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
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 5:07 pm UTC

AtlasShrugged wrote:Expressions of tokenism are good for the moral of the nation?
"Look, I can take a word with a negative connotation and plug it into this situation and derive a negative connotation overall thanks to the power of that word!"

Hey. I wrote another poem for you:
Spoiler:
Roses are red,
violets are blue,
Fuck you.

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 5:10 pm UTC

Your moral crusade extends to dictionaries now? In what way is selecting people on the basis of race rather than judicial prowess anything other than tokenism?

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 5:13 pm UTC

AtlasDrugged wrote:Your moral crusade extends to dictionaries now? In what way is selecting people on the basis of race rather than judicial prowess anything other than tokenism?


Where the hell do you pull this shit from? Can you back up your claims that consideration of judicial prowess is being sacrificed for tokenism, rather than merely being complemented by it?

And you make it sound as if Sotomayor isn't amply qualified.
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 5:16 pm UTC

Can you back up your claims that consideration of judicial prowess is being sacrificed for tokenism, rather than merely being complemented by it?


Well you COULD get hilariously self-righteous... or could you read the posts I'm criticising.

And you make it sound as if Sotomayor isn't amply qualified.


1. That isn't an argument.
2. ...no I didn't?

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 5:23 pm UTC

AtlasDrugged wrote:Your moral crusade extends to dictionaries now? In what way is selecting people on the basis of race rather than judicial prowess anything other than tokenism?
I don't really care what sort of words you use to dress it up in an attempt to villify the idea by association; what we're talking about has a real benefit, and your attempt to define it as 'bad' because it has an association with a word I'm not supposed to like is sophistry at its fucking best. Oppose my fucking points; don't twist words around in a poor man's attempt of "No Jon, YOU are the racist".

Feel free to describe this as tokenism. Feel free to describe affirmative action as 'reverse racism'. Feel free to describe giving women maternity leave as 'reverse sexism'. Feel free to never actually move beyond the most superficial comments on any of these situations ever, because you can't get beyond the fact that - omigod, language!

I'll accept those labels, gladly, but only on one condition - once we describe it in the terms you like, you have to actually tell me why those things are bad.

Which, by the way, you aren't doing.

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 5:35 pm UTC

These things are bad because they elevate irrelevant characteristics (such as race) instead of relevant qualities (personality, intelligence etc.). Attempts to eradicate the view that race is relevant by making race relevant are fundamentally self-contradictory, and indeed exacerbate existing problems: if the state endorses policies of affirmative action (I'll use your word since I don't want you to be able to invent an excuse to throw a hissy fit again), those who suffer (who by definition will include those who already hold the racist views that these policies are intended to extirpate) will suspect that any member of the group intended to be a beneficiary was hired on the basis of race and not on the basis of ability (which will to some extent be true, but will be used as a justification for perpetuating racist beliefs). Thus attempts to legislate away racism only end up entrenching it still further.

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 5:35 pm UTC

AtlasDrugged wrote:[sic]


There are hundreds of qualified candidates for the SCOTUS. Picking between them is like picking between Picasso and Munch as the most qualified painter. Hence the only thing left to differentiate is subjective personal preferences.

So Presidents have a choice - pick yet another Male WASP - or pick something else. Both are equally viable as good SCOTUS nominees.

Since there is an observable morale booster to picking a minority, and the added benefit of diversity on the court in terms of cultural perspective... why on earth not pick a minority?

If the make up of the USA was 70% white 60% christian, and the court was all minority muslims I would equally be advocating picking a WASP for the exact same reasons.


IXtellor
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 5:41 pm UTC

Again, how do you determine which cultural perspectives are most important, given the limited number of seats on SCOTUS?

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 5:45 pm UTC

AtlasDrugged wrote:Again, how do you determine which cultural perspectives are most important, given the limited number of seats on SCOTUS?


The Presidents personal preference.... just like picking the Poet Laurete.

So as not to confuse you, this assuming he is picking among the "highly qualified pool" of applicants.

There is no right answer, there is only the advantage of diversity versus status quo homogeneous picks.

Ixtellor
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 5:47 pm UTC

'The President's personal preference' is not a system for determination. The idea being espoused in this thread that diversity is desirable presupposes an objective scale of measurement by which minority statuses can be judged.

