she was a woman; she had no business being nominated. Which leads us to: 4) Yes. I think S. was chosen mainly because she is highly qualified, along with being a woman. That she is Latina is a plus, but it is hardly the only reason. I am pretty sure that the people here would be tough on a nominee who didn't have the legal chops to do the job, regardless of gender or race.

To: greenspirit who wrote (115880)	7/20/2009 6:49:11 AM
From: Travis_Bickle	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541915

We are supposed to believe that people of certain races, ethnicity and gender bring "something extra" to the table due to their identities. It's a ridiculous notion but it is expected that we entertain it. I think it is a way for people to feel good about themselves ... a person may have had the perceived misfortune of being a member of a group that is seen as disadvantaged, but we can make it all better by sprinkling them with fairy dust that makes their race, ethnicity or gender a virtue in and of itself, and thus we even the score. We are good people because we are capable of seeing the person's specialness. As a practical matter you can't begin an address to a bunch of Special Olympians with "In many ways your lives totally suck," you have to start by saying "Each and every one of you is a champion!"