Justice Souter to retire from SCOTUS?

[IglooDame]

Yeah, without any of the salient details...

I find it hilarious how much AA bothers most reactionaries even though the vast majority have never been in a position where it was used to their disadvantage.

You're right, people should never get worked up about any issue unless it affects them personally. Or am I missing your point?

 

[GoodGame]

You're right, people should never get worked up about any issue unless it affects them personally. Or am I missing your point?

We might still have slavery with that attitude.

 

[Formaldehyde]

You're right, people should never get worked up about any issue unless it affects them personally. Or am I missing your point?

I wonder how you would feel if you were from an oppressed minority which is still suffering from de facto segregation in most places in the US. Where there is still a sizeable IQ gap between the races which grows as the child gets older. Where 1 in 21 males die from being murdered.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/20/national/20blackmen.html

¶The share of young black men without jobs has climbed relentlessly, with only a slight pause during the economic peak of the late 1990's. In 2000, 65 percent of black male high school dropouts in their 20's were jobless — that is, unable to find work, not seeking it or incarcerated. By 2004, the share had grown to 72 percent, compared with 34 percent of white and 19 percent of Hispanic dropouts. Even when high school graduates were included, half of black men in their 20's were jobless in 2004, up from 46 percent in 2000.

¶Incarceration rates climbed in the 1990's and reached historic highs in the past few years. In 1995, 16 percent of black men in their 20's who did not attend college were in jail or prison; by 2004, 21 percent were incarcerated. By their mid-30's, 6 in 10 black men who had dropped out of school had spent time in prison.

¶In the inner cities, more than half of all black men do not finish high school.

You can hope the problem eventually goes away by ignoring it while actively supporting the dismantling of AA and other programs. Or you can try to correct the basic problems by providing some desperately needed help so that everybody benefits.

"Or am I missing your point?"

 

[aneeshm]

Wrong. If a black woman and you are equally qualified, you are more likely to get the job. If the black woman is demonstrably more qualified, you are more likely to get the job. If you are utterly incompetent, you are more likely to get the job. AA has not changed that. It's only partially leveled the field.

Obligatory.

 

[I'm Cleo!]

Remember, everyone: David Souter was a Republican appointee. So if you say Obama should appoint a moderate like Souter, you're just saying that he should appoint a Republican. And yes, Souter's positions were moderate Republican ones -- the new Four Horsemen are radically right-of-center. A "moderate" liberal appointment would be someone like Breyer. (There are no real liberals on the court now -- maybe Ginsburg, in some cases.)

The buzz for his replacement is mostly centering around Sonia Sotomayor, who just fills off a bunch of little checkboxes. What he's said he wants is someone with a background that leads to allot of personal empathy, and great credentials. Politically of course, he wants someone with minority status and someone young.

[Empathy]Sotomayor grew up in the South Bronx as a the child of a poor single mother after her father, who became a highly skilled worker in the manufacturing industry despite getting only a third grade education, died. And she had diabetes. Honestly, it's practically a sappy pre-teen girl's novel.

[Credentials] Summa Cum Laude at Princeton, Editor of the Yale Law Review, where she got her J.D.

[Politics] Mixed. Limbaugh hates her, and most conservatives lump her in as another judicial activist. However she was first appointed by Bush Sr. to a District Court because of a reputation for centrism, and even now some of the far left aren't happy with the idea of her nomination. So, basically in the same ballpark as Souter.

[Age]A veritable spring chicken at 54. Same age as the boy wonder Roberts is now.

[Minorities] Woman, Hispanic (Puerto Rican). Diabetic, and divorced too if anyone cares.

Sonia Sotomayor isn't just a bunch of checkboxes. She's really a big deal in the Second Circuit (where I went to law school), and she has a reputation as a very intelligent judge. I even saw arguments before her once.

Cleo

 

[Aramazd]

Remember, everyone: David Souter was a Republican appointee. So if you say Obama should appoint a moderate like Souter, you're just saying that he should appoint a Republican. And yes, Souter's positions were moderate Republican ones -- the new Four Horsemen are radically right-of-center. A "moderate" liberal appointment would be someone like Breyer. (There are no real liberals on the court now -- maybe Ginsburg, in some cases.)

Well, to be fair, Bush appointed a relative unknown, if Souter turned out to be as conservative as the Republicans wanted he'd be on the other side of the court.

 

[Miles Teg]

Remember, everyone: David Souter was a Republican appointee. So if you say Obama should appoint a moderate like Souter, you're just saying that he should appoint a Republican. And yes, Souter's positions were moderate Republican ones -- the new Four Horsemen are radically right-of-center. A "moderate" liberal appointment would be someone like Breyer. (There are no real liberals on the court now -- maybe Ginsburg, in some cases.)

By any chance did you see that recent piece on The New Republic's website mourning Souter's departure as that of the last true judicial conservative?

