Obama Nominates Sotomayor for Supreme Court

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
netcrusher88
Posts: 2166
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 4:35 pm UTC
Location: Seattle

Obama Nominates Sotomayor for Supreme Court

Postby netcrusher88 » Tue May 26, 2009 1:43 pm UTC

President Obama will be announcing his nominee today at 10:15 EDT. Live stream at http://www.whitehouse.gov/live/
Sexothermic
I have only ever made one prayer to God, a very short one: "O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous." And God granted it. -Voltaire
They said we would never have a black president until Swine Flu. -Gears

User avatar
lesliesage
Posts: 1729
Joined: Thu May 31, 2007 8:07 pm UTC
Location: Washington, DC
Contact:

Re: Justice David Souter to retire at the end of June

Postby lesliesage » Tue May 26, 2009 2:05 pm UTC

Yeah, but they already said it's Sotomayor. Woo!

User avatar
Ixtellor
There are like 4 posters on XKCD that no more about ...
Posts: 3113
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 3:31 pm UTC

Re: Justice David Souter to retire at the end of June

Postby Ixtellor » Tue May 26, 2009 2:10 pm UTC

lesliesage wrote:Yeah, but they already said it's Sotomayor. Woo!


Yea, I heard this morning. Great pick.

Ixtellor
The Revolution will not be Twitterized.

User avatar
Vaniver
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:12 am UTC

Re: Justice David Souter to retire at the end of June

Postby Vaniver » Tue May 26, 2009 2:53 pm UTC

I mostly post over at LessWrong now.

Avatar from My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, owned by Hasbro.

Haeche
Posts: 34
Joined: Sat May 02, 2009 9:14 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: Justice David Souter to retire at the end of June

Postby Haeche » Tue May 26, 2009 2:59 pm UTC

Diversity is a huge +. Love to have a hispanic lady on the court. Granted that she's non-controversial, pragmatic, and god forbid capable, but maybe the drama queen in me wanted a liberal counterpart to the alitos and the thomases.

User avatar
Ixtellor
There are like 4 posters on XKCD that no more about ...
Posts: 3113
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 3:31 pm UTC

Re: Justice David Souter to retire at the end of June

Postby Ixtellor » Tue May 26, 2009 3:01 pm UTC

Vaniver wrote:Ew, she was one of the lower judges that ruled that New Haven could ignore the test scores because minorities didn't score high enough. That bothers me.


That case has a lot of grey. At first I was 'outraged' that the results were thrown out, but after hearing more detail of the case it seems like the muliple choice portion of the test was disproportionate to other more important factors like - leadership, performance under duress, etc.

What does bother me, is that no one apparently was raising objections until the results came back. The position of the NCAA lawyers was pretty silly IMHO, claiming the test was racially biased based on the fact that blacks didn't do as some white counterparts on this one trial.

I think that argument is bogus, but that the test was not a good test seems plausible.

Ixtellor
The Revolution will not be Twitterized.

AtlasDrugged
Posts: 121
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2008 3:11 pm UTC

Re: Justice David Souter to retire at the end of June

Postby AtlasDrugged » Tue May 26, 2009 8:31 pm UTC

President Obama could have used this opportunity to appoint an Asian Muslim lesbian, and yet he didn't. Shame on him, I say, for giving the middle finger to three separate minorities at once and single-handedly fracturing the rainbow coalition.

User avatar
Will
There are about a million things I can do from behind
Posts: 2256
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 11:12 pm UTC
Location: St. Heraldwulf's Stone
Contact:

Obama Nominates Sotomayor for Supreme Court

Postby Will » Tue May 26, 2009 11:48 pm UTC

my inbox wrote:Will --

I am proud to announce my nominee for the next Justice of the United States Supreme Court: Judge Sonia Sotomayor.

This decision affects us all -- and so it must involve us all. I've recorded a special message to personally introduce Judge Sotomayor and explain why I'm so confident she will make an excellent Justice.Please watch the video, and then pass this note on to friends and family to include them in this historic moment.


He made the announcement over email first (as he often does.) I'll post a link to an actual news article as soon as one appears.
Meaux_Pas: Is it fucking Taint Sunday or something?
liza: Screw y'all, I'm going to the moon

User avatar
Indon
Posts: 4433
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 5:21 pm UTC
Location: Alabama :(
Contact:

Re: Obama Nominates Sotomayor for Supreme Court

Postby Indon » Tue May 26, 2009 11:55 pm UTC

Nifty!
So, I like talking. So if you want to talk about something with me, feel free to send me a PM.