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 6:01 pm UTC

AtlasDrugged wrote:'The President's personal preference' is not a system for determination..


Well thats they system we have. (See the Constitution)

The idea being espoused in this thread that diversity is desirable presupposes an objective scale of measurement by which minority statuses can be judged


There is no objective scale to measure the people at the top. They all graduate at the top of their class from a prestigious school, they all have Federal judicial experience, they all have a genius level understanding of case law, they all have judicial philosophies based on the Consitution, etc. And really, the only criteria that actually matters is that they have a good understanding of Constitutional law... everything else is just gravy.

Sure you can weed out the losers, but they don't end up on the real lists anyway.

The only person nominated in 20+ years who didn't meet these criteria was Harriet Myers, and she was defeated by her own 'side' very quickly because of her glaring flaws.

I assume your understanding of the SCOTUS is negligible, and this is what is leading to your confusion. Exasperbated by strawmen arguments from voices on the right.

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 6:02 pm UTC

AtlasDrugged wrote:'The President's personal preference' is not a system for determination. The idea being espoused in this thread that diversity is desirable presupposes an objective scale of measurement by which minority statuses can be judged.
"We have a candidate from Harvard and a candidate from Juliard."

"Well, Harvard's worth 30 points, Juliard's worth 28... So I guess the Harvard candidate wins."
AtlasDrugged wrote:Thus attempts to legislate away racism only end up entrenching it still further.
Regardless of whether your point is right or wrong here, it's irrelevant, because this is not an attempt to 'legislate away' racism. This is going "We have several candidates for a position who are all equally impressive; let's choose the one who will best benefit our company".

You still haven't addressed any of the actual points being raised, here. We're talking about the actual potential benefits you get back for putting a highly qualified minority to the Supreme Court; you're hung up on language and talking about how this somehow perverts your ideals. Basically, you're saying: "We need to keep the Supreme Court full of white old dudes, even if it's beneficial for us to hire other highly qualified people, because doing otherwise violates my moral perspective of the universe".

User avatar
clintonius
Posts: 2755
Joined: Wed May 07, 2008 9:13 pm UTC
Location: Brooklyn

Re: Obama Nominates Sotomayor for Supreme Court

Postby clintonius » Wed May 27, 2009 6:08 pm UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:
AtlasDrugged wrote:'The President's personal preference' is not a system for determination. The idea being espoused in this thread that diversity is desirable presupposes an objective scale of measurement by which minority statuses can be judged.
"We have a candidate from Harvard and a candidate from Juliard."

"Well, Harvard's worth 30 points, Juliard's worth 28... So I guess the Harvard candidate wins."

I'd love to see a Supreme Court justice from Juilliard. "In a landmark ruling, Justice Happyfluff declared that instead of a written opinion, the Court would declare its decision via interpretive dance."
kira wrote:*piles up some limbs and blood and a couple hearts for good measure*
GUYS. I MADE A HUMAN.
*...pokes at it with a stick*

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 6:09 pm UTC

AtlasDrugged wrote:Again, how do you determine which cultural perspectives are most important, given the limited number of seats on SCOTUS?

There are many ways to do this, but one ideal would be to make the court representative of the diversity of our nation. (After all in a truly colorblind country this is what would naturally happen.) In which case about half the court would be women. We'd have 1 black. 1 latino (or latina). Likely 1 of another race, quite likely an Asian. And with about even odds, one person would be gay. Which means that, believe it or not, if Sotomayor is approved, then women will be the only group that can fairly complain about being underrepresented in the current court. (Of course if you look through history, every group except white men is severely underrepresented.)
Some of us exist to find out what can and can't be done.

Others exist to hold the beer.

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 6:12 pm UTC

clintonius wrote:I'd love to see a Supreme Court justice from Juilliard. "In a landmark ruling, Justice Happyfluff declared that instead of a written opinion, the Court would declare its decision via interpretive dance."
Well, fuck me for choosing my example colleges out of a fancy looking hat!

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 » Wed May 27, 2009 6:13 pm UTC

nectarine
Last edited by lesliesage on Sun Oct 10, 2010 10:01 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

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 6:14 pm UTC

"We have a candidate from Harvard and a candidate from Juliard."

"Well, Harvard's worth 30 points, Juliard's worth 28... So I guess the Harvard candidate wins."


