its ridiculous to claim one group is represented over another, they're not there to represent their groups, and trying to balance it simply means a better judge may be passed over for one of a more correct race/gender/religion etc.
"To waste, to destroy, our natural resources, to skin and exhaust the land instead of using it so as to increase its usefulness, will result in undermining in the days of our children the very prosperity which we ought by rights to hand down to them."~ Theodore Roosevelt (Message to Congress, Dec. 3, 1907)
I just don't grasp this 'representation' concept.
We're all suppose to *be* equal - so why can't a black male "represent" me (a white female?) Why do people think that only ONE person's race or ONE person's gender or ONE person's religion have to be 'balanced' or 'represented' in politics.
You are represented by your Representative in the House of Representatives - because, barring race, gender, etc etc - these people answer directly TO you (the constituent). They make decisions on behalf of YOU, they answer to YOU and consider YOU when taking a stance.
They don't know your race from poo!
The supreme court judges merely interprets the Constitution and JUDGES based on their values and beliefs - NOT based on their race or gender. In fact, if race and gender are playing a HEAVY role in a judge's decisions then they shouldn't BE a judge. Not all "jews" think alike in all sorts of matters - so how can they be 'represented' properly or improperly? Just because someone is ___ doesn't mean they're JUST like YOU.
To suggest that race/gender CONTINUES to hold STRONG merit is going against various social movements that have been geared towards making everyone EQUAL and, instead, back peddles and makes everyone, again, unequal.
(sorry for my caps-habit to emphasize meaning, I'm trying to start using bold, instead, but it's an old habit - I'm not yelling )
Last edited by Aunt Spiker; 05-16-10 at 09:10 AM.
A screaming comes across the sky.
It has happened before, but there is nothing to compare it to now.Pynchon - Gravity's Rainbow
I have to agree with mbig and Kandahar. Seems to me Buchanan was complaining of Jewish over-representation rather than merely proffering a statement of fact. The two methodologies here are not equivalent.
אשכנזי היהודי • Белый Россию
I honestly don't care if the entire court is Muslim or atheist. I just want judges who will rule objectively and according to Constitutional Law (However, my statement is not one supporting Kagan). The Supreme Court was never intended to represent diversity or be proportional to the American population. If Kagan gets the seat that will mean that only Jews and Catholics are on the court, no protestants or agnostics. However, this doesn't bother me. It's absurd to disqualify someone from a position because of their religion (the exception would be appointing someone to a religious position, like places a Muslim in charge of a Christian organization). I don't care if 33% of the Supreme Court justices are Jewish, and I think we should all hold the religious makeup of the court to be irrelevant. They weren't nominated and appointed because they were Catholic/Jewish, they were nominated and appointed and happened to be Catholic/Jewish.
It tends not to be something people make an issue out of, at least publicly, but some liberals do have concerns about such a Catholic court.
"There is some fear that they might perhaps, on some issues like abortion, carry out a kind of Catholic jurisprudence rather than reflecting a broader point of view," said John Green, a senior fellow at the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life.Also:From the moment that President Bush announced Alito's nomination, there has been an undercurrent of debate about the prospect of a five-member Catholic majority.
After Eleanor Smeal, president of the Feminist Majority Foundation, said that women, Latinos and people of "other religions, not to mention nonbelievers" would be underrepresented on the court,
I don't see how those statements aren't at least as strong as what Buchanan said. Whereas he makes no clear value judgments about the demographics of the court, those statements seem to be making clear that the authors are opposed to the idea of having 5 catholics.Back when the nominee was Sam Alito, talk was about the "fifth Catholic" on the bench. Eleanor Smeal, president of the Feminist Majority, complained that "with Alito, the majority of the Court would be Roman Catholics."
Except just 3 lines in the entire piece referred to jews. He also said:If Buchanan had authored a piece impartially showing the statistics of various demographic groups on the court, that would be one thing (although I'd probably view anything Pat Buchanan has to say about Jews with suspicion given his past record). But when it's part of an article entitled "Are liberals anti-WASP?" and is followed up with "Is this the Democrats' idea of diversity?" I think it's pretty clear that he's sorry there will be yet another Jew on the court.
