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:
by 
Jim in a Nautilus COAT
ANSWERS: 14
-
Select the best qualified person.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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....
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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! :)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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."
HoboJoe 
Hardcore Conservative RELATED QUESTIONS
Copyright 2023, Wired Ivy, LLC