Quote:
Originally Posted by SydneyK
I said it wasn't about gender because I think EW would've made a similar remark about a man who doesn't appear to fit the heterosexual mold. Perhaps a better way of putting it would've been that EW wasn't making a sexist remark. And generally, imo anyway, when people complain that a woman is being judged on something other than her credentials, it's a complaint that's rooted in sexism.
I think you're right, and GC's response (this thread) = case in point.
hijack
Welcome back, Drolefille! You do know we still love you even though your translation services are no longer needed on a regular basis, right? Stop being a stranger! 
/hijack |
Aw thanks
And is it weird if my LinkedIn tried to connect me with a Tom Earp? I mean, really.
Quote:
Originally Posted by deepimpact2
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.  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. |
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by deepimpact2
Hence why I was hesitant about answering the question. I wasn't criticizing him for pandering to gays, I was simply saying that I think it is one reason he chose her. And I clearly said I don't expect or want him to have a "Black agenda." |
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.
Threaded Mode