My blog, now rarely updated.

Image

Bright Shadows
Posts: 645
Joined: Mon Dec 15, 2008 2:56 pm UTC

Re: Obama Nominates Sotomayor for Supreme Court

Postby Bright Shadows » Tue May 26, 2009 11:55 pm UTC

Cool.
I think.
<_<
*wasn't paying attention*
*looks around*
Yeah, okay, cool.
Image

User avatar
joshz
Posts: 1466
Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2008 2:51 am UTC
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

Re: Obama Nominates Sotomayor for Supreme Court

Postby joshz » Wed May 27, 2009 2:21 am UTC

Article here.
It's a shrewd decision on his part, apparently. If the Repubs push too hard against here, it could alienate Latinos, whose support they really need now to stay relevant, and (H.W.?) Bush appointed her originally, so they can't go too hard against her politics.

/me takes his hat off to Obama.
You, sir, name? wrote:If you have over 26 levels of nesting, you've got bigger problems ... than variable naming.
suffer-cait wrote:it might also be interesting to note here that i don't like 5 fingers. they feel too bulky.

sje46
Posts: 4730
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 4:41 am UTC
Location: New Hampshire

Re: Obama Nominates Sotomayor for Supreme Court

Postby sje46 » Wed May 27, 2009 2:35 am UTC

Wait, you can subscribe to get updates from the president?
Or do you know him on a personal basis?
General_Norris: Taking pride in your nation is taking pride in the division of humanity.
Pirate.Bondage: Let's get married. Right now.

User avatar
Vaniver
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:12 am UTC

Re: Obama Nominates Sotomayor for Supreme Court

Postby Vaniver » Wed May 27, 2009 2:36 am UTC

Bah. Identity politics are bad.

That's pretty much my only problem with Sotomayor- it's great to see another American Dream nominee (Clarence Thomas's biography is worth a read), but it's disturbing to see a nominee who thinks that unless you've got a particular racial or economic background, you can't understand other people with those backgrounds. I would rather believe in a world where we can all understand each other, rather than a world where we're fragmented into groups.
I mostly post over at LessWrong now.

Avatar from My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, owned by Hasbro.

User avatar
joshz
Posts: 1466
Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2008 2:51 am UTC
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

Re: Obama Nominates Sotomayor for Supreme Court

Postby joshz » Wed May 27, 2009 2:36 am UTC

That'd be nice, but that's not how the world works.
Not everyone can have every experience and be able to empathize with every person, which is why diversity is a very Good Thing (TM).
You, sir, name? wrote:If you have over 26 levels of nesting, you've got bigger problems ... than variable naming.
suffer-cait wrote:it might also be interesting to note here that i don't like 5 fingers. they feel too bulky.

btilly
Posts: 1877
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 7:08 pm UTC

Re: Obama Nominates Sotomayor for Supreme Court

Postby btilly » Wed May 27, 2009 2:39 am UTC

sje46 wrote:Wait, you can subscribe to get updates from the president?
Or do you know him on a personal basis?

I get the emails. I assume it is because I got on the list when I donated to his campaign, and I never asked to get off the list.

You can sign up at http://my.barackobama.com/.
Some of us exist to find out what can and can't be done.

Others exist to hold the beer.

User avatar
Vaniver
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:12 am UTC

Re: Obama Nominates Sotomayor for Supreme Court

Postby Vaniver » Wed May 27, 2009 2:44 am UTC

joshz wrote:That'd be nice, but that's not how the world works.
Not everyone can have every experience and be able to empathize with every person, which is why diversity is a very Good Thing (TM).
Lady Justice has three symbols- a sword, a scale, and a blindfold. That third symbol is important, and I would not toss out impartiality so quickly.
I mostly post over at LessWrong now.

Avatar from My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, owned by Hasbro.

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Obama Nominates Sotomayor for Supreme Court

Postby Belial » Wed May 27, 2009 2:46 am UTC

When all you have is white guys sitting in a room, your idea of what is or isn't "impartial" gets kindof funny.

Kindof like ideas about "common sense" and "fairness"
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
TheGrammarBolshevik
Posts: 4878
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 2:12 am UTC
Location: Going to and fro in the earth, and walking up and down in it.