Institutions can be compared on a variety of metrics (most of them subjective, but one can at least offer justifications for them). Minority statuses, however, cannot. On what basis can one conclude, for example, that it is more suitable to be Latino than black, or vice versa?

This is going "We have several candidates for a position who are all equally impressive; let's choose the one who will best benefit our company".


Yet again the erroneous assumption that candidates can ever be exactly equal.

You still haven't addressed any of the actual points being raised, here. We're talking about the actual potential benefits you get back for putting a highly qualified minority to the Supreme Court; you're hung up on language and talking about how this somehow perverts your ideals. Basically, you're saying: "We need to keep the Supreme Court full of white old dudes, even if it's beneficial for us to hire other highly qualified people, because doing otherwise violates my moral perspective of the universe".


And you're saying 'I think, ceteris paribus [although you haven't responded to my point that this is an absurd assumption to make], that a minority should be chosen over a white person because doing otherwise violates my moral perspective of the universe'. Every normative argument takes as axiomatic a set of moral assumptions and then draws conclusions thereof; therefore, your attempt to label my arguments as such in a manner which implies that they're a bad thing is itself the kind of sophistry you accuse me of.

No, I'm not trying to perpetuate white male dominance. I'm arguing that the multiplicity of other variables involved means that candidates will never be equal, and so that the argument that there is no downside to picking a minority candidate (unless he or she is more qualified, in which case the case for choosing him or her stands on its own merits and doesn't need appeals to skin colour) is fundamentally flawed. You have not yet responded to that.

There are many ways to do this, but one ideal would be to make the court representative of the diversity of our nation. (After all in a truly colorblind country this is what would naturally happen.) In which case about half the court would be women. We'd have 1 black. 1 latino (or latina). Likely 1 of another race, quite likely an Asian. And with about even odds, one person would be gay. Which means that, believe it or not, if Sotomayor is approved, then women will be the only group that can fairly complain about being underrepresented in the current court. (Of course if you look through history, every group except white men is severely underrepresented.)


No, in a colourblind country the exact opposite would happen (or to be more exact, the situation you're describing could occur anyway, but it wouldn't be for the reasons you're suggesting): people would be selected on the basis of ability.

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

Re: Obama Nominates Sotomayor for Supreme Court

Postby lesliesage » Wed May 27, 2009 6:36 pm UTC

puzzle
Last edited by lesliesage on Sun Oct 10, 2010 7:43 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
clintonius
Posts: 2755
Joined: Wed May 07, 2008 9:13 pm UTC
Location: Brooklyn

Re: Obama Nominates Sotomayor for Supreme Court

Postby clintonius » Wed May 27, 2009 6:38 pm UTC

AtlasDrugged wrote:Institutions can be compared on a variety of metrics (most of them subjective, but one can at least offer justifications for them). Minority statuses, however, cannot. On what basis can one conclude, for example, that it is more suitable to be Latino than black, or vice versa?
AtlasDrugged wrote:
This is going "We have several candidates for a position who are all equally impressive; let's choose the one who will best benefit our company".
Yet again the erroneous assumption that candidates can ever be exactly equal.

I think you're confusing some ideas here. People are talking about minorities being more beneficial ("more suitable," to be consistent with your terminology) than WASPs for a Supreme Court appointment at this time. Nobody's saying it is more suitable to be black than it is Latino or vice-versa.

Also, there's a difference between being exactly equal and being equally impressive. Of course no two people are going to be exactly equal. People are terribly complex. One consequence of this complexity is that people cannot be precisely compared to one another, which means that, in addition to us not being able to say "this minority candidate is or is not exactly as qualified as this white candidate," there also is not going to be a single, "most qualified" candidate at the apex of the Supreme Court nominee short list. There are simply too many factors to be able to declare objectively that one person is more qualified than all others for the position. The President should look at the people who are highly qualified and pick the person who will be best for the Court and this country.
kira wrote:*piles up some limbs and blood and a couple hearts for good measure*
GUYS. I MADE A HUMAN.
*...pokes at it with a stick*

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 6:41 pm UTC

lesliesage wrote:I mean, Alito was a joke


While I despise Alito as a judge because of his judicial medieval philosophy... he was highly qualified for the court. Aside from not recusing himself for one trial, I can't think of a single factor that would lead one to believe he is a "joke". The dude has serious legal and constitutional chops.

