David Souter Retiring, Obama gets to make first SCOTUS pick

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

This is purposefully obtuse, is it not? The point is that the experiences of being Latina are unique from the overall set by nature of differences that do not exist for whites. Sure, everyone's a unique snowflake, but that's not the point.



There may not be. There may be. She hopes there is. That's the whole point.

Is there an overall set of experiences? Are white experiences so uniform that the claim makes sense?

It doesn't to me.

I think that the experience of being Ted Kennedy varies so significantly from the experience of being Eminem, especially pre-success, that it's kind of goofy to lump them together by race and culture and assume that they've shared formative experiences.

Certainly, the shared experience of legal training is going to narrow the gap some, and maybe there's not as profound a variety in the experiences of white guys likely to become judges. But I still think a big sweeping comment about what ethnicity, race, or culture contribute is likely to be pretty faulty.

[UGAalum94]

Did you all see this already?

http://www.slate.com/id/2219699/

It's about how the language we're discussing here is recycled from a previous speech about how the richness of a woman's experience would allow her to reach better decisions and defines better.

What seems oddest to me in the media's discussion is the idea that GOP would be actively trying to come up with a strategy for stalling her. It seems like Obama could have done much worst by GOP assumed standards.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

Is there an overall set of experiences? Are white experiences so uniform that the claim makes sense?

It doesn't to me.

Yes. They are uniformly devoid of being non-white.

I think that the experience of being Ted Kennedy varies so significantly from the experience of being Eminem, especially pre-success, that it's kind of goofy to lump them together by race and culture and assume that they've shared formative experiences.

I have said this over a dozen times now - nobody is disputing this fact. YOU are assuming a "shared formative experience" - I am not. She is not, in the speech. You're arguing a strawman, and have been for like 5 pages now.

[Kevin]

Does anyone else find it odd that so many are so hot and bothered about "diversity" on the bench, while in the same breath demand a person who went to either Harvard or Yale, has had essentially the same career since entering college as every other justice on the bench and is a Judge on one of two or three Circuits?

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Does anyone else find it odd that so many are so hot and bothered about "diversity" on the bench, while in the same breath demand a person who went to either Harvard or Yale, has had essentially the same career since entering college as every other justice on the bench and is a Judge on one of two or three Circuits?

I don't know if this article prompted your question, but the NY Times talked about this a couple of days ago: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/09/us....html?_r=1&hpw .

I don't really have a problem with the Court being limited essentially to Ivy League grads; they're the people who most likely got the high level appellate court/Supreme Court clerkships, they're more likely to have argued before the Court, and they're more likely to get the circuit judge appointments. Do I think there's a time when we may see a Justice from somewhere like the University of Michigan Law or University of Texas Law? I think that will happen at some point. However, I have no problem with it being limited to people from the top 8-12 law schools (and I say that as someone who's at a decent school and has an ultimate dream goal to be a judge on an intermediate state appellate court).

As for the limitation on where the judges are drawn from, and being limited to a couple of circuits; I see that as more of an issue, but I see the reasons for it. If you've got a place like the 9th Circuit, which is known for throwing precedent out the window and staking itself to rather extreme legal claims, then I'm not sure they're the best people to put on the Court. There's something to say for being a creative legal mind, but there are boundaries to that. I'm a big fan of the 7th Circuit (Easterbrook, Wood, Posner, among others), and I'd like to see a judge from that court end up on SCOTUS at some point.

But, at the end of the day, the legal profession is one that can typecast you, so to speak, throughout your career. If you went to a certain school, you're more likely to get a good clerkship, get a job at a big firm or a high level government position (Office of Legal Counsel, for example), and more likely to end up as a rainmaker partner or a judge. There are exceptions of course, especially for well-connected regional schools (i.e. if you went to Suffolk Law in Boston, you have a leg up on many law students from outside of Boston), but I think, for the most part, that's just the way the profession is set up.

[Munchkin03]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

I don't know if this article prompted your question, but the NY Times talked about this a couple of days ago: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/09/us....html?_r=1&hpw .

