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 : Mainstream Politics and Economics -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: koan who wrote (9146)	2/13/2012 3:11:29 PM
From: longnshort	1 Recommendation Respond to of 85487

"It is a sort of agreement to try and keep people on the supreme court who represent all the major cultures, races and genders. " all 3 women on the USSC are from NY City, so much for representing all cultures "In fact in the 2000 election decision, they pointely said their rulinng could not be used for case law, that it was a one time ruling!" there were two rulings that day one was 7-2 this post is for educational purposes only and misrepresentation of this post for any reason, might piss me off, but I doubt it

To: koan who wrote (9146)	2/13/2012 3:50:27 PM
From: sm1th	3 Recommendations Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 85487

It is not racist at all. It is a sort of agreement to try and keep people on the supreme court who represent all the major cultures, races and genders. Why do you think quotas for the court are a good thing? Even our president claims to be post racial. Aren't justices supposed to represent all citizens? Can only a black judge represent black people? Can only women judges represent women? I would be happy with 9 white male jews if they all had the wisdom of Solomon.

To: koan who wrote (9146)	2/14/2012 1:00:36 PM
From: Jorj X Mckie	4 Recommendations Respond to of 85487

Once again you have completely missed the words that were written and responded to something that wasn't there. I pointed out that you made a racist statement. You don't see it and go off on some other tangent with an added personal insult. You might want to stop pontificating for a moment and look at the plank in your own eye. =============================================================== It is not racist at all. It is a sort of agreement to try and keep people on the supreme court who represent all the major cultures, races and genders. In the old days women or blacks were never appointed to the supreme court and so had little representation. For 200 years our supreme court looked like an old white guys club. The law is too existential to not make provisions i.e. the reason we keep getting 5/4,5/4,5/4 decisions along party lines shows that in the end judges, make a lot of law up. They make up the law to justify their decision. In fact in the 2000 election decision, they pointely said their rulinng could not be used for case law, that it was a one time ruling! So it is important for all races and genders to have representation. You should not be tripping up over this stuff. This is simple stuff. You must know better? <<African American's only get one seat on the supreme court. The dems gave them Thurgood Marshall. A man they were proud of; and the Republican's gave them Thomas a man they are ashamed of. Do you understand how racist the above statement is?