Ixtellor
The Revolution will not be Twitterized.

User avatar
Malice
Posts: 3894
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 5:37 am UTC
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Contact:

Re: Obama Nominates Sotomayor for Supreme Court

Postby Malice » Wed May 27, 2009 6:47 pm UTC

AtlasDrugged wrote:
This is going "We have several candidates for a position who are all equally impressive; let's choose the one who will best benefit our company".


Yet again the erroneous assumption that candidates can ever be exactly equal.


Which candidate of the many mentioned as possible nominees is objectively the best?

If you can't answer that question easily, then who cares which one of them gets chosen? At a certain level it's all guess-work and coin-flipping anyways.

Yes, no candidate's history is exactly the same, but in terms of placing value on the elements of that history, many of them come out about equal. How important is one school versus another? How do you weigh the desire for a young justice against the desire for the wisdom and experience that comes with age? All of these things are ultimately subjective.

No, in a colourblind country the exact opposite would happen (or to be more exact, the situation you're describing could occur anyway, but it wouldn't be for the reasons you're suggesting): people would be selected on the basis of ability.


But there are only 9 spaces on the Court; that's not enough to give a naturally occurring representative standard, even if we magically made everybody color-blind. A representative court is still an asset; so it's better to force it towards that direction than to let it slide towards the homogeneous old-white-dude direction.
Image

logomachy
Posts: 25
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2008 5:00 pm UTC

Re: Obama Nominates Sotomayor for Supreme Court

Postby logomachy » Wed May 27, 2009 6:49 pm UTC

AtlasDrugged wrote:Attempts to eradicate the view that race is relevant by making race relevant are fundamentally self-contradictory, and indeed exacerbate existing problems: if the state endorses policies of affirmative action, those who suffer will suspect that any member of the group intended to be a beneficiary was hired on the basis of race and not on the basis of ability. Thus attempts to legislate away racism only end up entrenching it still further.

So... Sotomayor shouldn't have been nominated because it will make racists unhappy?


Or do you just thinks that graduating summa cum laude from Princeton and serving on the Court of Appeals for more than ten years isn't sufficient to merit the position?

Or are you mad that people keep mentioning that she's Latina, because you don't see how not speaking fluent English until age 9, and being a member of a class traditionally disadvantaged by the legal system would make her views more fairly represent the US population than those of another white guy?


I mean, what, specifically, are you trying to say about her?

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 7:03 pm UTC

I think you're confusing some ideas here. People are talking about minorities being more beneficial ("more suitable," to be consistent with your terminology) than WASPs for a Supreme Court appointment at this time. Nobody's saying it is more suitable to be black than it is Latino or vice-versa.


If you grant that the differences between the life experiences of two different ethnic groups are so vast that, for example, white men wouldn't be able to understand the challenges facing black men, there's no reason why that shouldn't also be true of, say, black women and Latino women, or indeed any two randomly selected groups. Given that there are limited places on SCOTUS, and more interests that supposedly need representation on the court than there are Supreme Court Justices, how do you decide which of those interests are more deserving of representation?

So... Sotomayor shouldn't have been nominated because it will make racists unhappy?

Or do you just thinks that graduating summa cum laude from Princeton and serving on the Court of Appeals for more than ten years isn't sufficient to merit the position?

Or are you mad that people keep mentioning that she's Latina, because you don't see how not speaking fluent English until age 9, and being a member of a class traditionally disadvantaged by the legal system would make her views more fairly represent the US population than those of a white guy?

I mean, what, specifically, are you trying to say about her?


If you'd read the preceding posts, you'd know that the first part of my post was about any practices based on that principle, notably affirmative action. And seeing as the whole point behind affirmative action is to change racists' minds, the perception of affirmative action is part of its effect.

I'm saying that if you want to see Sonia Sotomayor confirmed, use the same arguments as you would were she John Doe with the same academic background, and that the whole idea that you can't represent a group unless you belong to that group is an absurd fiction which no-one in this thread has yet justified.

Yes, no candidate's history is exactly the same, but in terms of placing value on the elements of that history, many of them come out about equal. How important is one school versus another? How do you weigh the desire for a young justice against the desire for the wisdom and experience that comes with age? All of these things are ultimately subjective.