I don't really have a problem with the Court being limited essentially to Ivy League grads; they're the people who most likely got the high level appellate court/Supreme Court clerkships, they're more likely to have argued before the Court, and they're more likely to get the circuit judge appointments. Do I think there's a time when we may see a Justice from somewhere like the University of Michigan Law or University of Texas Law? I think that will happen at some point. However, I have no problem with it being limited to people from the top 8-12 law schools (and I say that as someone who's at a decent school and has an ultimate dream goal to be a judge on an intermediate state appellate court).

I read that article, and posted as an item on my Facebook page. I don't have a problem with it either, and I don't see it changing for a while and when it does, it will still be judges from schools like Michigan, UT, and Berkeley.

Did you read the NYT article about Scalia? He basically explained why he doesn't hire clerks who didn't go to a handful of law schools.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by Munchkin03

I read that article, and posted as an item on my Facebook page. I don't have a problem with it either, and I don't see it changing for a while and when it does, it will still be judges from schools like Michigan, UT, and Berkeley.

Did you read the NYT article about Scalia? He basically explained why he doesn't hire clerks who didn't go to a handful of law schools.

I saw the article about Scalia when it was linked on abovethelaw. It's not really a surprise; if you look at his clerks over the past 20 years, he does only limit to a handful of schools. Then again, that's the way most of the justices are in their picks. Only Clarence Thomas and Alito have gone outside the top 10-12, and even there it's exceptions to the rule.

Heck, even when you look at the people who were chosen from the top schools, they have ridiculous academic records (very top of class, law review experience, including being published, heavy duty moot court experience, and for some, a couple of years at top law firms). It gets limited even more when you look at the judges who are the top "feeders" to the SCOTUS justices.

[Kevin]

Oh, don't get me wrong, I really have no problem with sticking with Justices who went to highly selective schools. I just think that the claim that anyone values "diversity" while only considering people whose lives have been substantially similar since around their 18th birthdays is a tad two-faced.

It's the notion that apparently here, in this process, different race and only different race = diversity.

-- and actually no, I hadn't seen that piece in the Times.

[Munchkin03]

Originally Posted by Kevin

I just think that the claim that anyone values "diversity" while only considering people whose lives have been substantially similar since around their 18th birthdays is a tad two-faced.

I wouldn't say that their lives have been the same since their 18th birthdays--although they have been educated at the same institutions, there seems to be enough difference in ideology, personal background, and experience before the Court to indicate that they're not all the same.

I'm not in the law world, but it looks to me that if you have very specific career goals in mind, where you go is really important--whether it's your local university or Harvard Law. Is that true?

[Kevin]

Pretty much.

That does nothing to allay the questionable concept of "diversity" we have in court appointments.

[Munchkin03]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Pretty much.

That does nothing to allay the questionable concept of "diversity" we have in court appointments.

You know, I honestly don't care too much about diversity in the court. I guess I should! Just because someone is of color/female/whatever doesn't mean that they'll reflect my beliefs, or work for my best interests. Pah.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Munchkin03

You know, I honestly don't care too much about diversity in the court. I guess I should! Just because someone is of color/female/whatever doesn't mean that they'll reflect my beliefs, or work for my best interests. Pah.

Well that's sort of the point. We should be more about diversity of culture and belief, not diversity of race/color. Race/color is obviously a visible characteristic about someone and that might be why folks latch onto it as being a big deal, but really, is it such a big deal?

Not saying this hypo applies to Sotomayor, 'cuz God knows she grew up in a place which has the power to crush most peoples' hopes and dreams, but why should a black kid who grows up in suburbia in an in-tact, affluent and educated home be considered as someone who might contribute to "diversity" at a mostly white school? Or why should we automatically assume that a black or hispanic judge is going to bring a diverse opinion to a court simply on account of their race?

Perhaps this appointment has more to do with wooing potential minority constituent groups than it does bringing true diversity to the Court?

[Munchkin03]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Perhaps this appointment has more to do with wooing potential minority constituent groups than it does bringing true diversity to the Court?

I think that's it almost entirely. So much of this stuff is about catering to special interest groups.

[RU OX Alum]

Yeah, Obama is a crafty one.