John Paul Stevens is the only Protestant on the Supreme Court. If another Catholic or Jew replaces him, there will be no protestants on the court. Will Obama be mindful of this as he chooses a replacement? Should he mindful? And does this mean that Sotamayor represents the "hispanic seat" and Thomas the "black" seat?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
As long as there are no atheists, I don't see it mattering what particular flavour of crazy the Court subscribes to.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
I fail to see how it matters what religion, race, or gender the appointee is.
We could have a Supreme Court made up of 9 White Mormon women for all I care. Make a decision, then have a social afterwards, green jello and all. That way the loser still feels like a winner.
It would be interesting to have 9 former southern baptist pastors as well.
Or clone Richard Dawkins eight times and put them on the stand.
There is no "black seat" or "hispanic seat." Anyone that truly thinks of the seats in this way is not only missing the point of the Supreme Court, but may be racist.
There is no Affirmative Action in the Supreme Court.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Not a consideration at all. It's the SC, not an religious council.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I think it is a consideration when it comes to Roe v Wade.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I actually DO think religious background a consideration, because however impartial the Supreme Court may be intended to be, obviously they disagree on things. If there were a single "correct" ruling on any issue they would always be unanimous. Given that they do disagree on things, I think it's reasonable to assume that their worldview and personal experience influences their decisions to some some degree.
So yes, I think it is valuable for the Supreme Court to be diverse group. So long as they are all qualified judges with significant experience, I would rather have a group of 9 people with variety of religious, ethnic and socioeconomic backgrounds. In a perfect world it would not matter, but we don't live in that world. I wouldn't go out of my way to look for a Jewish or atheist (or black or hispanic) candidate, but if I've narrowed it down to a top group of candidates with relatively equal experience, I would definitely choose one that brings more diversity.
That said, if all the judges are Christian (I'm assuming this is the case although I don't know for sure) then complaining that we're lacking a protestant is pretty silly, when we're already missing atheists, jews, muslims and buddhists, among other possible religious backgrounds.
[ April 12, 2010, 05:10 PM: Message edited by: Raymond Arnold ]
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
While in theory, the court should be beyond those things, I am not sure. For gender, there was a case that convinced me that more women would be a good thing (a teenage girl who objected to having a search of her bra). So, perhaps there would be a case in the future that convinces me of the need for a different religious makeup.
ETA- ok, before I posted, kmboots did give a good ex of a case where religion would matter.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I should have written, "could be a consideration. American Catholics poll pretty much like eveyone else on abortion (and stem cell research).
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
According to wikipedia, the current court is: Roberts (Roman Catholic) Stevens (Protestant) Scalia (Roman Catholic) Kennedy (Roman Catholic) Thomas (Roman Catholic) Ginsburg (Jewish) Breyer (Jewish) Alito (Roman Catholic) Sotomayor (Roman Catholic)
Of course, at least one of those Jews is married to a non-Jew and has an Episcopal priest as a daughter. One assumes not all the Roman Catholics are equally religious either.
Oh, and the two living retired justices are both Episcopalians.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Curious. How did the Catholics get to be so dis-proportionately represented?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
There are, oddly enough, a lot of Roman Catholics really interested in high-powered jurisprudence. I have no idea why this is.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Hmmm.....
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Curious. How did the Catholics get to be so dis-proportionately represented?
I told you. The Episcopalians retired.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
They like the robes.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
Yea, that is weird. It's not like they can get under-age interns or anything.
::shrug::
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
That's not cool.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
Where are the Mormons? I think the last one was George Sutherland in 1922, though he is listed in some places as Episcopal.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: Where are the Mormons? I think the last one was George Sutherland in 1922, though he is listed in some places as Episcopal.
There have been 111 justices, Mormons at their greatest numbers today still represent .004% of the population.
Statistically speaking, I can't say how those ratios have played out since Mormonism was founded around 1830. But seeing as how the first woman was appointed to the court in 1981 my sense of justice remains unperturbed (no pun intended).
Jebus: Whistled.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: That's not cool.
And also completely nonsensical as I doubt that there's much chance that paedophilia is any higher among Roman Catholics outside the clergy than it is in the general population.
But life is for joking and being nonsensical sometimes.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
Jebus: Whistled.
Wuh-oh.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by jebus202:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
Jebus: Whistled.
Wuh-oh.
It wasn't a threat, just a courtesy, it'd be nice if you read up on the latter.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
Thank you for the courtesy. I was "wuh-oh"ing at the potential consequences of such a whistle, not to imply you were threatening me. Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: There have been 111 justices, Mormons at their greatest numbers today still represent .004% of the population.
