- NEW!
by weatherman taking week or so off on May 8th, 2009
Select the best qualified person.
by Wind in the Willow on October 21st, 2009
There is no tennet for someone who incorporates all of these characteristics to be the only viable candidate for something. Better like so:
If a gay
Latino
person of any type of religion including no faith at all
etc.
were to be fully qualified for position then all of those qualities above should be ingored as part of the decision making process.
by Carpediem COAT ab imo pectore on May 8th, 2009
I am familiar with court proceedings thus I believe that in order to achieve what you mention the one with an impeccable record, highly competent and most knowledged candidate should be nominated. The rest is unimportant.
by TheJoker on May 8th, 2009
I honestly think it's about time for Hispanic representation in the Supreme Court. While I am a supporter of 'the best person should get the job', lets face it no president has followed that mantra so why should Obama.
by HoboJoe on May 8th, 2009
Barack should not be swayed by appointing somebody who will bring him the most votes in the next election. Or worse, Obama selects one of his unqualified, tax-cheating friends. Like Mr. Weatherman answered, the best qualified and unbiased person should be in the Supreme Court.
by Im Alec has abandoned this account on October 21st, 2009
There are not nearly enough positions on the Supreme Court to satisfy every large minority, let alone small ones. Qualifications are crucial for the job; any candidate must be 100% up to the post. However, diversity is a good thing. To many of the Supreme Court are Anglo-Saxon males with an establishment background. If amongst the fully qualified candidates there is one who does not fit that template, the fact should count in his or her advantage. So a Hispanic candidate should have some advancement for that, not because they are Hispanic but because they are not Anglo-Saxon. A Native American, Laotian, or Nigerian ancestry candidate would get the same extra consideration.
by Ron C on May 8th, 2009
I don't care what race the next Supreme Court justice is or what they do in their sex life as long as they don't do it with the window open in the front room. I want that person to make a judgment based on the constitution and current precedent. I do not want them to regress or be reactionary like the "conservative majority". The worst, I think, would be to appoint another conservative and completely unbalance the court.
The trouble is that Obama tries to be too inclusive. He needs, at the onset to eliminate judges in the vein of Alito and Roberts. They're nut cases disguised with affable demeanor. Scalia and Thomas are borderline sociopaths. We need some sane and honest members for the court.
by ChrisDC on October 25th, 2009
With nine slots, one or two of which come up per decade?
.
I wish I had the wisdom of the ages to impart, but sometimes that boils down to "play it by ear, make sure your heart and your head are fully engaged, and cross your fingers."
by knownothing on October 22nd, 2009
I already posted as a comment but it's important to note relevant facts:
Whites still make up over 70% of the population of the United States:
http://www.adherents.com/adh_dem.html
Further, Whites account for 89.2% of all attorneys (those with a degree in law) in the U.S. Males account for 71.3% of all attorneys in the U.S.
http://www.abanet.org/minorities/links/2000census.html
Going back in the past, the numbers would obviously be even higher. Consider that supreme court nominees have generally started their law careers 30-50 years ago, and you can conclude that most of the qualified candidates are in fact, white males. So it is a reasonable expectation that MOST (not all) qualified nominees would be white males.
by AntigoneRising on October 22nd, 2009
It is difficult. The first thing we need to do is end the Affirmative Action program for the US Supreme Court. All but 3 justices have been white. All but 3 have been male. 106 out of 111 have been white men. I smell an Affirmative Action program for Caucasian men.
by Hardcore Conservative on October 21st, 2009
Pushing for diversity means that you're singling someone out because of their particular race/gender/sex/whatever. Only competent, non-biased individuals should serve on the bench. All that other crap is meaningless.
by Scifisuz on October 21st, 2009
The fact that he picked a hispanic female is not the issue. I would have made a bet in ANY amount that, whoever he picked would be liberal - definitely left of center....
by knownothing on October 22nd, 2009
It makes me sick when race, sex, sexual orientation, etc. becomes a factor when making a decision about whom to place in what position. It should not be a consideration at all.
by RosieGHM Jetpacker on October 22nd, 2009
Take a box of chocolates. Do you want all Vanilla Cremes in milk chocolate or do you want some dark chocolate, some with crunchy centers, some with liquid centers? Vanilla cremes get might boring mighty quickly. Happy Thursday! :)
What effect do the decisions of the United States Supreme Court have on state rules of evidence? Explain your answer.
by Maria_V2922 on June 4th, 2011
| 1 person likes this
Justice Thomas was employed by Monsanto. Should he recuse himself in cases involving the corporation?
