New SCOTUS nominee

[deepimpact2]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

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.

The point about her lack of trial experience just shows how out of touch she may be with the process. And it concerns me considerably. Next we will have people nominated who just graduated from law school. smh

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.

But if the Black women are more qualified than the nominee, then it presents a problem. And whether Kagan is truly qualified is up in the air right now. There is no hard evidence showing that she is qualified. I suspect it has more to do with her Harvard credentials.

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.

While we should not get caught up in assuming that EVERY move is made to gain votes, it isn't that farfetched to say that these women fit that bill.

Sorry, but adding rolling eyes to the end of every sentence makes your point more likely to get ignored in the future.

Right because that particular smiley is never used by others on this board.

But you did contradict yourself to some extent in both your comments

No, the comments weren't contradictory. I think that some people just want to twist things.

[deepimpact2]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

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.

It IS wearisome, but that's how it works in politics. Moves like this are not just made in isolation. Considerations of how this will affect future elections are a part of the decision-making process. I think we would be fooling ourselves to think otherwise. It doesn't mean that we should think that EVERY move that is made is being done with that intention, but when it comes to a SCOTUS nominee? I think it is much more likely to be the case.

[Psi U MC Vito]

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

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.

Which to me seems like a good thing for a Judge don't you think? One who doesn't preach their personal politics to the world.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

Kagan may not have CONFIRMED her homosexuality, but it seems kind of obvious.

Based on.....? I swear some of you need to get out the house more.

And let's pretend she is proven to be a lesbian and even transgendered, that automatically means her nomination is an appeal to the GLTB population?

This is as ridiculous as that Cosby Show episode where the esteemed attorney Claire Huxtable was on a panel with white males and told to "wait to speak on the Black topics...(or woman topics)...."

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

It IS wearisome, but that's how it works in politics. Moves like this are not just made in isolation. Considerations of how this will affect future elections are a part of the decision-making process. I think we would be fooling ourselves to think otherwise. It doesn't mean that we should think that EVERY move that is made is being done with that intention, but when it comes to a SCOTUS nominee? I think it is much more likely to be the case.

me<--------------------- --------------------------->you

[deepimpact2]

Originally Posted by Psi U MC Vito

Which to me seems like a good thing for a Judge don't you think? One who doesn't preach their personal politics to the world.

I think most people in this country want to have an idea of where a person stands on these issues. I have yet to see otherwise. I don't think that is a good thing.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

I think most people in this country want to have an idea of where a person stands on these issues. I have yet to see otherwise. I don't think that is a good thing.

Welcome to "Otherwise," population "more than you think."

[deepimpact2]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

me<--------------------- --------------------------->you

And this means what exactly?

Based on.....? I swear some of you need to get out the house more.

Why? Because some people think she is gay? So what?

And let's pretend she is proven to be a lesbian and even transgendered, that automatically means her nomination is an appeal to the GLTB population?

It does not mean that automatically, but considering the gay rights issues in this country right now, it doesn't exactly seem that far off. We can play devil's advocate all day, but for what? Obama has received some criticism for a few stances he has concerning gay marriage.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

Kagan may not have CONFIRMED her homosexuality, but it seems kind of obvious.

I really don't know whether to laugh or cry.

What Dr. Phil said.

[deepimpact2]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

Welcome to "Otherwise," population "more than you think."

I still haven't seen otherwise. I see someone saying otherwise, but I suspect that has more to do with just being contrary than actually feeling that way.

[deepimpact2]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

I really don't know whether to laugh or cry.

Neither response is required. It just is what it is: an opinion.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

And this means what exactly?

We're talking about two different things.

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

Why? Because some people think she is gay? So what?

"So what" is that you think it is "obvious." Get out the house more and you will find a lot of things that challenge your traditional and rather stereotypical way of thinking.

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

It does not mean that automatically

Exactly. The devil never needed an advocate, so I really wish people would stop trying to play one.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

I still haven't seen otherwise. I see someone saying otherwise, but I suspect that has more to do with just being contrary than actually feeling that way.

Give your message board paranoia a rest. Seriously.

As I always say, what you eat doesn't have to make everyone else defecate. If everyday citizens don't realize that, I at least want people in higher ranking decision making capacities to realize that.

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

Based on.....? I swear some of you need to get out the house more.

And let's pretend she is proven to be a lesbian and even transgendered, that automatically means her nomination is an appeal to the GLTB population?

This is as ridiculous as that Cosby Show episode where the esteemed attorney Claire Huxtable was on a panel with white males and told to "wait to speak on the Black topics...(or woman topics)...."

This is the dilemma of all professional women who choose their careers (consciously or not) over marriage and children. I've seen it so many times in medicine. People always assume that the unmarried professional must be a lesbian. I'm sure the lesbian community would be proud to claim any of these smart, educated, accomplished women as their own, but it takes a little more than just a lack of a wedding ring and children to make someone a member of their group.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

Neither response is required. It just is what it is: an opinion.

Not required perhaps, but certainly hard to suppress.