Forums | MacLife

A latina certainly can't be qualified on her own, so she must have been picked because of her race/gender, is what Mr. nox is trying to say.

so is this going to be a case of they "were against her before they were for her?"

jerwin wrote:

It's worth noting that she was nominated as a replacement for Souter.

Yeah, I don't think she is a suitable replacement, as I've already said she was the least liberal on Obamas short list of replacements.

Last edited by Aaron_R (2009-05-26 2:18 pm)

White men just can't get a break in this country. Only 96% of Supreme Court justices have been male!

JakeTheTall wrote:

I hate that I "agree" with the right on this "identity politics," and the notion that only candidates of a specific gender were acceptable for the nomination.

I have no real issue with taking a judge's background into account when selecting a nominee, and a choice that doesn't have the upper-class background of, say, Justice Roberts, I can appreciate.

But narrowing the search by gender ?  I don't like it.  I suppose I can take comfort that at least their cultural affiliation / race wasn't a requirement, but the left's talking heads and such seemed to have no problem with the notion that the nominee had to be a woman.

That argument might hold water if you were an imbecile that believe that in a country of over 300 million people that only, oh -- say five people qualified at any one time to be screened as a Supreme Court justice.  But, of course, that would be silly.

bratboy wrote:

Right.  This isn't exactly a situation where you can line them up and compare GPAs or something.

Let this serve as a reminder that intelligent self-described moderates can still get sucked up in The Right Wing Meme Generator.

I still maintain that I am a perfect candidate for SCOTUS, and replacement for Souter!

My credentials are impecible. Just don't ask for them.

bedstuy wrote:

bratboy wrote:

Right.  This isn't exactly a situation where you can line them up and compare GPAs or something.

Let this serve as a reminder that intelligent self-described moderates can still get sucked up in The Right Wing Meme Generator.

Hardly.  Its more likely I'm often surrounded by impossibly bigoted people, and therefore I quickly weary of any pigeonholing of people.

JakeTheTall wrote:

bedstuy wrote:

JakeTheTall wrote:

I hate that I "agree" with the right on this "identity politics," and the notion that only candidates of a specific gender were acceptable for the nomination.

I have no real issue with taking a judge's background into account when selecting a nominee, and a choice that doesn't have the upper-class background of, say, Justice Roberts, I can appreciate.

But narrowing the search by gender ?  I don't like it.  I suppose I can take comfort that at least their cultural affiliation / race wasn't a requirement, but the left's talking heads and such seemed to have no problem with the notion that the nominee had to be a woman.

That argument might hold water if you were an imbecile that believe that in a country of over 300 million people that only, oh -- say five people qualified at any one time to be screened as a Supreme Court justice.  But, of course, that would be silly.

So there are times when the government can screen people on the basis of their gender, and other times when they can't ?

Are you honestly asking that question? Do you really not get what it's about?

JakeTheTall wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Are you honestly asking that question? Do you really not get what it's about?

I obviously don't know what its about.

It's a way of bringing people into the power structure who aren't straight white rich men. And it's necessary to use "quotas," as people in America like to call them, because no one would bother otherwise. The key, of course, is to ensure each appointee is fully qualified (Bush I monumentally raped the process in the case of Clarence Thomas).

It's ludicrous to complain about "reverse discrimination" against white men when they still dominate the system.

ShnickyShnack wrote:

JakeTheTall wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Are you honestly asking that question? Do you really not get what it's about?

I obviously don't know what its about.

It's a way of bringing people into the power structure who aren't straight white rich men. And it's necessary to use "quotas," as people in America like to call them, because no one would bother otherwise. The key, of course, is to ensure each appointee is fully qualified (Bush I monumentally raped the process in the case of Clarence Thomas).

I suppose, yet I naively and idealistically imagine ensuring a level playing field and better education is all the state should do, to ensure that.

The second question is at what point should reverse discrimination end ?

ShnickyShnack wrote:

It's ludicrous to complain about "reverse discrimination" against white men when they still dominate the system.

Not "rich people" but "white men" you say.  I have no problem with "economic" discrimination.  Its when skin color and gender are the characteristics that I take issue.

sturner wrote:

But if I can't get a job, then I'm not enjoying my priveledged status of rich, white male!

Well they didn't claim their theory had all the kinks worked out.

His next nominee needs to be asian obviously.
Perhaps that judge from the OJ trial!