Mormons, if you take self-identifying Mormons, make up 1% of the US population (2% if you include non-self-identifying but still on the church records). Since justices are selected from the US population, that's the appropriate number. However, the larger point that a single Mormon among 100 justices is probably _over_representation is still valid.
I believe the Catholic skew is partially due to abortion politics, and also partially due to the fact that the Catholic vote is a swing vote (and so both Dems and Reps seek to curry favor with the larger demographic by symbolic gestures like appointing Catholic Supreme Court justices).
Also, the country is 1/4 Catholic, and while 2/3 is much bigger than 1/4, it's not that outlandish.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Mormons at their greatest numbers today still represent .004% of the population.
Of the world, maybe.
As a percentage of the U.S. population, Mormons are between 1 and 2%.
As for the court, I would prefer a diverse court, but that is not the most important consideration.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
This report puts the number at ~13.8 million. If the population of the US is 300 million, that gives ~4.6%.
ETA:
quote:As for the court, I would prefer a diverse court, but that is not the most important consideration.
Agreed.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: There have been 111 justices, Mormons at their greatest numbers today still represent .004% of the population.
Mormons, if you take self-identifying Mormons, make up 1% of the US population (2% if you include non-self-identifying but still on the church records). Since justices are selected from the US population, that's the appropriate number. However, the larger point that a single Mormon among 100 justices is probably _over_representation is still valid.
I believe the Catholic skew is partially due to abortion politics, and also partially due to the fact that the Catholic vote is a swing vote (and so both Dems and Reps seek to curry favor with the larger demographic by symbolic gestures like appointing Catholic Supreme Court justices).
Also, the country is 1/4 Catholic, and while 2/3 is much bigger than 1/4, it's not that outlandish.
I tried to use wikis for my numbers, I confess I don't have much confidence in the numbers of Mormons in the US that I found.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:This report puts the number at ~13.8 million. If the population of the US is 300 million, that gives ~4.6%.
That's total church membership. I think about half are in the U.S., and the other half in other parts of the world, mostly South America.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
Well. That was silly of me.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I tried to use wikis for my numbers, I confess I don't have much confidence in the numbers of Mormons in the US that I found.
The wikipedia entry on religious demographics in the US puts the number of Mormons in the US as of 2008 at 3.2 million, or about 1.4% of the US adult population. LDS internal numbers would put the number significantly higher than that, more like 5 million adults, or about 2.2% of the US adult population.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I am not saying religion isn't a consideration. I was saying that it wasn't a main one, or one we should be concerned about in relationship to this nomination.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
From wikipedia and various news sources, potential nominees: Diane Pamela Wood (Protestant) Ann Claire Williams (?) Sidney Runyan Thomas (?) Margaret McKeown (?) Johnnie B. Rawlinson (?) etc., etc., etc.
Not easy to find these folks' religious affiliations (if any!) online. Maybe someone else is more motivated than I am. Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I don't have any problem with taking religion into account when it comes to considerations of diversity.
I guess my only problem would be if we took race and gender into account and not religion, though really, economic status should probably factor in there as well, but I suppose finding a qualified judge who grew up poor isn't going to be quite so easy. Though, I suppose Sotomayor might fall into that category.
Anyway, if diversity matters, then I think we should take all demographic factors into account, so that includes religion. I don't think we need to make the Court reflect the demographics of the nation exactly, but having a representative voice would be nice.
rivka -
Of the names I've seen on the short-list:
Jennifer Grahnolm (Roman Catholic) Elena Kagan (Jewish)
Kagan is considered by many to be the front-runner, though liberals aren't particularly pleased about that. If I have a chance tomorrow I'll poke around more to see if I can't find more from more names on the various short lists floating around.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Can I point out that the supreme court has no Muslims, Buddhists, or atheists? Where are those groups' "representation." Oh that's right, the judicial branch is not the Senate, and is not meant to be treated that way. How silly of me.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I suspect you are wrong about the atheists. Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
My point isn't that a group of 9 people should somehow be an accurate reflection of America's demographics. That is literally impossible. The point is all things being equal, diversity produces better wisdom than homogeneity. It doesn't matter whether we specifically have an atheist, a muslim, a person from a poor background, and a Chinese-American judge. What matters is we don't have 9 white male christian judges (or, for that matter, 9 female black lesbian atheist judges) making decisions that affect the entire nation.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
I agree with Raymond about diversity. Multiple perspectives are always good.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:all things being equal, diversity produces better wisdom than homogeneity
This is true.
quote: Multiple perspectives are always good.
(emphasis added)
This is not as true.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: I suspect you are wrong about the atheists.
Me, too. Unfortunately...
