New SCOTUS nominee

[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 MysticCat

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.

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.

[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.

[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

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.

[Psi U MC Vito]

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.

Well I rather somebody who keep their personal views close to the vest. Somebody preaching their beliefs won't be impartial. Somebody who won't even let you know what those beliefs are can better afford to be impartial without being exclaimed a hypocrite.

[deepimpact2]

Originally Posted by Psi U MC Vito

Well I rather somebody who keep their personal views close to the vest. Somebody preaching their beliefs won't be impartial. Somebody who won't even let you know what those beliefs are can better afford to be impartial without being exclaimed a hypocrite.

There is a difference between preaching views and just being clear about where you stand on an issue. And yes, there are people who can have or even preach their views and still be impartial Some people are just evolved like that.

[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)...."

[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.

[deepimpact2]

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

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.

I hope you realize that just made an assumption yourself. smh

But for the record, everyone doesn't think a woman is a lesbian because she dedicates herself to her career and doesn't get married or have children. I am also unmarried, have no interest in children, and I am more focused on a career than getting married. That doesn't equate to lesbianism.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

But for the record, everyone doesn't think a woman is a lesbian because she dedicates herself to her career and doesn't get married or have children. I am also unmarried, have no interest in children, and I am more focused on a career than getting married. That doesn't equate to lesbianism.

So what is it that makes it "kind of obvious" to you that Kagan is a lesbian?

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

I hope you realize that just made an assumption yourself. smh

But for the record, everyone doesn't think a woman is a lesbian because she dedicates herself to her career and doesn't get married or have children. I am also unmarried, have no interest in children, and I am more focused on a career than getting married. That doesn't equate to lesbianism.

I made an assumption that people assume that women who don't get married and have children are lesbians. Duh. If you haven't heard that one, you haven't been around long enough. It is a VERY common assumption, and becomes more common as the woman ages. I don't make the stereotype; I just get offended by it. And, no, it doesn't equal lesbianism...that's my exact point.

I guess you think she's "obviously" a lesbian because she opposes DADT. Might I point out that many straight people also oppose DADT, and since it's a liberal agenda (gasp...she is a liberal) it wouldn't be farfetched for a liberal, unmarried, professional, straight female to hold that belief.

[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.