Re: Obama Nominates Sotomayor for Supreme Court

Postby TheGrammarBolshevik » Wed May 27, 2009 2:48 am UTC

Vaniver wrote:That third symbol is important, and I would not toss out impartiality so quickly.


Then surely you think we should weigh opinions from more than one small part of the population.

Belial wrote:When all you have is white guys sitting in a room, your idea of what is or isn't "impartial" gets kindof funny.

Kindof like ideas about "common sense" and "fairness"


Jinx.
Nothing rhymes with orange,
Not even sporange.

User avatar
joshz
Posts: 1466
Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2008 2:51 am UTC
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

Re: Obama Nominates Sotomayor for Supreme Court

Postby joshz » Wed May 27, 2009 2:49 am UTC

Going off what Belial said, in order for justice to be blind, there needs to be diversity.

And Belial, you're awesome. We should hang out some time. As long as you promise not to eat me.

(Double-jinx?)
You, sir, name? wrote:If you have over 26 levels of nesting, you've got bigger problems ... than variable naming.
suffer-cait wrote:it might also be interesting to note here that i don't like 5 fingers. they feel too bulky.

User avatar
Jahoclave
sourmilk's moderator
Posts: 4790
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2007 8:34 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: Obama Nominates Sotomayor for Supreme Court

Postby Jahoclave » Wed May 27, 2009 2:50 am UTC

Vaniver wrote:
joshz wrote:That'd be nice, but that's not how the world works.
Not everyone can have every experience and be able to empathize with every person, which is why diversity is a very Good Thing (TM).
Lady Justice has three symbols- a sword, a scale, and a blindfold. That third symbol is important, and I would not toss out impartiality so quickly.

I also wouldn't toss out a diversified set of experiences being brought to the discussion either.

Also, it's sad. It hasn't even been a day and I'm rather tired of this.

I mean, can the process please go.

Republicans, do you have anything on her besides she's a dirty no go liberal?

No?

Congratulations, you're now a Supreme Court Justice.

I'd rather this not go past the weekend. Because really, Obama's a democrat, he nominated a democrat. He'll continue to nominate democrats. So complaining that she's a democrat is rather pointless. She's clearly got experience as a judge and she doesn't seem to have killed anyone. What's more important is, is we can has gay marriage now? Because I'd like to get out my bullhorn, laugh at the megachurch, and then move out of this town.

User avatar
joshz
Posts: 1466
Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2008 2:51 am UTC
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

Re: Obama Nominates Sotomayor for Supreme Court

Postby joshz » Wed May 27, 2009 2:52 am UTC

Jahoclave, don't get my wrong, you're awesome, and I'd probably vote for you, but you'd never make it as a politician. :)
You, sir, name? wrote:If you have over 26 levels of nesting, you've got bigger problems ... than variable naming.
suffer-cait wrote:it might also be interesting to note here that i don't like 5 fingers. they feel too bulky.

User avatar
Lumpy
I can has morbid obesity?
Posts: 1450
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 2:19 pm UTC

Re: Obama Nominates Sotomayor for Supreme Court

Postby Lumpy » Wed May 27, 2009 3:01 am UTC

Pfft, no, you still have to deal with weeks of Republicans trying to filibuster, angry Internet people furiously quoting Republicans when Democrats filibustered Bush's nominees, maybe a few Democrats in the Senate from the South trying to gain points in their districts by making the rounds on FOX News over this, and many lines thought up from before the identity of the nominee was even known.

User avatar
PandasOnProzak
Posts: 19
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 11:25 pm UTC
Location: The Dragon Dreams Drearily of Drapes

Re: Obama Nominates Sotomayor for Supreme Court

Postby PandasOnProzak » Wed May 27, 2009 3:08 am UTC

well for my pro/con analysis i looked at right wing blogs/editorials etc.

several of their talking points kind of resonate with me, first off i dislike her because of her involvement in the firefighter case ( article here ) which i feel is reverse discrimination, this coupled with quotes dug out of her past makes me feel that minority cases/illegal immigration will be evaluated with more reverse discrimination, i consider myself liberal on social issues but i think that "obama change" getting to be too much.
҉

User avatar
Jahoclave
sourmilk's moderator
Posts: 4790
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2007 8:34 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: Obama Nominates Sotomayor for Supreme Court

Postby Jahoclave » Wed May 27, 2009 3:13 am UTC

joshz wrote:Jahoclave, don't get my wrong, you're awesome, and I'd probably vote for you, but you'd never make it as a politician. :)

But I got two buckets of Mississippi mud and a right smack pair of overalls straight from the Ozarks.