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:Multiple perspectives are always good. (emphasis added)
This is not as true.
That is a technically true correction, but largely irrelevant in the situation.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Ok- sloppy word choice on my part. ;-)
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
If asked, I suppose I'd be willing to accept a nomination.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:The point is all things being equal, diversity produces better wisdom than homogeneity. It doesn't matter whether we specifically have an atheist, a muslim, a person from a poor background, and a Chinese-American judge. What matters is we don't have 9 white male christian judges (or, for that matter, 9 female black lesbian atheist judges) making decisions that affect the entire nation.
But not all types of diversity are equally important. For instance, there are 8 judges whose last name begins with a consonant while there is only one whose last name begins with a vowel. The letter 'S' is particularly overrepresented. Is this a problem? No, it's not a problem - because diversity of last names is a sort of diversity that does little to improve the collective wisdom of the Court on issues of law.
So which sorts of diversity are most important to maintain on the Court? If the Supreme Court were charged with making rules about religion, then religious diversity would be particularly important. But the Court isn't charged with making laws at all; it is charged with interpretting them. That means it matters less that we have justices of different genders or different colors or different religions, and more that we have justices who approach and view the law in different ways. (Shouldn't it be worrisome that almost all members of the Court studied law initially at one of just two law schools?)
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Letters in names plays no demonstrable role in worldview. Religion does, I would say almost by definition. Roe vs Wade is the most of obvious example of this but it plays a role in lots of subtle ways as well.
In a perfect world, race shouldn't be an issue, but we do not live in a perfect world. But one of the "issues" that conservatives had with Sotamayor was her previous statements regarding affirmative action. You don't think her race played a role in those decisions? We are nowhere near a point where racial background does not influence your experiences which in turn influences how you are going to feel about certain laws.
Most of the time, all these things (hopefully) will not affect how someone interprets laws, but given a choice between two equally qualified judges, you are more likely to avoid it becoming an issue if you aren't stacking the court with a particular worldview in the first place.
I don't know offhand how many good law schools there actually ARE, but yes I'd hazard a guess that that is also an issue worth worrying about. I'd have to know more about the differences between law schools before deciding whether that is more or less important that race, religion or gender. But none of these things are remotely on the same level as "letters in your name" and comparing them to that is unfair.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by rivka: I suspect you are wrong about the atheists.
Me, too. Unfortunately...
Ah, there's the Lisa I was looking for. Like clockwork.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I'm a little confused about the issue here. We are worried about some supreme court justices being secret atheists?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I dunno. I think that might actually be representative of a large demographic
In other news, it is surprisingly hard to find the religious backgrounds of those in the Canadian Supreme Court. My google-fu has failed.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: We are worried about some supreme court justices being secret atheists?
Well, Lisa is, apparently.
I don't especially care.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Most of the time, all these things (hopefully) will not affect how someone interprets laws, but given a choice between two equally qualified judges, you are more likely to avoid it becoming an issue if you aren't stacking the court with a particular worldview in the first place.
But the trouble is that there's countless categories we could try to balance out in the Court. Republicans/Democrats. Old/Young. Immigrant/Native Born. Urban/Rural. Idealist/Pragmatist. Introvert/Extravert. Married/Single. Parent/Childless. And so on. All of these could impact decisions to some degree or another - but we can't evenly balance out all of them, so the question becomes which are most important for the job that Supreme Court justices do.
Religion probably is fairly high on the list, but I'm not sure if specific denomination is. I'd think that intensity of religiousness is probably more important than denomination - at least when it comes to legal issues, a moderate Catholic is probably more similar to a moderate Protestant than a fundamentalist or extremely devout Protestant is.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
In the case that convinced me having more women on the court might matter, the issue was what constituted a reasonable search. Ginsburg felt as though the school passed reasonable in checking the girl's bra. The male justices had no problem with that. in this case, Ginsburg was at the time the only one who has probably ever worn a bra. The wording was reasonable and in this case, different genders might very well have different views of reasonable (go to a public swimming pool and most men seem to have no problem exposing their chest. Woman tend to have at least some of it covered, to varying degrees).
In issues of race, someone who has grown up with racial epithets thrown at them constantly might be more sensitive to it than someone who hasn't. Being part of the abused underclass could change one's view on the rightness of a law or the application of a law. If you see how a law has been used to subvert people's basic rights in person, it is different than seeing the law from a detached view. For example, brown vs board (separate is inherently unequal) might be more obvious if you were part of the underclass. Perhaps if the supreme court was diverse, that decision would have been made earlier (or the original separate but equal decision never made).
