it's Alito!

[Irvine511]

Who cares? I think their qualifications and experience matter a lot more than traits (i.e. gender, skin colour) that they didn't even choose.

i think people who aren't straight, white, christian males might be a little upset at the fact that there is no representation of different walks of life on the judicial body that pretty much determines the social climate of the United States.

people who aren't straight, white, christian males are well aware that their minority status in life often offers a different perspective on life and the law.

 

[Irvine511]

I guess qualifications are no longer important if you can try and derail a nomination with shots at race, sex or religion.

no, he seems immensely qualified. wrong, but qualified.

its the overall character of the court that people are concerned about.

the whole idea of "race doesn't matter" is a myth pushed by white people to absolve themselves of the reality of social difference.

 

[nbcrusader]

the whole idea of "race doesn't matter" is a myth pushed by white people to absolve themselves of the reality of social difference.

Bringing in race at this point is a sad way to steer the conversation.

You never mentioned race when a white woman was nominated.

I guess it is not the principle, but what ever weapon seems most handy to attack the other side.

 

[Bluer White]

the whole idea of "race doesn't matter" is a myth pushed by white people to absolve themselves of the reality of social difference.

If only Janice Rogers Brown had been nominated......we would all be holding hands singing Kumbaya.

Oh wait.....

 

[Irvine511]

Bringing in race at this point is a sad way to steer the conversation.

You never mentioned race when a white woman was nominated.

I guess it is not the principle, but what ever weapon seems most handy to attack the other side.

a woman represents an important "minority" status.

it seems entirely reasonable to believe that being a woman has impacted Sandra Day O'Connor's judicial philosphy as well as Ruth Bader Ginsberg's judicial philosophy. same thing with being an African-American for Clarence Thomas.

the law is a living, malleable thing; it is not crunching numbers in an accounting office. these are human beings interpeting a very old document. it astonishes me when people say that "race doesn't matter."

 

[Irvine511]

He is Catholic...giving them the majority of the court....awful.
He is white....fuck that man....can't have a white.
He is straight....by golly, there are not enough gays on the court...
He is male...holy shite...can't have that.

don't worry Dread. with Bush, we're slowly working towards an all straight, white, Christian, male court.

at last, the straight white male Christians will finally have some say in our society!

 

[deep]

race
religion
and
gender

should not matter

Blacks referred to Clinton as this first African American President because of his stance and attitude on race issues

he is wrong
because his thinking is too narrow

Spousal notification?

is the basis for that in the constitution?

I guess the founding fathers believed in slavery and male dominance over women

We have had some amendments,

 

[Irvine511]

race
religion
and
gender

should not matter

Blacks referred to Clinton as this first African American President because of his stance and attitude on race issues

wow, a rare moment when i disagree with Deep.

also "blacks" is going a bit far -- you might say "Toni Morrison said that ..."

however, it is true that Clinton and the HRC-Bomb are passioantely supported by African-Americans. but that has more to do with, as you say, his stance and attitudes rather than being a de facto member of a certain race.

i'm sorry, but being female or minority or gay or whatever does affect how you interpret and understand the world, and it seems logical that it would affect how you would interpret and understand the law.

 

[XHendrix24]

Spousal notification?

is the basis for that in the constitution?

I guess the founding fathers believed in slavery and male dominance over women

Funny how you compare abortion to slavery here. As I remember, back in the days of slavery blacks weren't viewed as on the same level as us "regular" human beings either. They were looked upon as property that was owned by people, which those people could do whatever they pleased with. I'm sure it was much easier to justify that kind of unfair treatment when blacks weren't viewed as equal human beings on the same level as us white people.

Yes, very interesting comparison.

 

[nbcrusader]

Funny how you compare abortion to slavery here. As I remember, back in the days of slavery blacks weren't viewed as on the same level as us "regular" human beings either. They were looked upon as property that was owned by people, which those people could do whatever they pleased with. I'm sure it was much easier to justify that kind of unfair treatment when blacks weren't viewed as equal human beings on the same level as us white people.