And seriously, they can go back and amend the record of what was said on the floor anyways. So just type it all up, amend the record, save us all the time. And if you want to go on Fox News, call them up and sign up for a time slot. I assume there's a Republican Politician Appearance Hotline. Call early in the week if you want a slot on Hannity, Beck, or O'Reilly, they fill up fast. And remember, please be able to yell loudly.

Either start being entertaining like Parliament, or get the fuck off my c-span.

User avatar
BlackSails
Posts: 5315
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 5:48 am UTC

Re: Obama Nominates Sotomayor for Supreme Court

Postby BlackSails » Wed May 27, 2009 3:57 am UTC

joshz wrote:That'd be nice, but that's not how the world works.
Not everyone can have every experience and be able to empathize with every person, which is why diversity is a very Good Thing (TM).


I dont want judges with empathy. I want judges with cold hard reasoning, and an encyclopedic knowledge of laws and precedent.

User avatar
frezik
Posts: 1336
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2007 7:52 pm UTC
Location: Schrödinger's Box

Re: Obama Nominates Sotomayor for Supreme Court

Postby frezik » Wed May 27, 2009 4:17 am UTC

Best shot from the GOP so far is a video of her saying the bench is where policy is made. Except that if you watch the larger video, it's clear that she's saying that judges on the court of appeals need to consider their rulings in the context of setting larger precidents, not just on the individual case in question.
I do not agree with the beer you drink, but will defend to the death your right to drink it

User avatar
Lucrece
Posts: 3558
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 12:01 am UTC

Re: Obama Nominates Sotomayor for Supreme Court

Postby Lucrece » Wed May 27, 2009 4:24 am UTC

BlackSails wrote:
joshz wrote:That'd be nice, but that's not how the world works.
Not everyone can have every experience and be able to empathize with every person, which is why diversity is a very Good Thing (TM).


I dont want judges with empathy. I want judges with cold hard reasoning, and an encyclopedic knowledge of laws and precedent.



Who says these are mutually exclusive?

And a judge with empathy is what prevents rulings like the Dred Scott case, or the case of the female slave hanged for killing the master that was trying to rape her, since the law made it obvious that blacks couldn't be raped, because they did not have the right to consent or not consent. The reasoning was airtight and adherent to current law, but it was still considered a travesty of justice.
Belial wrote:That's charming, Nancy, but all I hear when you talk is a bunch of yippy dog sounds.

AtlasDrugged
Posts: 121
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2008 3:11 pm UTC

Re: Obama Nominates Sotomayor for Supreme Court

Postby AtlasDrugged » Wed May 27, 2009 3:52 pm UTC

When all you have is white guys sitting in a room, your idea of what is or isn't "impartial" gets kindof funny.

Kindof like ideas about "common sense" and "fairness"


So what you're saying is, we need:

White Straight Men
White Gay Men
White Straight Women
White Gay Women
Black Straight Men
Black Gay Men
Black Straight Women
Black Gay Women
Latino Straight Men
Latino Gay Men
Latino Straight Women
Latino Gay Women
Asian Straight Men
Asian Gay Men
Asian Straight Women
Asian Gay Women

Don't forget to account for socioeconomic status and disabilities as well!

There are 9 seats on the Supreme Court.
There are 16 categories above.

Oshitwhatdowedonowgenius?

User avatar
Ixtellor
There are like 4 posters on XKCD that no more about ...
Posts: 3113
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 3:31 pm UTC

Re: Obama Nominates Sotomayor for Supreme Court

Postby Ixtellor » Wed May 27, 2009 4:26 pm UTC

Why its perfectly acceptable to include racial/gender/sexual preference/etc criteria in picking SCOUTS nominees by Ixtellor.