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I'd agree with you there. But if you look back on pretty much any of my posts here, you may note that I continuously point out that the point is NOT to achieve a perfect demographic representation. Simply that if you have a choice between two reasonably identical candidates in terms of qualifications, it is appropriate to select the one that brings a quality to the supreme court that isn't there already. I also pointed out in an earlier post that while religion is important, it's ludicrous to complain about a lack of protestant when the board is overwhelming christian. (Although apparently there ARE some jews and perhaps a secret atheist or two).
Edit: that last part was intended to be a joke, not sure how well it reads over the interwebs)
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
Incidently, all of this is irrelevant anyway.... Obama has already demonstrated that he has enough basketball insight to recognize that what the liberals on the Court really need is a dominant post player.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: We are worried about some supreme court justices being secret atheists?
Well, Lisa is, apparently.
I don't especially care.
I don't care. The unfortunately was that my suspicions relate to the Jewish members, and I feel it's unfortunate that a Jew would be an atheist. As far as SCOTUS is concerned, I would hope that they wouldn't allow their religious inclinations or lack thereof to affect their performance of their duties (she said, naively).
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by The White Whale:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by rivka: I suspect you are wrong about the atheists.
Me, too. Unfortunately...
Ah, there's the Lisa I was looking for. Like clockwork.
Bite me, whale.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
quote:Originally posted by contents under pressure: John Paul Stevens is the only Protestant on the Supreme Court. If another Catholic or Jew replaces him, there will be no protestants on the court. Will Obama be mindful of this as he chooses a replacement? Should he mindful? And does this mean that Sotamayor represents the "hispanic seat" and Thomas the "black" seat?
I don't think religion or ethnicity matters. The constitution didn't spell out a quota system for the Supreme Court. Even if they did, Thomas certainly doesn't represent the "black seat". He's a conservative. Michael Steele isn't considered a black leader for the same reason. Of course the DNC has never elevated a black guy to that post, but if they did, he would go down in history as a significant black leader. Obama needs to appoint another black to represent the blacks. Maybe he should consult with the local news stations. They've figured out the magic formula of racial mixes on their broadcast stations. They all have their happy fat guy, nice Asian woman, bald black guy, Hispanic commentator and a mix of racially ambiguous people to fill in the gaps.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Mal, grow up. Petulance blended with arrogance blended with ignorance is a deadly brew.
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: My point isn't that a group of 9 people should somehow be an accurate reflection of America's demographics. That is literally impossible.
The fact that it is literally impossible should not be the first strike against it. The first strike ought to be: It's a Stupid Idea.
All things are never equal, and incidentally I am *very* happy knowing that the appointment of justices is not a democratic process.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Would you mind responding to my actual point?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
I assume you mean this point:
quote: Simply that if you have a choice between two reasonably identical candidates in terms of qualifications, it is appropriate to select the one that brings a quality to the supreme court that isn't there already
I thought I made it clear that I find this point to be invalid. There is not such thing as a set of equal circumstances. However, there are many situations in which people can be led to believe that all else is equal, and in those cases, can be led to believe that "diversity" or "proportionality" are desirable features worth pursuing. It assumes one fallacy, that there can be equally qualified candidates, and superimposes a second fallacy, that one can divide said candidates into useful categories, and lastly that the categories one has chosen are useful or even desirable qualities to be targeted for "diversity." And that all rests on an even greater fallacy, in the idea that a person's religious beliefs can be divorced from their other myriad qualities as human beings, and be taken as a separate factor- in short, the quantification of human qualities is the uber-fallacy, and it's a pernicious and evil piece of folk-wisdom stirred up every time someone thinks they're figured out what really makes people tick- be it the shape of their head or the sequences of their genome.
So, as I pointed out in my first post in the thread, the metric by which we measure balance on the bench in terms of religious practice is arbitrary, and is already bent to reflect a cultural norm, as Tom pointed out, which favors those segments of our culture most rooted in the judicial and political systems- Jews and Catholics. Shocker. I suppose your solution might be, given two equal candidates, to choose a member of another religion, or of no religion? Why do you find that advantageous, exactly, in a court position which is clearly divorced from religious practice, and is intended to be divorced from politics as well?
Consider uncertainty and Law of Unintended Consequences. Suppose the court is full of 9 Orthodox Jews. By establishing a precident that "diversity is better" when choosing between "equally qualified" candidates, you have, quite unintentionally, limited the pool of candidates by tacitly discouraging Jews from pursuing the position, and you have also by necessity discouraged the President and advisors from looking at Jews as possible candidates. You have also increased the liklihood that the terms for "equally qualified" will be bent to favor non-Jews.
