Affirmative Action on the Court
Printed From: Tippmann Paintball
Category: News And Views
Forum Name: Thoughts and Opinions
Forum Description: Got something you need to say?
URL: http://www.tippmannsports.com/forum/wwf77a/forum_posts.asp?TID=141366
Printed Date: 24 February 2026 at 4:58pm
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.04 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Affirmative Action on the Court
Posted By: Clark Kent
Subject: Affirmative Action on the Court
Date Posted: 07 September 2005 at 11:16am
|
I know we just had a discussion on this subject, but recent news lends itself to the issue. Hopefully we can keep this thread focused, instead of having it become a general AA discussion...? In any event, there are nine Supreme Court justices. Currently, two slots are open, and Roberts has been nominated for one of those. The question: Should race/gender be a consideration for nominations for those slots? Laura Bush went public after O'Connor retired with a hope that GW would pick a woman. After Rehnquist's death, people of both parties have suggested that a woman would be a good idea. So - this is a very specific issue. There is no issue of "opportunity". All of the potential nominees are already very successful. If they were disadvantaged in the past, they are not disadvantaged anymore. But - is there a benefit to have a "diverse" Court? Is there a benefit to justice, or to the country, or otherwise, to have a court with men and women, with people of different ethnicities? Or is that just irrelevant? Does it matter if the court is all white men?
|
Replies:
Posted By: ShortyBP
Date Posted: 07 September 2005 at 11:29am
|
It doesn't matter, no. They're job is to interpret the Constitution, and gender, race, etc have no bearing on that.
However, at the same time, in the matter of public perception, it is almost necessary to have a minority fill a seat, otherwise the Gubmint leaves itself open to accusations of racism/sexism/etc. Sad that it comes down to that, but it does. So, as far as I am concerned... no, it shouldn't matter what race/gender a person is in regards to filling the seat, so long as whomever is nominated is qualified. But in reality, it does matter, because the public is ignorant and always looks at the race/gender lines no matter what the topic. You make it an all old-white-boy club... public screams "unfair". |
Posted By: Hades
Date Posted: 07 September 2005 at 12:28pm
|
Yes, I definately think there is a benieft to having a diverse Supreme Court.
Infact, I wish there was some way to make it even more diverse than it is today. The more diverse the court is the more perspectives and ideas/thoughts can be brought to the table before a ruling is made. Take for instance, abortion if there was a jury of Seven men deciding the fate of millions of women and none have the perspective of a women, is that really a well informed decision? I know the court is there to interpret the laws and if they are constititional or not, but if the judges in the seats all look, think, and do alike, what is the point of having seven? I need to think about this more to state a more specific answer that relates to your question... I lost myself somewhere :S ------------- 
|
Posted By: DBibeau855
Date Posted: 07 September 2005 at 2:41pm
|
It shouldnt matter weather they are black, white, purple, male, female, or transexual, their soul job is to interpret the constitution and give a ruling. Their back ground, ethnicity and sex should in no way play a part in their decision. We do not need a "diverse court" we need a court that will stay away from judicial activisim and a court that is able to do its job, nothing more, and nothing less. If that court can operate at its asigned capasity and it happens to be a diverse court, with one justice representing major financial racian and social classes, than so be it, but i believe this to be an imposiblity because of the social make-up of the United States.
Race and Gender should not matter when a candidate is chosen. The decision to add a potention justice on the court should be based on individual merit alone. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/DBibeau855/?chartstyle=myspacecolors"> 
|
Posted By: Gatyr
Date Posted: 07 September 2005 at 3:05pm
|
Yes, diversity is needed, because otherwise Jesse Jackson will make up words to describe how racist the governemnt is.
------------- 
|
Posted By: Bunkered
Date Posted: 07 September 2005 at 3:06pm
|
In theory, it shouldn't matter.