Yes, very interesting comparison.

Very interesting, indeed.

 

[Irvine511]

ah, yes, the "coded language" like Bush's reference to the Dread Scott case ... too bad you've both missed Deep's point.

 

[nbcrusader]

Perhaps you missed XHendrix24's point?

Much easier to dispose of something when they are not considered people.

 

[Irvine511]

Perhaps you missed XHendrix24's point?

Much easier to dispose of something when they are not considered people.

just as it's easy to treat women like cattle with no authority over their own bodies when you don't think they are people.

 

[XHendrix24]

just as it's easy to treat women like cattle with no authority over their own bodies when you don't think they are people.

I try to stay somewhat objective on most matters here and respect each side's arguments, but that's some of the most convoluted reasoning I've ever seen. Last time I checked we haven't gone around killing hoards of women lately.

 

[Irvine511]

I try to stay somewhat objective on most matters here and respect each side's arguments, but that's some of the most convoluted reasoning I've ever seen. Last time I checked we haven't gone around killing hoards of women lately.

your use of the word "killing" is highly contentious. that might be your personal viewpoint, but while everyone would agree that shooting a woman in the head is killing, it is not the same with aborting a 6 week old fetus.

to be blunt: if my little sister were to get pregnant when she was, say, 15 years old, you can be damn well sure that i care much more about the quality of my sister's life and her being able to become into a responsible, healthy adult so that she can one day be a responsible, healthy mother than i am with a bunch of cells amassing in her uterus.

to extrapolate further: the best way to truly combat global poverty -- what Bono calls "stupid" poverty -- is to empower women to have control over when they do and do not get pregnant.

 

[XHendrix24]

your use of the word "killing" is highly contentious. that might be your personal viewpoint, but while everyone would agree that shooting a woman in the head is killing, it is not the same with aborting a 6 week old fetus.

I made sure to restrain myself from using the term "human" because I knew it would spark more debate than I want to get into at this particular moment. I think the word "killing," however, is perfectly acceptable in this situation. Even at 6 weeks, a fetus is a living entity. Whether it's human or not doesn't matter. Distinguishing a living entity - be it person, animal, or microscopic organism - is killing. I don't think I need to sugarcoat my terminology when it's accurate.

Originally posted by Irvine511


to be blunt: if my little sister were to get pregnant when she was, say, 15 years old, you can be damn well sure that i care much more about the quality of my sister's life and her being able to become into a responsible, healthy adult so that she can one day be a responsible, healthy mother than i am with a bunch of cells amassing in her uterus.

to extrapolate further: the best way to truly combat global poverty -- what Bono calls "stupid" poverty -- is to empower women to have control over when they do and do not get pregnant.

I don't plan on turning this thread into yet ANOTHER standard debate on abortion. I was merely pointing out that deep's comparison could be taken more than one way. Also, abortion being the best way to combat global poverty? Silly me, I thought getting food and supplies to the needy was the best way to combat global poverty. And anyway, I'd really like to think that we'd have a better answer to that than killing organisms who have potential to one day be human beings.

 

[Irvine511]

Silly me, I thought getting food and supplies to the needy was the best way to combat global poverty. And anyway, I'd really like to think that we'd have a better answer to that than killing organisms who have potential to one day be human beings.

it's not, though. the best way to combat global poverty is to educate and empower women.

i'm happy to let the abortion part end.

since there is much, much more to a SCOTUS nomination than abortion rights.

 

[XHendrix24]

it's not, though. the best way to combat global poverty is to educate and empower women.

i'm happy to let the abortion part end.

since there is much, much more to a SCOTUS nomination than abortion rights.

I can somewhat agree with that. Educating women (and people in general) is certainly one of the most important things that need to be done regarding combating poverty. To be honest, if abortion could be put to an end, I'd be all for however much birth control and sexual education that you dems feel is appropriate for the situation.

And obviously I agree on the last part.

