Justice Souter to Retire

[quote name='rickonker']You're including a time period during which nonwhites and females were heavily discriminated against from birth, and you still think it's weird that white males probably were the best candidates most of the time?[/QUOTE]
Yes I do, and it's because the first non-white male candidate chosen (during that time period no less) is one of the greatest, most esteemed figures in the history of the court. Love his opinions or hate them, no one can suggest that Marshall wasn't a stellar justice. He was and continues to be a looming figure. They just weren't looking and they left talent on the table because the candidate was black/brown/whatever.

[quote name='perdition(troy']Why does it even matter race/gender the next judge is. Either the next judge is competent or he/she isn't. It's not rocket science here, just give it to the most qualified person and bada bing bada boom problem solved.[/QUOTE]
Here's the problem. If Obama floated 10 names and 9 of them were white males, no one would say anything about the 9. Everyone would postulate that the reason the 1 was included is because they were not a white male. It's a no win situation and that's not fair to anyone. So Obama floats 6 names and 5 are female. Unfair! The one male isn't white. Unfair!

Obama has a background that makes his insight into the requirements of a justice unparalleled among modern presidents. If I wanted to know who the best actor was, I'd ask Reagan. If I wanted to know who gave the best toothy BJ in the south, I'd ask Clinton. Can we at least agree that if Obama says someone is qualified to interpret the law according to his view, the person is qualified?
 
[quote name='elprincipe']While I would dismiss as nonsense that SCOTUS justices have to be "in line with America as a whole" when considering race/gender, it's pretty hard to argue that 2/17 is in line with 51% of the population.

The bottom line is that, as FOC says, Obama's going to do it his way, and that means that the nominee will no doubt be a woman. It offends me that this is the predetermined outcome of what should be a search for the best candidate, but at least there are clearly plenty of qualified people he can pick from. Let's hope he changes his mind about what he said before and goes for someone willing to rule for the law no matter how unpopular it is.[/QUOTE]

when i say america as a whole, i mean acceptance of women and blacks in the board room, not in line with demographics.
 
[quote name='speedracer']Yes I do, and it's because the first non-white male candidate chosen (during that time period no less) is one of the greatest, most esteemed figures in the history of the court. Love his opinions or hate them, no one can suggest that Marshall wasn't a stellar justice. He was and continues to be a looming figure. They just weren't looking and they left talent on the table because the candidate was black/brown/whatever.[/QUOTE]

Your figures were for the country's entire history, were they not?
 
[quote name='SpazX']I don't get it. Do any of you actually think that these are entirely objective qualifications? That there is one "best" candidate that is "most qualified"?

And given the fact that there are probably multiple candidates that are equally qualified that are different races and genders, would you not want to make the court more representative of the population, or at least more diverse than it presently is? Or should you just "ignore race and gender" (and by "ignore race and gender" I mean give the job to a white guy, of course, preferably a protestant christian, but if not, well...I guess it'll do, it's the only way to ensure we aren't swayed by race or gender).[/QUOTE]

Do you actually believe anyone is "equally qualified"? People just aren't equally qualified. They may have exactly the same experience, judgment and temprament, but still they wouldn't be equally qualified. I would hope that Obama would pick the best candidate for the job and not focus on where someone's family came from or if they lack a Y chromosome. But that obviously is a fool's hope, since it's already been leaked that he's only considering people of the "proper ethnicity/gender."
 
[quote name='elprincipe']They may have exactly the same experience, judgment and temprament, but still they wouldn't be equally qualified.[/quote]

Exactly

[quote name='elprincipe']I would hope that Obama would pick the best candidate for the job[/QUOTE]

With qualifications as subjective as you stated above, how can you have a "best" candidate?
 
So Obama needs: Latin Asian mixed, Buddhist or something like Wiccan, female who happens to be transgendered lesbian. Lets see... that's 6 checked boxes on how to patronize minorities card. All this equal representation arguments are totally obsurd. Either you're good enough or you're not. Nothing else should matter.
 
If law qualifications are so subjective, how does law firms manage to set salary for this people? They must have some system to measure who is actually better. I'm not talking about political law firms. Just plain old law firms that does real work.
 
[quote name='laaj']If law qualifications are so subjective, how does law firms manage to set salary for this people? They must have some system to measure who is actually better. I'm not talking about political law firms. Just plain old law firms that does real work.[/QUOTE]

Being qualified to be a litigator/draft contracts is different from being qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice. Generally, firms are going to scale their pay based on experience, time with the firm and whether or not you've made partner.

But when it comes time for a SCOTUS nomination you're typically ideally dealing with a field of the most intelligent, experienced and discerning legal professionals out there, a peerage which is by no means large but is certainly big enough to encompass more than a handful of people. At that point, there really aren't any strictly objective criteria left to differentiate candidates along, which is why people see more concerned with qualities extrinsic to what makes a candidate "qualified." And no matter how many intangibles you can pile up in someone's favor, it doesn't make them more or less "qualified" than someone else in the field. It just makes them more convenient.
 
[quote name='SpazX']With qualifications as subjective as you stated above, how can you have a "best" candidate?[/QUOTE]

Oh, it's very difficult. When I am evaluating candidates for a job opening, there are many factors to consider. Just having greater experience or better skills isn't a guarantee of being the best candidate. There are intangible things such as how said person fits into the intended team. But what I can tell you with certainty is that arbitrarily dismissing half the potential pool of candidates because of their gender, in an obvious sop to leftist groups stupidly obsessed with gender/racial identity, is definitely not the way to go about a fair and honest search for the best candidate for the job.
 
[quote name='elprincipe'] I would hope that Obama would pick the best candidate for the job and not focus on where someone's family came from or if they lack a Y chromosome. But that obviously is a fool's hope, since it's already been leaked that he's only considering people of the "proper ethnicity/gender."[/QUOTE]

I think it's funny that anyone will believe a leak of any kind. It could've been a fucking White House attendant that heard from the pilot of Air Force One who heard it from the Press Secretary that Obama only eats crunchy peanut butter and will only play basketball with black dudes above the height of 6'4". You know those short white dudes can't ball for shit.

Did you guys know that Obama's secretly married to a white chick and he's giving her the spot on the Court so he can have easy access to her while he's implementing the New World Order?

You guys are believing some old high school bullshit because it fits your agenda that Obama is a commie pinko. Did you also know he's a fascist too? Glen Beck said so himself.

Can a brother at least make a selection first before you guys tear him apart for making an affirmative action choice? I guess the same courtesies that Bush got his first term won't apply to Obama because (insert favorite conservative talking point here).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top