However, in reality it does. Different races and genders will interpret the Constitution in different ways. In my experience, women tend to be less harsh and more compassionate in most cases, and would be deemed "more liberal" by many people. I'd like to see some slightly more liberal people on the court, so I wouldn't have a problem with a woman or a race other than Caucasian. However, in the end it's not our choice, and we will probably be stuck with another conservative white male. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Cedric
Date Posted: 07 September 2005 at 3:26pm
|
All in favor of an African American lesbian who just happens to be muslim?
------------- 
|
Posted By: Predatorr
Date Posted: 07 September 2005 at 3:30pm
|
I dont think a diverse court would really have any advantages / disadvantages. But i do think it would be good to have an opinion from a woman or minority. But i dont really pay attention to them so its not really my say that matters and i could care less. But it might end up an old white man club because of course as kanye so boldy put it, "Bush doesnt care about black people". Cedric- I |
Posted By: Clark Kent
Date Posted: 07 September 2005 at 3:36pm
|
I am not available this term. |
Cedric wrote:Posted By: Cedric
Date Posted: 07 September 2005 at 3:37pm
:( There goes that idea. -------------
|
Posted By: Clark Kent
Date Posted: 07 September 2005 at 3:38pm
|
Nice of you to think of me, though. :) And your sig is still strangely exciting. |
Posted By: agentwhale007.
Date Posted: 07 September 2005 at 3:39pm
|
I think the real political question to be asked here is... If they get BET, home comes we dont get WET? ------------- Hey, nice marmot!  |
Posted By: Cedric
Date Posted: 07 September 2005 at 3:39pm
|
It's very fun to watch when the forums are slow.
-------------
|
Posted By: Clark Kent
Date Posted: 07 September 2005 at 3:51pm
|
It occurs to me that there are two or three issues at hand. First, perspective - as Hades suggests, it might be considered valuable to have people with different backgrounds on the court. Even though their job is essentially colorblind, the personal views, beliefs, and experiences of Justices do come into play (although not always in the way we think). Presumably, it would be "better" to have a Court with a diversity of views and experiences, make sure that all issues got the full 360 treatment. But - who is to say that a random black/female justice would automatically provide a different perspective than a random white/male justice? Is Clarence Thomas that different from Antonin Scalia? Is Ruth Bader Ginsburg that different from John Paul Stevens? And to the extent that Ginsburg is different from Thomas, how much of that difference is due to race or gender? Ugh. Will finish rest of rambling thought after a bathroom break. |
Posted By: Homer J
Date Posted: 07 September 2005 at 4:30pm
There is, it's called CMT, duh. |
Posted By: A-5 08
Date Posted: 07 September 2005 at 4:38pm
|
Honestly the perspective of an african american female versus a white male could be different and may not be different. It all depends on their backround, no one is really random.
I suppose they could have quite similar opinions and equally very oposite opinions. Though doesn't this come down to deep rooted societal ideas? A black women must think differently froma white male, because of the color of their skin and their gender. Now there are deffinate differences in gender and how that plays a role in your personal opinions. Though, ideally, race shouldn't be a factor, but it is. |
Posted By: Jim Paint
Date Posted: 07 September 2005 at 5:00pm
There is a WET. It's porn. ------------- 
saepe fidelis |
Posted By: Frank Zappa
Date Posted: 07 September 2005 at 5:01pm
|
Do we need Affirmative Action in major league sports? Because really, I don't want my white kid growing up thinking that he's white, so he can't play sports. |
Posted By: Clark Kent
Date Posted: 07 September 2005 at 5:06pm
|
Second point - perception. As pointed out, it might simply "look bad" if our court were all white/male. Should we care whether it looks bad? I certainly don't particularly care whether anybody is offended - I don't see a need to be PC about this. But - perceptions are reality. If having an all white/male court leads to racial tensions, which leads to division of our country and overall unpleasantness, and if making sure that there were some not-white/male justices would help that situation, would not that be a small price to pay? Presumably, all nominees are fundamentally qualified - if we can choose a candidate that is as good as the other candidates, but has the additional feature of making people happy, is this not a good thing? Several "ifs" in there, but you perhaps get my point. |
Posted By: Fat Stalin
Date Posted: 07 September 2005 at 5:08pm
Oh that made me giggle.  ------------- 
|
Posted By: Dune
Date Posted: 07 September 2005 at 5:10pm
| It is the life experiences and life's teachings that truly make candidates differ, like Clark said. That's why it is extremely important for the space to be filled by a minority, woman, or both. |
Posted By: Dune
Date Posted: 07 September 2005 at 5:12pm
| But, of course I have my biases. With O'Connor being a swing vote for such high cases such as abortion and the death penalty, and Stevens's rekindled fight against the death penalty, I would love to see a moderate minority be put in place that might swing that balance a little. |
Posted By: agentwhale007.