Sonia Sotomayor isn't just a bunch of checkboxes. She's really a big deal in the Second Circuit (where I went to law school), and she has a reputation as a very intelligent judge. I even saw arguments before her once.

Not arguing that. I'm just saying that Sotomayor is a capable judge that fulfills all of Obama's wishlist.

 

[DBear]

The buzz for his replacement is mostly centering around Sonia Sotomayor, who just fills off a bunch of little checkboxes. What he's said he wants is someone with a background that leads to allot of personal empathy, and great credentials. Politically of course, he wants someone with minority status and someone young.

SCOTUS is not supposed to work that way!:doublefacepalm:
SCOTUS is supposed to apply the constitution, not feel 'empathy'...

Is it November 2010 yet?

 

[Miles Teg]

SCOTUS is not supposed to work that way!:doublefacepalm:
SCOTUS is supposed to apply the constitution, not feel 'empathy'...

Is it November 2010 yet?

No one's saying that Obama won't pick a highly qualified legal mind. But it's ridiculous to say that there are no other factors. If there weren't Warren would have been a horrible court justice for example (I mean in the sense of not doing anything, not in the sense of doing things that you like)

Also, the midterms elections look to favor Democrats in the Senate significantly. The House is less stable, but they look set to retain a high percentage of seats at worst.

 

[Imperialmajesty]

Damn, for a split second I thought it said Scalia was retiring .

 

[Cutlass]

SCOTUS is not supposed to work that way!:doublefacepalm:
SCOTUS is supposed to apply the constitution, not feel 'empathy'...

Is it November 2010 yet?

And yet Republicans target candidates who will feel empathy for their cause and reject the letter of the Constitution.

 

[GoodGame]

And yet Republicans target candidates who will feel empathy for their cause and reject the letter of the Constitution.

In all honesty, where in the Constitution does it mention abortions and foetuses?
AFAIK, nowhere.

Conclusion: there's going to be some politics and constructivism in SCOTUS until the Constitution gets definitively updated for the times.

 

[I'm Cleo!]

In all honesty, where in the Constitution does it mention abortions and foetuses?
AFAIK, nowhere.

Conclusion: there's going to be some politics and constructivism in SCOTUS until the Constitution gets definitively updated for the times.

And then, the very next day, it would no longer be "updated for the times." But if you just keep in mind that the Constitution is a constitution*, and not an exhaustive list of things the government may or may not do, then it isn't a problem anymore.

Cleo

*See

 

[JollyRoger]

SCOTUS is not supposed to work that way!:doublefacepalm:?

Yet Bush chose Roberts and Alito, in part, for their empathy for big business. Even Thomas and Scalia are getting a bit frustrated with the newcomers activism on behalf of big businesses.

SCOTUS is supposed to apply the constitution, not feel 'empathy'...

Correct, which is why it is so disappointing that Roberts and Alito overturn so many legislative decisions without clear Constititional basis for doing so and protected the free speech rights of corporations and holy rollers holding closed door meetings with Bush on the same day they denied them to individuals exercising their rights on public sidewalks.

Is it November 2010 yet?

Unfortunately not. I wish Souter could have hung on that long so that Obama would have had even a larger majority in the Senate to work with.

In all honesty, where in the Constitution does it mention abortions and foetuses?.

In the same place it mentions self defense.

 

[Cutlass]

In all honesty, where in the Constitution does it mention abortions and foetuses?
AFAIK, nowhere.

Conclusion: there's going to be some politics and constructivism in SCOTUS until the Constitution gets definitively updated for the times.

But where does the Constitution say that government can take away freedom just because some people don't like the way those freedoms are used? Remember that the Founding Father's preferred to err on the side of limited government. If there's any more glaring example of big all intrusive government, it is government making reproduction and sexual decisions for people.

 

[Patroklos]

due to being a token black Uncle Tom.

It is so refreshing when the real racists in society make their presence known

 

[amadeus]

Remember that the Founding Father's preferred to err on the side of limited government.

And today?

 

[Cutlass]

And today?

Yeah, why do those bad libruls try to keep the good conservatives from increasing govmunt

The fundamental difference between liberals and conservatives is not that one wants big government and the other wants small government, it is that liberals want government to protect people and the conservatives want government to control people.

 

[kulade]

People often talk about the Supreme Court like it's just some other legislative house and that "constitutional" really means "in accordance to my personal opinion." Not only that, but that the courts have an obligation to pass laws that create a society in compliance with their own ideas. Justices have no obligation to make the people happy; their job is to interpret the constitution; that doesn't always mean siding on the side of personal freedom. That being said, justices are, so to speak, required to abandon their personal political preferences in favor of constitutional law and order.

 

[Fugitive Sisyphus]

Yeah, why do those bad libruls try to keep the good conservatives from increasing govmunt

The fundamental difference between liberals and conservatives is not that one wants big government and the other wants small government, it is that liberals want government to protect people and the conservatives want government to control people.

I don't see how small government/non government control describes either party.