I believe that would still be stereotyping.

If I don't want to be labeled, I'll stay away from those who are prejudiced and likely racist, like you.

Stereotyping with no information? Since you have absolutely no evidence that I'm either prejudiced or racist. But I'm not taking your bait. You can call me a racist all you want, I know I'm not and everyone that knows me knows that I'm not. An idiot on a message board saying that I am based on nothing means exactly that...nothing. Go back to insulting people based on your little thoughts and prejudices. It's apparently all you're good for. And might I remind you that you started all of this war of stereotyping and labeling by saying that I sit around all day in a bad mood. How would you know? When you start throwing mud, you get dirty.

:)

For one thing, based on what I have learned, she tried her first case when she joined the Obama administration. It is ridiculous to me that she is now being nominated for the highest court in the land with no real experience. I personally think that he is nominating her as a way of getting the gay vote in the next election. :rolleyes: I know that people see it as her bringing a fresh perspective, but bringing a fresh perspective and being qualified do not have to be mutually exclusive.


And also, there is the fact that not once in the history of the country has there been a Black woman. Yet he has overlooked quite a few in making these two nominations. I don't expect or want him to have a Black agenda, but the same interest people have in diversifying the court with a Hispanic woman and judges of various religions could certainly expand to include having a qualified Black woman seated on the court. Personally I feel that he is taking the Black vote for granted at this point.

You are dumb.

You criticize the man because you say he is pandering to gays yet you want him to pander to blacks? Hippo-krit!

Hence why I was hesitant about answering the question. :rolleyes: I wasn't criticizing him for pandering to gays, I was simply saying that I think it is one reason he chose her. :rolleyes: And I clearly said I don't expect or want him to have a "Black agenda."

I think he chose her to help the dems get votes in November and because she is close to his administration and he pretty much only appoints boot-licker. I think she's a boot-licker (in addition to anything else)

I knew what deepimpact meant. However, as the article I posted states, this nominee's gender identity and/or sexual orientation is really an unfounded debate. How would it be catering to a particular agenda or group if she isn't proven to fit in that particular group?

However2, I am sick of everything being considered a socio-demographic agenda or catering to a nonpolitical group. Every white male nominee is not automatically part of the white male privilege agenda. Every Black nominee is not automatically part of the Black agenda. Every female nominee is not automatically part of the feminist agenda. Reducing everything to an agenda or an attempt to kiss the ass for a particular group is paranoia and an unnecessary distraction. Socio-politics are stupid enough without that. Obama is lackluster enough without that.

Its happens in politics, when GWB did it we all called it cronyism but we all still in our honeymoon phase with Obama so we don't use that word....yet.

Speak for yourself.

Politics are politics regardless of the politician and the political party.

Aw thanks :D And is it weird if my LinkedIn tried to connect me with a Tom Earp? I mean, really.:eek:
Well generally I haven't noticed an emphasis on trying cases as a qualification anyway. Most of the commentary I've heard has described her lack of judiciary experience as more striking than her lack of trying cases. However, she does have an extensive background in constitutional law and papers particularly on the topic of First Amendment rights.

I'm not sure how exactly you get the "gay vote" (which btw is taken for granted probably more than the "black vote") by nominating a single 50 year old female with no publicly stated sexual preference.

I certainly understand being frustrated at the lack of representation of black women on the Court. I don't think that in and of itself is a good reason to oppose a qualified candidate. Nor do I think this choice necessarily indicates the ignoring or pandering to a specific demographic. Maybe I'm idealistic in this but I like to believe that the president is picking the best candidate (in his opinion of course) and thinking of the future of the court, not necessarily choosing his votes in this choice.


Sorry, but adding rolling eyes to the end of every sentence makes your point more likely to get ignored in the future. But you did contradict yourself to some extent in both your comments.

Yeah, it's stereotyping.

Gold star?
This speaks volumes.
See this is where I realize I'm dealing with an ivory tower idiot who thinks she's special because she left her home to live in some shitty inner-city and then brag to her friends back home about not living where she use to. Everyone has prejudices. Everyone has preconceived notions about every little thing in the world (if we didn't, we'd probably be dead much sooner). To claim that you aren't prejudiced is rather foolish and stuck-up.

Baltimore isn't that shitty. Downtown is nice and the innerharbor is nice. It's actually the areas that surround the city that are the shady parts. And it's also still in the South. It's on the Southern side of the Mason-Dixon line. People argue over everything. :( And it's too bad too, because no one really shares any knowledge when that happens. Only ignorance.

This. And I don't know whether its accurate about her trying cases -- she has spent most of her career in in academia and government, but she was in private practice for a few years, and professors sometimes take cases. It is true that she never argued in front of the Supreme Court (and perhaps had not argued in any appellate court) until she became Solicitor General. (She wouldn't have tried a case as Solicitor General; the SG deals with appellate work, not trial work.)

I don't think there's any real pandering to the gay vote going on here -- see what DrPhil says. I think a major consideration is that Kagan has a history of support from both liberals and conservatives, so she is someone whose confirmation in the polarized Senate may be smoother than some other nominees. And her age means she'll be on the Court for a long time.

Right...I was accusing you of stereotyping, dumbass!
I never said I don't have prejudices, but who exactly am I racist against. I'm prejudiced against stupid people. I guess that includes you. I'm prejudiced against people who think they can tell others how they can live their lives. Does that make you happy? Now can we go back to our regularly scheduled discussion of the next SCOTUS justice?

Kagan may not have CONFIRMED her homosexuality, but it seems kind of obvious. And from what I have learned, she is big on not really confirming too much stuff anyway. No one really knows her views on too mnay hot button issues because she has carefully kept them under wraps.