Date Posted: 07 September 2005 at 5:22pm
|
But Dune, dont you know, if a white male is not picked, thats reverse racisim. ------------- Hey, nice marmot! |
Posted By: Clark Kent
Date Posted: 07 September 2005 at 5:29pm
|
Last point - gut feeling. I have talked to a lot of people, from a variety of backgrounds, who agreed with Laura Bush's statement that it would be "nice" if GW picked a woman. Most people don't think of this in terms of affirmative action (I think), but somehow have a sense that this would be appropriate. I certainly don't think Mrs. Bush realized that she was endorsing affirmative action. I don't know why this is, but it seems fairly widespread. Does that mean something? Is it reflective of a wider belief of something? I dunno. |
Posted By: Jim Paint
Date Posted: 07 September 2005 at 6:55pm
-------------
saepe fidelis |
Posted By: Hades
Date Posted: 07 September 2005 at 11:41pm
|
I was thinking about this today but I wonder how different can some of these judges be for them to have different perspectives? I would imagine any canidate would have grown up with an education available to them from as early as elementary school. All of them would most likely have earned good grades throughout school. All of them are motivated and obtain goals they strive for. All of them graduated high school and college, then law school. All of them were successful in their jobs. The only difference I can really see is what they learned while living and their own personal beliefs.
Are the underprivlaged/minority really ever going to be repesented? Should they be? -------------
|
Posted By: SuperXero
Date Posted: 08 September 2005 at 12:02am
|
"...team comprised of blacks, whites, and asians, because true diversity comes from people who look different." - Maddox, commenting on Websense.
The actual person shouldn't matter. The idea of a judge is that they are supposed to be an unbiased entity, who can decide on something without outside influences. Of course, I'm not American, I could be wrong. Race shouldn't be looked at, but most of the time it is, and these days, people aren't rejected because of race, but on the contrary, they are too openly accepted simply for the reason of making something appear more equal. Take for example Derek Vinyard's Father's speech made at the dinner table in American History X. He talked about how 2 black firemen were chosen above 2 white guys, who actually scored higher on the tests. It was all done for the purpose of "equality", but what people don't seem to realize, is that by doing this, you contradict the point. Is it truly equal, when the underdog is chosen, for the sole reason of being the underdog? In short, justice is supposed to be blind and a judge is supposed to be it's seeing-eye dog. If the dog can bark, walk, and guide it's owner, then by all means, pick it, but don't pick it because its the runt of the litter. ------------- Tenacious and Versatile |
Posted By: Clark Kent
Date Posted: 26 September 2005 at 11:58am
|
Sorry for bumping this ancient thread, but it popped up in the news again. Looks like GW is starting to support AA in this case: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9491993/ - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9491993/
|
Posted By: whack-a-mole
Date Posted: 26 September 2005 at 12:49pm
|
I still have to agree with Hades and ShortyBP. ------------- NASA and the Americans spent millions of dollars and hundreds of hours to develop a pen that would write in space.....The Russians used a pencil. |
Posted By: Gatyr
Date Posted: 26 September 2005 at 2:13pm
|
If he picks a female or minority simply because they arent white or male, I lose alot of faith in this country. Its simply pitiful when someoen is appointed to such an important position based on nothing more than their genetalia or skin color. Thats not to say if they are more qualified than a white male that they shouldnt get the job, but if he is just doing this to please people, and isnt even considering anyone else, then bush shouldnt be able to hold such a position. -------------
|