 

[Irvine511]

I can somewhat agree with that. Educating women (and people in general) is certainly one of the most important things that need to be done regarding combating poverty. To be honest, if abortion could be put to an end, I'd be all for however much birth control and sexual education that you dems feel is appropriate for the situation.

very cool -- we do agree on that point. education is key.

believe it or not, i'm a registered Republican. i have voted for republicans on the local and state level.

 

[XHendrix24]

believe it or not, i'm a registered Republican. i have voted for republicans on the local and state level.

You got me sir. I never would have guessed.

 

[Irvine511]

You got me sir. I never would have guessed.

there are several rational, "Main Street" Republicans in New England (where i'm from) -- Christopher Shays, Nancy Johnson, etc.

on a presidential level, it would be extremely difficult for me to vote for a Republican. on a national level, the party has basically used people like me as a scapegoat for myriad social ills, so why would i ever vote for them?

though i will admit that i registered as a Republican when i was 18 just so i coudl vote against Patrick Buchanan in 1996.

 

[anitram]

His views on family and medical leave are fascinating. It's too high a burden on businesses to provide 16 weeks of unpaid leave following the birth of a child.

Only a man would come up with an idea this ridiculous.

And speaking of qualifications, do you mean to tell me that you have no equally as qualified women in your judicial system? What is wrong with your law schools? 1/9 is not representative of the population at large at all.

Of course since Bush said that Miers was the best possible choice he could find, then this guy is something less than the best.

 

[Irvine511]

Only a man would come up with an idea this ridiculous.

insignificant characteristics like race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, class, etc. should not matter and do not affect judicial philosophy.

 

[anitram]

I will refrain from opining on such insignificant characteristics in the future.

 

[melon]

Here's hoping for a filibuster.

Melon

 

[Bluer White]

Here's hoping for a filibuster.

I think the chances of a filibuster are 50/50. To me it's ridiculous that while Ruth Bader Ginsberg had but 3 votes against her, Roberts had 22 and Alito will surely have more.

 

[melon]

I think the chances of a filibuster are 50/50. To me it's ridiculous that while Ruth Bader Ginsberg had but 3 votes against her, Roberts had 22 and Alito will surely have more.

Yeah, well, Scalia skated by with unanimous approval. Considering his rather reprehensible behavior since then--a lot of his writings on social rulings are nothing short of histrionic fits of bigotry that has nothing to do with law--this fight is long overdue.

If the rhetoric was to be believed, I actually agree that we need someone who strictly interprets the Constitution. The problem is that these "strict constructionists" merely interpret the Constitution to fit conservative sensibilities, and ignore things like "equal protection," which is in the Constitution.

"Strict constructionists" upheld slavery (Dred Scott v. Sanford [1857]) and segregation (Plessy v. Ferguson [1892]). The latter case is especially repugnant, considering the Supreme Court flat out ignored the 14th amendment, and it took 60 more years for so-called "activist judges" to actually enforce the amendment. Do we really want judges with a caveman mentality like that?

Of course, straight white Christian men never have to worry. Their rights are never under question no matter who is in the judiciary or in government. And, yet, for whatever unknown reason, they cry foul when their right to demean and belittle unpopular minorities is under attack.

Melon

 

[financeguy]

To me it's ridiculous that while Ruth Bader Ginsberg had but 3 votes against her, Roberts had 22 and Alito will surely have more.

Yeah. Democracy's so inconvenient isn't it?

 

[Bluer White]

Yeah. Democracy's so inconvenient isn't it?

It's a double standard, that's all. Hopefully democracy wins out and there will be a swift up or down vote for Alito, rather than a filibuster.

 

[melon]

It's a double standard, that's all. Hopefully democracy wins out and there will be a swift up or down vote for Alito, rather than a filibuster.

"Filibusters" are perfectly democratic. They are to ensure that a narrow one-party government doesn't act arrogantly. An overwhelmingly one-party government would never be subject to filibuster, but, as was the case with Congress during the Andrew Johnson administration, such governments are invariably corrupt.

Melon