They are, but one can present rational arguments for favouring one side over another (with the youth vs. age question, for example). With race and such, all such decisions are completely arbitrary.

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 7:15 pm UTC

If you'd read the preceding posts, you'd know that the first part of my post was about any practices based on that principle, notably affirmative action.


Things this thread isn't about:

That.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

logomachy
Posts: 25
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2008 5:00 pm UTC

Re: Obama Nominates Sotomayor for Supreme Court

Postby logomachy » Wed May 27, 2009 7:33 pm UTC

AtlasDrugged wrote:I'm saying that if you want to see Sonia Sotomayor confirmed, use the same arguments as you would were she John Doe with the same academic background, and that the whole idea that you can't represent a group unless you belong to that group is an absurd fiction which no-one in this thread has yet justified.


So you don't think that poor people are more likely to make decisions sympathetic to poor people than rich people are?

Okay.

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 7:37 pm UTC

logomachy wrote:
AtlasDrugged wrote:I'm saying that if you want to see Sonia Sotomayor confirmed, use the same arguments as you would were she John Doe with the same academic background, and that the whole idea that you can't represent a group unless you belong to that group is an absurd fiction which no-one in this thread has yet justified.


So you don't think that poor people are more likely to make decisions sympathetic to poor people than rich people are?

Okay.


This is a problem. Judges should not be sympathizing with various groups of people. They should be rigorously applying and interpreting the law.

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 7:45 pm UTC

The Thread on Sotomayor goes round and round.
Round and round.

Seacrest Out.


Ixtellor
The Revolution will not be Twitterized.

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

Re: Obama Nominates Sotomayor for Supreme Court

Postby lesliesage » Wed May 27, 2009 7:59 pm UTC

BlackSails wrote:Judges should not be sympathizing with various groups of people. They should be rigorously applying and interpreting the law.
Example.

Law: Do not violate ___ rights.

Judge 1: Hey, what's wrong with doing ___ to people? I wouldn't care. Therefore, it's not a violation. You'd have to do way worse.

Judge 2: Actually, strip searching little girls is a massive, massive violation of the law.

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 8:50 pm UTC

AtlasDrugged wrote:
There are many ways to do this, but one ideal would be to make the court representative of the diversity of our nation. (After all in a truly colorblind country this is what would naturally happen.) In which case about half the court would be women. We'd have 1 black. 1 latino (or latina). Likely 1 of another race, quite likely an Asian. And with about even odds, one person would be gay. Which means that, believe it or not, if Sotomayor is approved, then women will be the only group that can fairly complain about being underrepresented in the current court. (Of course if you look through history, every group except white men is severely underrepresented.)

No, in a colourblind country the exact opposite would happen (or to be more exact, the situation you're describing could occur anyway, but it wouldn't be for the reasons you're suggesting): people would be selected on the basis of ability.

You seem to have a poor grasp of statistics. What I was saying is that if all else is equal, then the most likely outcome is that the distribution of various groups on the court is similar to the distribution in the general population. Not because anyone is stacking the deck, but because that's what the laws of probability say is most likely to happen.

At the moment we have 1 woman, and 8 men. The odds of randomly having that few or fewer women is about 2%. We have 8 whites and 1 black in a country that is 74% white. The odds of randomly having that few or fewer minorities is about 28%. In other words in a truly colorblind country we'd be unlikely to have a court that looks like the one we have today

But if we replace 1 white man with 1 latina woman then the odds of having that few or fewer women go up to 9%, and the odds of having that few or fewer minorities go up to 57%. So at that point the court has a somewhat unlikely shortage of women, but has pretty much the expected number of minorities.

If you wish to do the calculation yourself, the odds of k out of n people being from a group that is a portion p of the population is pk*(1-p)n-k*n!/(k!*(n-k)!) where n! is n*(n-1)*...*1. The figures that I used in that calculation were that 50% of the population is female, and 26% are some kind of minority.
Some of us exist to find out what can and can't be done.

Others exist to hold the beer.

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 9:53 pm UTC

What I was saying is that if all else is equal


AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

*calms down*

deep breaths...

Judges should not be sympathizing with various groups of people. They should be rigorously applying and interpreting the law.Example.

Law: Do not violate ___ rights.