"A chorus of black commentators and civic leaders has begun expressing frustration over (Elena) Kagan's hiring record as Harvard dean. From 2003 to 2009, 29 faculty members were hired: 28 were white and one was Asian-American." CNN pundit Roland Martin slammed "Kagan's record on diversity as one that a 'white Republican U.S. president' would be criticized for." This is an excerpt from the Washington Post about the rising anger in a black community, which voted 24-1 for Obama, that one of their own was once again passed over for the Supreme Court. Not since Thurgood Marshall, 43 years ago, has a Democratic president chosen an African-American. The lone sitting black justice is Clarence Thomas, nominated by George H. W. Bush. And Thomas was made to run a gauntlet by Senate liberals.It sounds to me like the point of the piece is to mock liberals for a pseudo-commitment to diversity while arguing that recent republican selections have truly been diverse. He doesn't appear to be praising the early republican leaders for picking 7 white protestants. He also notes the disproportionate representation of catholics, though I haven't seen a firestorm of criticism about that point.What of the record of Republican presidents? Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford made seven nominations. All were white Protestant males: Warren Burger, Clement Haynsworth, Harrold Carswell, Harry Blackmun, Lewis Powell, William Rehnquist and John Paul Stevens. The diversity Nixon sought was first to put a Southerner on the court. He succeeded in his third try, with Powell. And he sought to put the first woman on the court, but pulled back from nominating Judge Mildred Lillie of California when the American Bar Associated rated her unqualified. With Ronald Reagan and Bush I came Republican diversity. Reagan's first choice was Sandra Day O'Connor, the first woman ever nominated. His second was Antonin Scalia, the first Italian-American. When his third nominee, Robert Bork, a Protestant, was rejected, Reagan chose Bork's Jewish colleague on the U.S. Appellate Court for the District of Columbia, Douglas H. Ginsburg. When Douglas Ginsburg was pulled because of a marijuana incident in college, Reagan chose the Irish Catholic Anthony Kennedy. George H. W. Bush picked David Souter, a Protestant from New Hampshire, and Clarence Thomas, the second African-American to sit. George W. Bush chose John Roberts, a Catholic; Harriet Miers, the first Evangelical Christian of our era; and Sam Alito, the second Italian Catholic.
If Kagan is confirmed, the Court will consist of three Jews and six Catholics (who represent not quite a fourth of the country), but not a single Protestant, though Protestants remain half the nation and our founding faith. If Kagan is confirmed, three of the four justices nominated by Democratic presidents will be from New York City: Kagan from the Upper West Side, Sotomayor from the Bronx, Ruth Bader Ginsburg from Brooklyn. Breyer is from San Francisco. What kind of diversity is this – either in geography or life experience?
People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.
Does a black SCOTUS judge represent all black people?
Does a male SCOTUS judge represent all men?
One of you will end up here next!
This is the exact quote.
While the first sentence, taken by itself would simply be factual, it becomes normative coupled with the sentence that immediately follows it. A legitimate paraphrase of the two sentences together would be:If Kagan is confirmed, Jews, who represent less than 2 percent of the U.S. population, will have 33 percent of the Supreme Court seats.
Is this the Democrats' idea of diversity?
"There ought to be diversity on the supreme court, but there are currently too many Jews." Implying there ought to be fewer Jews. This paraphrase fits with the tone of the entire rest of the article. Your claim that his statement was merely factual does not.
As for people supposedly not getting upset about people making similar observations about Catholic predominance on the court, it really is irrelevant. So, maybe people aren't as sensitive about anti-Catholic sentiment. Would that make Buchanan's statement somehow less anti-Jew?
However, not only do you lift his statement out of it's immediate context, you lift it out of the context of the speaker. Buchanan, IS anti-Jew, according to my memory of conclusions I drew many years ago. Others here are of the same opinion. Whether his arguments are reasonable on the surface, we must discern which arguments to give ear to (there are so many, after all).
We hear from a known anti-semite that there are too many Jews on the SCOTUS. Are we supposed to listen?
There are 24 hours in a day. Even if we had all that time to listen to political and social argumentation, there wouldn't be enough time to listen to and think about Buchanan's, really. So, when Buchanan is remembered as what he is, and then that he IS saying there are too many Jews on the SCOTUS, don't be surprised that people dismiss him along with his arguments.
It is the natural and intelligent thing to do.
Criticizing an argument's soundness by ad hominem attack is of course a fallacy. Refusing to consider at all whether an argument is sound or not due to the reputation of the giver is not. It is a form of intellectual thrift, actually. This is what people are doing when they dismiss Buchanan, even though they sometimes do come up with fallacious reasoning to justify it.
A person might occasionally miss the exceedingly rare nugget of truth amongst all the noise out there by filtering this way. But, ask yourself this: Why fish in a dead zone?
You can never be safe from a government that can keep you completely safe from each other and the world. You must choose.