And this is all because "a perfect world" where "all else is equal" does not exist, and cannot exist. So your assertion is meaningless. It is even dangerous, in so much as it is a thought shared by "open minded" and "progressive" people. There is always a best candidate. There is always a better guitar player. Always.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: There are, oddly enough, a lot of Roman Catholics really interested in high-powered jurisprudence. I have no idea why this is.
Catholics tend towards Lawful Alignments whether Good or Evil.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Eh, Jim, you know I'm gonna have to question that one. Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Protestants on the SC are like Gold Candlesticks in church. It seems like a fine idea at first, but then you have to ask yourself how many starving children could eat that Protestant.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:I thought I made it clear that I find this point to be invalid
You had previously only made one post in this thread that addressed it at all, and that post addressed a version of the idea that nobody had actually advocated. So no.
I do not think this should be anything resembling an official policy, just a general guideline that presidents should bear in mind when making their picks. And while there might be dangers associated with it becoming such a common practice that White Christian Men (or any combination thereof) stopped aspiring to be a supreme court justices... seriously, I am just not worried about that happening. At all. Ever.
And it's not even like "Supreme Court Justice" is a job you can set out to achieve with any degree of certainty. You can hope that someone retires at a time when you have achieved enough experience to be considered by a president who would approve of your track record, but that's a pretty slim window.
The real issue, though, is this:
quote:There is always a best candidate.
I have been asking about this for the past several years, and nobody has ever given me an answer that seemed satisfactory either to me or to the US population at large: by what metric do you measure "best" Judge? The only person qualified enough to determine that would be another, "better" judge. Because if anyone could determine the value of a good judge, we wouldn't need judges in the first place.
All I've seen are liberals complaining when the president picks a conservative judge, and conservatives complaining when the president picks a liberal one. In an ideal world, judges would all be perfectly impartial and accurate, and they'd always agree with each other. But that is never happening. You can create a court of "middle-of-the-road" justices who have spent their careers either never offending anyone (i.e. never ruling on a controversial case at all) or alternating between who they offend so you can point to them and say "see, they're fair." But even that doesn't necessarily mean the judge is GOOD, or that an entire court full of them is the best for the U.S. By actively selecting decently experienced judges with different backgrounds, you help to build a court that will approach controversial issues (or ones with limited legal precedent) from myriad viewpoints.
I do agree with Tres that the primary concern should be over "justices who approach and view the law in different ways." I'm not sure how much their law school actually matters here, but the most obvious metric of for that is differing political views. Fortunately, the most important metric for ensuring a balanced court comes with a built in safeguard - presidents with different political agendas rotate in and pick new justices, and unless you have presidents with identical political beliefs remaining in power enough to fully stack the court, we usually seem to end up with a court that's reasonably balanced.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: which favors those segments of our culture most rooted in the judicial and political systems- Jews and Catholics.
I'm not sure that I buy that these are really more rooted in the judicial and political system than Protestants.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
I suppose the supremely qualified atheist has a biased disadvantage for being appointed to the Supreme Court.
Racial and religious ambiguity works best for the local news stations and in the white house. The Obama's haven't chosen a church. They have made the political calculation not to isolate anyone. It's best to be racially and religiously ambiguous. Don't want to alienate the Jewish, Catholic, Protestant, Muslim, white or black voting block. Especially in a country where a few hundred votes can determine a presidency.
I prefer he who chooses a church based upon his faith or none due to his lack of faith. From this president we aren't going to get the truth. He hides his politically incorrect cigarette addiction quite well. I would think the media could've produced a picture of Obama smoking by now.
[ April 14, 2010, 12:36 AM: Message edited by: malanthrop ]
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:There is always a best candidate.
quote: have been asking about this for the past several years, and nobody has ever given me an answer that seemed satisfactory either to me or to the US population at large: by what metric do you measure "best" Judge? The only person qualified enough to determine that would be another, "better" judge. Because if anyone could determine the value of a good judge, we wouldn't need judges in the first place.
This is false. Completely false. You can look at a bunch of metrics to measure a judges performance, and you do NOT have to be a judge yourself to do it.
Good/best will mean different thing to different people, of course, but the idea that only another, better judge can rate a judges performance is wrong, not to mention dangerous.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold:
The real issue, though, is this:
quote:There is always a best candidate.
I have been asking about this for the past several years, and nobody has ever given me an answer that seemed satisfactory either to me or to the US population at large: by what metric do you measure "best" Judge? The only person qualified enough to determine that would be another, "better" judge. Because if anyone could determine the value of a good judge, we wouldn't need judges in the first place.