Judge 1: Hey, what's wrong with doing ___ to people? I wouldn't care. Therefore, it's not a violation. You'd have to do way worse.

Judge 2: Actually, strip searching little girls is a massive, massive violation of the law.


Comes under category of 'rigorously applying and interpreting the law'.

User avatar
Malice
Posts: 3894
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 5:37 am UTC
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Contact:

Re: Obama Nominates Sotomayor for Supreme Court

Postby Malice » Wed May 27, 2009 10:27 pm UTC

AtlasDrugged wrote:Comes under category of 'rigorously applying and interpreting the law'.


The law often contains ideas that are left up to the discretion of the judge (and the arguments of the lawyers)--like what, exactly, constitutes "cruel" when dealing with "cruel and unusual punishment" (to use a simple example). Times like that, there is no "rigorous application," there's only the judge's common sense and empathy to guide him.

In the strip-search case, you had an elderly man saying, "She was strip-searched? So what? I had to undress in gym class! Sounds like no big deal to me." That constitutes a total failure of the man to understand (empathize with) the perspective of a modern teenage female being forced to take off her clothes by an authority figure. The law doesn't tell him what that experience is; but the law does ask him to weigh the pain and suffering of that experience against the need to protect children from drugs they may be carrying. How can he judge that trade-off if he doesn't rightly comprehend one whole side of it? And how can he, unless he has in some way shared the experiences involved?
Image

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 11:16 pm UTC

If it were just a matter of knowing and applying the law, we could just replace the supreme court with a wikipedia-style law database and have a bunch of interns run it.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

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 » Wed May 27, 2009 11:24 pm UTC

AtlasDrugged wrote: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.


I wasn't aware of any asian islamolesbians on the list of qualified candidates.

I like that word. "Islamolesbian".

AtlasDrugged wrote:Expressions of tokenism are good for the moral of the nation?

If Sotomayor qualifies for the position in objective terms, then your claim here is not only irrelevant, and wrong, but indicative of an utter lack of objectivity on the subject - As when confronted with a new supreme court justice, instead of asking, "So, what are her qualifications?" You went, "What? She has tits and a tan! OMGWTFBBQ!?!"

BlackSails wrote:This is a problem. Judges should not be sympathizing with various groups of people. They should be rigorously applying and interpreting the law.


Ah, very true! We should immediately take steps to minimize the excessively high chance that the most powerful set of judges in the nation unintentionally sympathizes with old white guys.

What? Sotomayor isn't white or a guy? Obama, you clever bastard, always one step ahead of us. Still old, but two out of three ain't bad.

Edit:
Belial wrote:If it were just a matter of knowing and applying the law, we could just replace the supreme court with a wikipedia-style law database and have a bunch of interns run it.


A wiki can be the next supreme court justice.

Of course, it'll have to weather claims of 'tokenism' from wikiphobes.
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

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 » Thu May 28, 2009 2:57 am UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:
clintonius wrote:I'd love to see a Supreme Court justice from Juilliard. "In a landmark ruling, Justice Happyfluff declared that instead of a written opinion, the Court would declare its decision via interpretive dance."
Well, fuck me for choosing my example colleges out of a fancy looking hat!

I'm not even sure Juilliard has a law school, but I do believe they may have to start one just so that I can see this happen.


And Indon, you get one kitten for "Islamolesbian"

Belial wrote:If it were just a matter of knowing and applying the law, we could just replace the supreme court with a wikipedia-style law database and have a bunch of interns run it.

Is this before or after we get the Robot Pope?

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 » Thu May 28, 2009 3:18 am UTC

lesliesage wrote:Um, and your problem is what, exactly? You think she should have sat around thinking how Vaniver "feels" about it instead of what the law says?

You can't say, "I don't want judicial activists," and then when someone rules on the basis of legal precedent, you say they're legislating from the bench.

The decision was rendered in keeping with the precedent of the Second Circuit. And in the brief opinion, the panel said they had felt solicitude for the firefighters but they were bound by the precedent in the circuit. She wasn't legislating what she felt; she didn't have that luxury. And if legislators want to change anti-discrimination laws, that's their business, but right now that judicial decision falls well within the bounds of legal protections for minorities. You're frankly going to have to blame someone other than a judge.
I think it's obvious that what happened in New Haven was inappropriate and a misapplication of the Act in question. It was one of the ugliest, most blatant example of race-based politics out there.

