Page 5 of 9 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 87

Thread: Buchanan: With Kagan, too many Jews on Supreme Court bench

  1. #41
    Sage
    samsmart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,316
    Blog Entries
    37

    Re: Buchanan: With Kagan, too many Jews on Supreme Court bench

    Quote Originally Posted by Aunt Spiker View Post
    Representation?
    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 )
    No problem. I understand the emphasis. Allow me to justify and clarify my position.

    I personally am not saying that there are too many Jews on the Supreme Court, and I would like to make that clear right now.

    However, I do think that there may be too many Catholics on the Supreme Court. Now I don't think there shouldn't be religious people on the Supreme Court. However, I do think that if we have so many religious people on the Supreme Court then we should have at least one Justice who is agnostic or an atheist.

    The reason being is that, theoretically, you are in right in that the Justices should be unbiased. However, realistically, it is next to impossible for anyone to be totally unbiased on an issue. Especially the controversial issues the Supreme Court rules on.

    Take, for instance, one thread I read on this debate forum. It was a link to a news site saying that Chief Justice Roberts believes he has found ways in which Roe v. Wade can be overturned. Now, I don't think it's the purpose of a Justice, especially the Chief Justice, to state how he can decide a case that hasn't yet been brought up before him. I also don't think that it's a coincidence that Chief Justice Roberts is 1) conservative, 2) religious, 3) Catholic, and 4) believes he could rule against abortion in the United States.

    So whether you want to admit it or not, a person's beliefs does affect their judgments, whether those favor conservatives or liberals.

    Which is why in a constitutional democratic republic such as ours it is important to give weight to diverse array of opinions.

    Now you are correct in that Congress is the primary government body by which our nation achieves the most diversity. However, you also have to remember that Congress
    1) Has 535 members
    2) Has terms of 2 years for the House and 6 years for the Senate

    This means that not only is power in Congress diluted, it is rather easier to kick out unwanted, unethical, or unpopular Congressmen.

    The Supreme Court, however, has more concentrated power because
    1) It has only 9 Justices
    2) Appointments to the Supreme Court are lifetime appointments.

    That means that power in the Supreme Court is far more concentrated and it is more difficult to kick out unwanted, unethical, or unpopular Justices.

    And the reason why this is a concern to me is because I believe that all people and groups look after their own interests than the interests of others. I also believe that the Founding Fathers designed our three branches of government with that in mind, and would prefer a balance in the branches to ensure every interest has a say in government so that no one particular interest unduly interferes with the rights of those with other interests.

    For example, while employers have rights in this nation, so too do workers have rights. Why? Because both have the right to vote.

    That's why I would like to ensure that there is a diversity on the Supreme Court. I think that because the Supreme Court has the power of judicial review over Congress and the Presidency, it is even more important that there is a diversity of interests for the highest court in our nation. That way, the Supreme Court as a whole will be better able to discuss, debate, and finally rule on matters of law in our country.

    Now I'm not saying that every group should be represented on the Supreme Court. That is quite unrealistic, and I don't think we should have any kind of hard quota system. However, I do think that when a new seat opens up then the next appointment should be one that brings an added diversity or increased balanced to it, and diversity and increased balanced on multiple levels.

    For example, all the Justices are religious, and the majority are Catholics. However, they rule on issues that impact religious people along with atheists. So I ask why not appoint someone who is agnostic or atheist?

    However, I don't want that to be the sole reason of appointment. I also think that there are too many Justices who have been giving too much power to the Presidency, and one criticism of Kagan is that she supports providing more powers to the executive. So not only would I want someone appointed who is agnostic or atheist, I also want someone who bolster the power of Congress to act as a check on the President.

    But that's not what we get, realistically. What we realistically get is an appointment who will support the policies of whichever President nominates them and the Senate doesn't mind too much. And I, for one, think that giving lifetime appointments for short-term judicial justifications is worse than having a quota system for SCOTUS.

  2. #42
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,990

    Re: Buchanan: With Kagan, too many Jews on Supreme Court bench

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    We've heard the exact same things said by people who said the court was disproportionately white, disproportionately male, or disproportionately catholic. No one seemed to get riled up over those statements, so I'm not sure why this is a big deal.
    Yep, which is why its funny now.

    The people who used to bitch, complain, whine, and moan about people complaining the court is to white, too male, too catholic, etc are now the people bitching about it being too jewish.

    And the people who used to actually do the complaining that the court was too white, too male, too catholic are now the ones bitching, complaining, whining, and moaning about people complaining.

    Its hilarious and just shows the hyper partisan nature of both sides and why the majority of ideology bound drones on both sides aren't worth listening to let alone having a conversation with.

  3. #43
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Naperville, IL
    Last Seen
    09-24-12 @ 02:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    11,963

    Re: Buchanan: With Kagan, too many Jews on Supreme Court bench

    This is one of those "Did I say that out loud?" moments. Buchanan has them more and more, these days.

