New SCOTUS nominee

[RU OX Alum]

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)

[PiKA2001]

Originally Posted by RU OX Alum

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)

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.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by PiKA2001

...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.

[Drolefille]

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.

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.

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.

[MysticCat]

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.

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.

[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.

[DrPhil]

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.

[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.

[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 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.

[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.

[RU OX Alum]

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.

[DrPhil]

All in all, this goes back to focusing on outcome rather than intent. People want to debate the intent which can often not be proven. It is much wiser to discuss the potential outcomes of this SCOTUS nominee. Outcome is outcome regardless of the intent. Which groups may FEEL their agendas will be addressed and why?

(Another cultural reference) Joy Behar of The View said that she received a "Jewish" award years ago because people thought she was an accomplished Jewish woman. How awesome of her to be primetime and offer a voice to Jewish women all over. They undoubtedly were going based on assumptions, rumors, and stereotypes. She's Italian, though. LOL.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

It isn't something I can explain to someone like you. You would not "get it."

That is just pathetically lame. Just go ahead and say you don't have an answer.

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

How do you make the leap that because I think the woman is gay that I need to get out of the house? Especially since you know nothing abuot me.

And what do you know about Kegel that enables you to form opinions about her sexual orientation? Or about me that enables you to form opinions about what I would or wouldn't get?

[Munchkin03]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

And what do you know about Kegel that enables you to form opinions about her sexual orientation? Or about me that enables you to form opinions about what I would or wouldn't get?

When I read "Kegel," I thought of something else entirely.