by Wynper on June 13th, 2011
| 1 person likes this
How close can you come to writing "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" across the street from a school and still be legal?
by purplecows on August 1st, 2011
| 1 person likes this
Justice Thomas received $100,000 from Citizen's United during his approval process, then ruled in their favor. What should be done?
by Wynper on June 3rd, 2011
| 2 people like this
When was the first non-unanimous US Supreme Court decision?
by purplecows on May 13th, 2011
| 1 person likes this
You're reading Hispanics push Obama for a Supreme Court seat. If Obama listened to all, he would have to nominate a liberal gay Hispanic female atheist. How should we balance the push for diversity with fairness to everyone regardless of race, gender, etc? See LINK:
Your favorite Q&A site is on Facebook! Become a fan to connect with the ever-growing community of Answerbaggers, share your thoughts and find out what Answerbag's up to next!
Comments
It's called Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO), not Affirmative Action.
by weatherman taking week or so off on May 8th, 2009
Hear, hear.
by Jim in a Nautilus COAT on May 8th, 2009
Yes yes yes!!
by Scifisuz on October 21st, 2009
The problem with that simplistic notion is that "best qualified" is often based on subjective criteria.
.
Furthermore, I don't recall huge complaints about tokenism when Justice Clarance Thomas was up for nomination....;-D...
by Old School on October 21st, 2009
Was Clarence approved or not?
by weatherman taking week or so off on October 21st, 2009
@weatherman - Clarence Thomas has been on the Supreme Court since 1991, despite having comparatively limited experience when he was nominated. His main qualifications were
.
1) He's a conservative
.
2) He's black
.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarance_Thomas#Supreme_Court_nomination_and_confirmation
by Old School on October 21st, 2009
Watching Judge Thomas' performance on the court, I'm convinced he should not have been confirmed. He isn't qualified and doesn't appear to have the intellectual curiosity needed to become qualified.
by Jim in a Nautilus COAT on October 21st, 2009
Then why was he approved by our illustrious Senate?
by weatherman taking week or so off on October 22nd, 2009
Because they knew he wouldn't ever make waves, never go against "the partyline", never speak out of turn, never have an opinion that was independent, well-thought-out and intellectually honest. People like that are very valuable to the establishment you know. We call them "empty suits"! :)
by RosieGHM Jetpacker on October 22nd, 2009
Like Reid and Pelosi?
by weatherman taking week or so off on October 22nd, 2009
Maybe...both sides of the aisle have them in great quantity. They're basically all crooks/criminals/selfish flesh peddlers.
by RosieGHM Jetpacker on October 22nd, 2009
@weatherman - There is a crucial difference between Justice Thomas and Congress members like Reid and Pelosi.
.
Thomas, short of blatant criminality or incompetence such that both political parties would tolerate an impeachment proceeding, has his job for life.
.
Reid (every 6 years) and Pelosi (every 2 years) have to convince people to reelect them.
.
Under democratic principles, the person who receives the necessary votes is, by definition, the 'best qualified' to be the representative of the people.
.
Or do you wish to appoint yourself Wizard King and have sole discretion over which political candidates are acceptable?...;-D...
by Old School on October 22nd, 2009
I think we both know that incumbents with over, say, 12 years, are pretty much lifers, unless they get in a scandal of some sort. I know that Justice Thomas has written opinions for both the majority and minority following Supreme Court proceedings. To call him unqualified and lacking in intellectual curiousity is also tantamount to naming yourself "Wizard King" (imho)
by weatherman taking week or so off on October 22nd, 2009
Oops. Sorry "Old School". It wasn't you who said "unqualified and lacking in intellectual curiousity".
by weatherman taking week or so off on October 22nd, 2009
I said it, and I stand by it. Justice Thomas rarely asks questions during proceedings. Writing opinions for either the majority or the minority are tasks apportioned to each of the justices from time to time. While some opinion write-ups do demonstrate great judicial insight, I can't cite a single one of Justice Thomas' opinions that rises to that standard. They mostly chronicling what the justices said, and may be largely the work of clerks.
by Jim in a Nautilus COAT on October 22nd, 2009
Then why ain't you there, Jimbo? Eh? <jk> All entitled to their opinion. And none of us are qualified to judge. (imho)
by weatherman taking week or so off on October 22nd, 2009
I am entitled to opinions about things I am not personally qualified to do, weatherbo. Like it or lump it. You are entitled to yours as well, even though I'm willing to bet you aren't a Supreme Court Justice either.
by Jim in a Nautilus COAT on October 22nd, 2009