Sotomayor's response? Mostly silent affirmation.

lesliesage wrote:She's the most qualified person to be nominated in 100 years.
She has the most judicial experience in 100 years. That's different from most qualified.

But, notice that nowhere I have attacked her experience, and I think other people that do attack her experience are mistaken. By all accounts, Sotomayor is a skilled judge.

But of grave importance is her worldview, as experience shows that's how judges will interpret the Constitution. Someone that believes in the importance or racial, sexual, or socioeconomic identity is not a person I want as a Supreme Court Justice in a society blind to those things.


Note that you can see the backlash against affirmative action / enforced diversity occurring here. Regardless of Sotomayor's experience, it's widely assumed (and, perhaps somewhat justly) that she was nominated because she is female and Hispanic. And so her nomination becomes an argument about affirmative action.
I mostly post over at LessWrong now.

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

User avatar
Delass
Posts: 368
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 2:45 am UTC

Re: Obama Nominates Sotomayor for Supreme Court

Postby Delass » Thu May 28, 2009 3:23 am UTC

Jahoclave wrote:
The Great Hippo wrote:
clintonius wrote:I'd love to see a Supreme Court justice from Juilliard. "In a landmark ruling, Justice Happyfluff declared that instead of a written opinion, the Court would declare its decision via interpretive dance."
Well, fuck me for choosing my example colleges out of a fancy looking hat!

I'm not even sure Juilliard has a law school, but I do believe they may have to start one just so that I can see this happen.


AFAIK, you technically don't need to have a law degree to be appointed, so you're in luck!

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 » Thu May 28, 2009 3:25 am UTC

Delass wrote:
Jahoclave wrote:
The Great Hippo wrote:
clintonius wrote:I'd love to see a Supreme Court justice from Juilliard. "In a landmark ruling, Justice Happyfluff declared that instead of a written opinion, the Court would declare its decision via interpretive dance."
Well, fuck me for choosing my example colleges out of a fancy looking hat!

I'm not even sure Juilliard has a law school, but I do believe they may have to start one just so that I can see this happen.


AFAIK, you technically don't need to have a law degree to be appointed, so you're in luck!

True, a lot like the Pope. So we could just kill three birds with one stone. We just need to get a robot through Julliard. I'd appreciate it if you scientists would not start the robot revolution fulfilling my requests. I'll be rather disappointed in you.

Also, didn't I already point out that I don't like her because she's a liberal is a fucking annoying excuse to oppose her?

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

Re: Obama Nominates Sotomayor for Supreme Court

Postby Vaniver » Thu May 28, 2009 3:29 am UTC

Jahoclave wrote:Also, didn't I already point out that I don't like her because she's a liberal is a fucking annoying excuse to oppose her?
In a similar fashion to how "I like her because she's a liberal" is an annoying excuse to support her, or in a different fashion?
I mostly post over at LessWrong now.

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

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 » Thu May 28, 2009 3:35 am UTC

So, other than the firefighter thing, is there anywhere else where anyone here disagrees with her rulings?

Also, on the subject of empathy:

ALITO: I don't come from an affluent background or a privileged background. My parents were both quite poor when they were growing up. ...

when a case comes before me involving, let's say, someone who is an immigrant -- and we get an awful lot of immigration cases and naturalization cases -- I can't help but think of my own ancestors, because it wasn't that long ago when they were in that position.

... When I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or because of gender. And I do take that into account.


Newt Gingrich's RSS feed:

White man racist nominee would be forced to withdraw. Latina woman racist should also withdraw.
Last edited by Lumpy on Thu May 28, 2009 3:49 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.

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 » Thu May 28, 2009 3:46 am UTC

Vaniver wrote:
Jahoclave wrote:Also, didn't I already point out that I don't like her because she's a liberal is a fucking annoying excuse to oppose her?
In a similar fashion to how "I like her because she's a liberal" is an annoying excuse to support her, or in a different fashion?

Actually my point is, she's qualified, Obama's a liberal, Obama gets to pick. There's no point in bitching about her being a liberal because that's what you're going to get. So unless there's some overarching reason why she shouldn't get the job, which we'd sure as hell know about by now, the whole exercise is at least pointless and at most annoying.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 23 guests