Clearly then, you are aware that the metrics by which we measure candidates are by necessity complex. Therefore imagining a simplified situation in which we have two equal candidates is folly. If you don't believe we can even judge who is best, how can we judge who is the same? We have much better elements to base our decisions on than race, age, sex, or religion.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: which favors those segments of our culture most rooted in the judicial and political systems- Jews and Catholics.
I'm not sure that I buy that these are really more rooted in the judicial and political system than Protestants.
Would it be wrong of me to claim as prima facie evidence of the predominance of Jews and Catholics on the supreme court that these two groups are clearly rooted deeply in the judicial system? I guess it could be a coincidence, and certainly it is more than simply beeing "rooted," but rather that these two groups produce large numbers of desirable candidates for justices. I don't know- the fact of the current demographics indicates there's something to it- both religions together make up less than 1/3rd the US population, and an even smaller fraction of the actively religious US population.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Given the number of other possible contributing factors, and the fact that neither group has had all that much representation on the court historically, yeah, still no.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Maybe, it's because both groups are persecuted like Jews Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: We have much better elements to base our decisions on than race, age, sex, or religion.
Sometimes those elements are informed by such things as race, age, sex, religion, and I would add, life experience.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I am open to the notion that there is a way to find the best candidate. While I didn't go out of my way to reiterate this, I did point out that the ideas I went on to talk about are ideas I've been thinking about AFTER having tried to figure out what metric we should be using to find the "best" candidate, and nobody providing me with a useful answer. Orincoro and Kwea both state "there are plenty of ways." Okay, fine. What are they?
So far I've got: 1. Has X years of experience (easily measured, fine) 2. Has made a variety of rulings on complex cases, without having made logical/intellectual errors that anyone noticed (slightly subjective but mostly measurable) 3. Has a reputation for "fairness" (probably measurable somehow, but I cannot think of a way that wouldn't be completely subjective and that loads of people would disagree with)
I can't imagine that is enough to remotely narrow the field down to one person. If someone can give me examples of other criteria that the average person can look at, I am open to that. But most complaints I have ever heard about a justice pick was that they were too liberal or too conservative.
There are certain qualities that a candidate might lack that would make it obvious that they are not qualified to someone without legal training (Harriet Miers being a good example) but I would think that'd apply mostly to lower tier candidates who were, well, obviously unqualified.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: We have much better elements to base our decisions on than race, age, sex, or religion.
Sometimes those elements are informed by such things as race, age, sex, religion, and I would add, life experience.
Yeah, I agree. That's why those factors can't be, and shouldn't be, isolated. They don't appear in a vacuum.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
And seriously Raymond, you want me to produce a list of qualities and factors that can be used to judge? I remind you that there is no application sheet with a list of qualifications that needs filling out. My point is that it's not quantifiable- and I don't even hold strongly to notion that "best candidate" means most qualified. Politically most advantageous candidate is fine. Politically most advantageous candidate partly because of that person's religion or race or sex or age is fine, but I'm against the idea that it's even possible to boil it all down to "two equal candidates." I am against the idea that any one of those factors can have any weight all by itself.
Do you seriously need a laundry list of things that weigh in such a decision? From someone who is saying to you, emphatically, and repeatedly, that there exists no specific list of such things? Do you think that's productive?
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:Politically most advantageous candidate is fine. Politically most advantageous candidate partly because of that person's religion or race or sex or age is fine, but I'm against the idea that it's even possible to boil it all down to "two equal candidates." I am against the idea that any one of those factors can have any weight all by itself.
I think that is all a perfectly valid way of looking at it. It's actually not that different than how I look at it. I may not have clarified this very well but I didn't think you could literally have two perfectly equal candidates and then just go with the one who is black or female or atheist. I think there is a certain minimum threshold of experience required, after which "better" candidate is extremely subjective.
When you've narrowed it down to the candidates that everyone can agree are among the best, then I think "which of these brings the most diversity to the court" is a valid element to be considering when the president makes his (ultimately subjective) decision.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
And clearly we disagree. I find that attitude dangerous. Looking at a person's race as a flat aspect of their personhood is not productive. Especially when the effects of that person's race on that person's life are much more relevant to their qualities as a potential candidate.
This all kind of sounds like voting for Barack Obama because he's black, as opposed to voting for him because he's the person that being black has made him. "Content of their character" as a great man once said, not the color of their skin.
Basically your position is an acceptance of the continuation of, even support for, racial politics in America. Because as long as you use race as a prescriptive marker for one's place in society, apart from everything else that makes them human, you objectify that person, that class of persons, and treat them as less than they truly are. It is a great thing to self-identify as a part of a group, but a poor thing indeed to be anchored to that belonging, and to be weighed down by it.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
From me, you may not take it as a compliment but, well said Orincoro. Unfortunately, racial politics is continuing. There were many more qualified candidates than the most recent appointment. The court "needed" a female latino. If it were up to qualifications, there would be someone else.