1) Name 10 really good artists.
2) Here is my partial list: Picasso, Dali, O'Keefe, Pollock(sp?), Van Gough, Monet, Munch (love him), Rembrandt, etc.
3) Rank them from best to worst.
4) There are a lot of well qualified SCOTUS people out there. There are hundreds of people with a vast knowledge of constitutional law, judicial experience, interpretive intellect, and established judicial philosophies.
5) Since there are soo many qualified applicants, and there is not tangible or measureable metric to determine which are 'better' or more qualified than others... just like painters. It is perfectly acceptable to use other factors to narrow the pool and make a selection. Since it is desirable to have diversity of opinion and life experiences in making good decisions, there is absolutly nothing wrong in making the consious decision to put a minority on the court.
6) If there were no qualified minorities to choose from, this would be an issue, but since there are hundreds of them available, picking a hispanic female over a white male, while have no more impact than picking Munch over Picasso to judge an art contest.


Ixtellor

P.S. Generic uppity poster "I agree with Ixtellor on ever issue, but feel the compulsion to project my own perceived bias and flame him for this post"
The Revolution will not be Twitterized.

AtlasDrugged
Posts: 121
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2008 3:11 pm UTC

Re: Obama Nominates Sotomayor for Supreme Court

Postby AtlasDrugged » Wed May 27, 2009 4:33 pm UTC

So given that you're trying to select 9 people representative of the life experiences of hundreds of millions of people, which criteria do you use to decide whose life experiences are most important?

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Obama Nominates Sotomayor for Supreme Court

Postby Belial » Wed May 27, 2009 4:33 pm UTC

AtlasDrugged wrote:There are 9 seats on the Supreme Court.
There are 16 categories above.

Oshitwhatdowedonowgenius?


Clearly the answer is to say "fuck it" and only pick straight old white guys. You are truly a paragon of reason.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

AtlasDrugged
Posts: 121
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2008 3:11 pm UTC

Re: Obama Nominates Sotomayor for Supreme Court

Postby AtlasDrugged » Wed May 27, 2009 4:42 pm UTC

You're the one who thinks skin colour should be considered, so take care stepping off the moral high ground

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Obama Nominates Sotomayor for Supreme Court

Postby The Great Hippo » Wed May 27, 2009 4:48 pm UTC

Belial wrote:Clearly the answer is to say "fuck it" and only pick straight old white guys. You are truly a paragon of reason.
Th'fuck you talking about? A bunch of old rich old white dudes in a room have solved every problem ever.

I don't think anyone's demanding that every nominee to every position of power be optimized to represent every divergent group that's present in the United States; I think what's being said is that it's nice to shake up the status quo now and then.
AtlasDrugged wrote:You're the one who thinks skin colour should be considered, so take care stepping off the moral high ground.
Hey.

I wrote a poem for you.

Spoiler:
John Stalvern waited. The lights above him blinked and sparked out of the air. There were white people in the base. He didn't see them, but had expected them now for years. His warnings to Cernel Joson were not listenend to and now it was too late. Far too late for now, anyway.
John was an activist for fourteen years. When he was young he watched the civil rights movement and he said to dad "I want to be in the parades."
Dad said "No! You will BE KILL BY RACISTS"
There was a time when he believed him. Then as he got oldered he stopped. But now in the space station base of the ACLU he knew there were racists.
"This is Joson" the radio crackered. "You must fight the racists!"
So John gotted his palsma rifle and blew up the wall.
"HE GOING TO KILL US" said the racists
"I will shoot at him" said Fred Phelps and he fired the rocket missiles. John plasmaed at him and tried to blew him up. But then the ceiling fell and they were trapped and not able to kill.
"No! I must kill the racists" he shouted
The radio said "No, John. You are the racists"
And then John was Louis Farrakhan.

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Obama Nominates Sotomayor for Supreme Court

Postby Belial » Wed May 27, 2009 4:49 pm UTC

All other things being equal, heterogeny will be better than homogeny. Mix it up as much as possible.

How is that hard?
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
segmentation fault
Posts: 1770
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 4:10 pm UTC
Location: Nu Jersey
Contact:

Re: Obama Nominates Sotomayor for Supreme Court

Postby segmentation fault » Wed May 27, 2009 4:53 pm UTC

Vaniver wrote:Bah. Identity politics are bad.

That's pretty much my only problem with Sotomayor- it's great to see another American Dream nominee (Clarence Thomas's biography is worth a read), but it's disturbing to see a nominee who thinks that unless you've got a particular racial or economic background, you can't understand other people with those backgrounds. I would rather believe in a world where we can all understand each other, rather than a world where we're fragmented into groups.


you mean seeing each other as people rather than colors or dollar amounts? thats preposterous!
people are like LDL cholesterol for the internet

AtlasDrugged
Posts: 121
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2008 3:11 pm UTC

Re: Obama Nominates Sotomayor for Supreme Court

Postby AtlasDrugged » Wed May 27, 2009 4:55 pm UTC

All other things being equal, heterogeny will be better than homogeny. Mix it up as much as possible.