I'm not suggesting she wasn't qualified but there were many more qualified people available. What happened to "justice is blind"? Skin color and religion does matter in our separation of church and state with equal protection under the law society. It's ok to look at race, sex and religion when it's advantageous to the the protected class. It's illegal to consider these factors when it is disadvantageous to the protected classes.
Lady justice isn't only suppose to be blind, she holds a scale. A human's sex, race or religion wont register on a scale held by a blindfolded justice system. Someone is peaking through the blindfold to check the color and religion.
[ April 15, 2010, 12:38 AM: Message edited by: malanthrop ]
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I'm pretty confused as to why this is okay:
quote:Politically most advantageous candidate is fine. Politically most advantageous candidate partly because of that person's religion or race or sex or age is fine,
and this is bad:
quote:When you've narrowed it down to the candidates that everyone can agree are among the best, then I think "which of these brings the most diversity to the court" is a valid element to be considering when the president makes his (ultimately subjective) decision.
I see a distinction between the two, but the distinction is incredibly slight and I don't understand the intensity of your disagreement. I'm not saying race, creed or gender is more important than "content of character."
I believe that, all things being equal, there is value to having a diverse supreme court. That value comes both from different life experiences and approaches to problem solving that diversity tends to bring, as well as the ability for the American people to feel that their laws are not judicated by a group of straight white christian men.
I believe if we could hold blind auditions for the supreme court, diversity would come to it naturally, as it does to a lot of occupations that institute blind examinations of violin music or resume analysis. But the nature of the Supreme Court is not something you can do that with. You can only examine judges who appear fully formed where you know everything about them, and as such, whatever prejudices that affect both you and the system that created them are in full effect. Taking race, gender, sexual orientation or creed into account as part of an ultimately subjective decision is not important because being black makes you a better judge, it's important because if you don't, you are allowing a system biased in favor of straight white males to continue to be so.
Is it ever possible to literally have two candidates who are identical, and to simply say "well he's black and he's white, so that's the tiebreaker?" No, of course not. That is not remotely the point. All things being equal, I'd also like a candidate that is good at spelling, and math. I'd like a candidate who has detailed understanding of what the theory of evolution actually means and why its important. A candidate who got an A rather than a B on their 12th grade social studies final. None of these things are dealbreakers in the slightest. Some of them are harder to check than others. None of them will ever be the single deciding factor that leads you to pick between two otherwise identical people. But they all form part of the composite of the final person, and to various degrees impact the ultimate decision making process.
[ April 15, 2010, 02:51 AM: Message edited by: Raymond Arnold ]
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
On the one hand Raymond, you have a decision which is affected by the race, age, sex, or religion of the candidate, because that candidate is the person *they are* because of race, age, sex, or religion. On the other hand you have singled out a person's race, age, sex, or religion, and used that as a litmus, out of context, for their suitability. I cannot be more clear- there is a distinction, and I'm sorry if you don't understand that distinction.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I understand the distinction in theory, but in practice, in particular after my subsequent clarifications, I don't think the distinction is all the significant.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
I know you don't. Your subsequent clarifications being restatements of the same premise, not withstanding.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Well, okay then. I would argue that many of your earlier criticisms applied specifically to versions of my argument that I worded poorly, but I don't really see this going anywhere fruitful.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: I believe that, all things being equal, there is value to having a diverse supreme court. That value comes both from different life experiences and approaches to problem solving that diversity tends to bring, as well as the ability for the American people to feel that their laws are not judicated by a group of straight white christian men.
You are assuming people have common life experiences based upon the color of their skin. This is stereotypical thinking. Michael Steele's children and Obama's children will have very similar life experiences. The life experience in a free society has less to do with religious preference and skin color than it does with a stable family with providing parents. The 20% born in wedlock blacks who were given every opportunity to succeed, might take offense to being stereotyped as having.......typical black life experiences.
Color means nothing. Did you have a daddy? How affluent were your parents? These traits are more significant than skin color or religion. Growing up poor and succeeding is a better trait to consider than the color of one's skin.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Michael Steele's children and Obama's children will have very similar life experiences.
Gee, I might guess that Obama's children might manage to pick up a little more knowledge about Black History along the path of life. You think?
What a troll.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven:
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Michael Steele's children and Obama's children will have very similar life experiences.
Gee, I might guess that Obama's children might manage to pick up a little more knowledge about Black History along the path of life. You think?
What a troll.
Why would you think that Obama's kids would pick up more black history knowledge? Michael Steele is more black than Obama. Obama is only half black. Steele is more African American than Obama and he has slave blood to boot.
Steele's kids will know actual history better than Obama's. For sure, Obama's kids will know more about the inventor of Peanut Butter.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: [ For sure, Obama's kids will know more about the inventor of Peanut Butter.
Just because you don't know about it, mal, doesn't mean it doesn't matter, or didn't happen.
I sure hope you don't own guns.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
I own a lot of guns with thousands of rounds. I'm opposed to abortion and a returning vet who believes in strong borders with a bible by my bed.
I have a sticker on my bumper that sais, "DHS Certified Right Wing Extremist"
I love Peanut Butter. It's a contribution equivalent to jelly. The inventor of peanut butter gets more paragraphs in "black history" than the first African American Supreme Court Justice.
[ April 16, 2010, 02:02 AM: Message edited by: malanthrop ]
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Peanut Butter has saved more lives.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: I would argue that many of your earlier criticisms applied specifically to versions of my argument that I worded poorly
Soooo not my fault.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: I own a lot of guns with thousands of rounds. I'm opposed to abortion and a returning vet who believes in strong borders with a bible by my bed.
I have a sticker on my bumper that sais, "DHS Certified Right Wing Extremist"
Because Jesus said "Turn the other Uzi."
Thank God for Jesus, right, mal?
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:Soooo not my fault.
That I worded my arguments poorly? No. But it is your fault that you a) started by responding with glib one liners to straw man arguments nobody actually said, and continued to do so for a while, b) when you made an actual argument post, it was built upon several statements that were either STILL responding to straw man arguments ("I'm glad the appointment of justices is not a democratic process."), or that didn't actually mean much and which you later acted as if I was crazy for asking you to support them ("There is always a best candidate"), and fixated upon my wording "there is no equal set of circumstances," which wasn't the point at all.
You warn of a possible bad time in the hypothetical future where Jews might be "discouraged" from aspiring to be a Supreme Court Justice because of a "diversity" policy, ignoring the fact that right now, gays and atheists and various other minorities look at the government and see that they are marginalized and will have to hide who they are if they want to be successful. Even black and latino people, despite having recently gotten some high profile people to look up to, can see that their representation is grossly disproportionate. A minority being discouraged from government is far more dangerous than an overrepresented group being discouraged.
The only actual argument you've been consistent about with any validity is that using skin color and other non-character based qualities as a litmus test is inherently dangerous. Which is still a mischaracterization of what I said.
I get why you worry about that. But there are certain qualities, relevant to how one reacts to cases involving discrimination, that you either simply CAN'T get or will never be able to fully understand without being part of the group in question.
Requoting scholarette's post from a while ago:
quote:In the case that convinced me having more women on the court might matter, the issue was what constituted a reasonable search. Ginsburg felt as though the school passed reasonable in checking the girl's bra. The male justices had no problem with that. in this case, Ginsburg was at the time the only one who has probably ever worn a bra. The wording was reasonable and in this case, different genders might very well have different views of reasonable (go to a public swimming pool and most men seem to have no problem exposing their chest. Woman tend to have at least some of it covered, to varying degrees).
In issues of race, someone who has grown up with racial epithets thrown at them constantly might be more sensitive to it than someone who hasn't. Being part of the abused underclass could change one's view on the rightness of a law or the application of a law. If you see how a law has been used to subvert people's basic rights in person, it is different than seeing the law from a detached view. For example, brown vs board (separate is inherently unequal) might be more obvious if you were part of the underclass. Perhaps if the supreme court was diverse, that decision would have been made earlier (or the original separate but equal decision never made).
Reading about gender and race and sexuality and religious issues in the abstract is one thing, but it can't compare with actually experiencing it yourself. In the cases that I am actually concerned about "content of the character" is NOT something that can be divorced from the color of your skin. (I'd also note that religious beliefs fall pretty squarely into "content of your character").
[ April 16, 2010, 11:47 AM: Message edited by: Raymond Arnold ]
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
The supreme court should be staffed by the best judges. Questions have been raised in this forum about what determines, "the best judge". Maybe someone who has been a judge. Welders put together what engineers design....would you hire a designer to be the top welder?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
this is like a hilarious revisit of the whole EXECUTIVE EXPERIENCE thing innit
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
In this metaphor, are the justices welders or engineers?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
*fires shotgun pellets everywhere*
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
At my husband's work, the techies often graduate to management/ design stuff and do extremely well at it. My husband has the degree and that has some advantages too, as well as disadvantages. Overall, the two work well together actually, bringing different strengths and weaknesses. So, while I may not hire the designer to weld, I would hire a welder to design.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)