You made two unwarranted assumptions in one sentence! That deserves some sort of medal.

Firstly, 'all other things' are NEVER equal. Even if two people could be found with exactly the same views on everything, they would have different characteristics that would make each of them more or less desirable as a judge. Secondly, why is heterogeny better than homogeny? (And no, 'different life experiences' isn't an answer)

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Obama Nominates Sotomayor for Supreme Court

Postby The Great Hippo » Wed May 27, 2009 4:59 pm UTC

AtlasDrugged wrote:Firstly, 'all other things' are NEVER equal. Even if two people could be found with exactly the same views on everything, they would have different characteristics that would make each of them more or less desirable as a judge. Secondly, why is heterogeny better than homogeny? (And no, 'different life experiences' isn't an answer)
As far as I'm aware, 'all things being equal' in that sentence meant 'assuming two candidates with equally impressive resumes'. As for why heterogeny is better than homogeny, uh. Because homogeny breeds weakness, stagnation, insularity, and a lack of outside perspective? There's a reason why we consider inbreeding 'bad'; when you have a bunch of dudes who all come from the same life experiences, the same perspective, the same situations - the end result is the same solutions to the same problems, again and again, even when those problems don't clearly work.

User avatar
Ixtellor
There are like 4 posters on XKCD that no more about ...
Posts: 3113
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 3:31 pm UTC

Re: Obama Nominates Sotomayor for Supreme Court

Postby Ixtellor » Wed May 27, 2009 5:01 pm UTC

AtlasDrugged wrote:So given that you're trying to select 9 people representative of the life experiences of hundreds of millions of people, which criteria do you use to decide whose life experiences are most important?


1) Its up to the President. They and only they get to make that decision, so you needn't worry yourself about it.

2) Picking one minority over another, or even a majority, has no real impact on judicial procedures or outcomes. I personally think picking minorites is good for the moral of the nation, and a sign to minorities America is becoming less oppressive.

3) In some rare instances, a varied cultural viewpoint will shed light on judicial decisions, so again I see it only as a positive to have a diversity of opinion on the court. As oppopsed to 9 judicial restraintist (a myth - See Executive privledge) who are all WASP's.

Ixtellor
The Revolution will not be Twitterized.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Obama Nominates Sotomayor for Supreme Court

Postby The Great Hippo » Wed May 27, 2009 5:04 pm UTC

Ixtellor wrote:2) Picking one minority over another, or even a majority, has no real impact on judicial procedures or outcomes. I personally think picking minorites is good for the moral of the nation, and a sign to minorities America is becoming less oppressive.
This is important; assuming we aren't sacrificing quality for skin-tone (and, at this level, we never are), picking a minority can have a positive and moral effect on the country. And why is that not a factor? The Supreme Court is not a business; the idea is not to make it an effective money-producing operation. It's a social service, so when we do our 'cost-benefit analysis', it's fair to list 'this choice be morally uplifting for certain minorities' as one of our benefits for picking a certain candidate.

AtlasDrugged
Posts: 121
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2008 3:11 pm UTC

Re: Obama Nominates Sotomayor for Supreme Court

Postby AtlasDrugged » Wed May 27, 2009 5:06 pm UTC

1) Its up to the President. They and only they get to make that decision, so you needn't worry yourself about it.


So we shouldn't ever debate what the President does, since we're never in a position to make those decisions? Try telling that to all those on these fora who spent the past 8 years squealing about how Bush was the Antichrist.

2) Picking one minority over another, or even a majority, has no real impact on judicial procedures or outcomes. I personally think picking minorites is good for the moral of the nation, and a sign to minorities America is becoming less oppressive.


Expressions of tokenism are good for the moral of the nation?

3) In some rare instances, a varied cultural viewpoint will shed light on judicial decisions, so again I see it only as a positive to have a diversity of opinion on the court. As oppopsed to 9 judicial restraintist (a myth - See Executive privledge) who are all WASP's.


This again assumes that two candidates can ever be perfectly equal. And why are you talking about judicial restraint?


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 21 guests