    Watching him defend it is almost as interesting...

  4. #44
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Last Seen
    11-23-11 @ 10:06 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,827

    Re: Buchanan: With Kagan, too many Jews on Supreme Court bench

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Yep, which is why its funny now.

    The people who used to bitch, complain, whine, and moan about people complaining the court is to white, too male, too catholic, etc are now the people bitching about it being too jewish.

    And the people who used to actually do the complaining that the court was too white, too male, too catholic are now the ones bitching, complaining, whining, and moaning about people complaining.

    Its hilarious and just shows the hyper partisan nature of both sides and why the majority of ideology bound drones on both sides aren't worth listening to let alone having a conversation with.
    So very true! LOL.

  5. #45
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Last Seen
    11-23-11 @ 10:06 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,827

    Re: Buchanan: With Kagan, too many Jews on Supreme Court bench

    Basically, the Jewish people seem to be highly gifted, as a whole. Here are some other statistics indicating that they are over represented in many prestigious fields of endeavor:

    Jewish Statistics

    By Percentage
    ----------
    100% CA Senators 1996
    85% College age jews in college
    76% Most influential intellectuals Alan Dershowitz
    60% Yale Grad students
    60% Top Hollywood positions 60 min
    58% Directors, writers, producers in 2 or more TV series
    50+ Clinton Cabinet
    50% Greg McDivitt estimate of "Millionaire" contestants
    50- nearly half of money spent in democratic primaries from jewish contrib
    40% Partners at best NY and DC law firms
    40% American Nobel laureates science economics
    20-30% Westinghouse Science Prize
    30% Faculty at elite college
    30% Supreme Court law clerks
    27% Ivy League Survey
    26% Reporters, editors, execs in print broadcast media
    26% US Law Professors (Volokh UCLA)
    25% ACM Turing Award
    23% 1982 Forbes 500 richest Americans
    23% Top 100 wealthy Canadians
    21% High level civil servants
    17% Boston Symphony Strings
    17% Nobel Physiology and Medicine
    16% Time Most Important 25
    15% McArthur "Genius" Awards 1981-97
    15% Time 20 20th Century Inventors
    15% USA Today College Academic Team
    14% Clinton Cabinet 1997
    13% senior corp exec under 40
    11% Nobel Physics Prize
    10% Pulitzer 1997
    10% US Senate
    10% US college faculty
    8% Who's Who 1975
    7.7% Corporate Boards
    7.4% senior corporate exec
    7.0% Forbes HiTech 100 1997
    3.0% US Voters 1996
    2.0% US Population
    2.0% Who's Who 1944
    0.25% World Popluation

  6. #46
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Last Seen
    11-23-11 @ 10:06 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,827

    Re: Buchanan: With Kagan, too many Jews on Supreme Court bench

    More info from above site:

    ASHKENAZIM HAVE HIGHEST IQ OF ANY KNOWN ETHNIC GROUP
    \clip\2005\09\rushrevisit.txt
    Rushton Revisited
    Andrew Duffy
    The Ottawa Citizen
    October 1, 2005
    Research that supports Philippe Rushton includes the work of
    anthropologist Henry Harpending. Mr. Harpending led a study that
    The researchers, led by anthropologist Henry Harpending, found
    that Ashkenazim score higher on IQ tests than any other ethnic
    group to which they can be reliably compared. Six times as many
    Ashkenazim as Europeans score in the "genius range" above 140 on
    IQ tests.
    Albert Einstein, Sigmund Freud and Gustav Mahler are part of the
    Ashkenazim bloodline, as are half of the world's chess
    champions. In the U.S., Ashkenazim have won 27 per cent of the
    Nobel Prizes awarded to Americans, while making up just three
    per cent of the population.

  7. #47
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Past the edge of the universe, through the singularity, and out the other side.
    Last Seen
    09-01-10 @ 05:23 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,324

    Re: Buchanan: With Kagan, too many Jews on Supreme Court bench

    Quote Originally Posted by chevydriver1123 View Post
    I love how Paleocons are always bitching and whinning about identity politics but yet Buchanan is bitching about the fact she's a jew. Then again it is Pat Buchanan so I really shouldnt be that surprised. Its not like there are other things to complain about; anti-second amendment, not too keen on the first to name two. Stay classy asshole

    Buchanan: With Kagan, too many Jews on Supreme Court bench | Raw Story
    If anything it's disproportionally theist.

  8. #48
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Past the edge of the universe, through the singularity, and out the other side.
    Last Seen
    09-01-10 @ 05:23 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,324

    Re: Buchanan: With Kagan, too many Jews on Supreme Court bench

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Umm for a couple reasons:
    1. White males are not an historically oppressed group.
    Really? So Irishmen were never historically oppressed? At one time or another every persons ethnicity falls into the category of "historically oppressed."

  9. #49
    Girthless
    RightinNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Last Seen
    01-23-11 @ 11:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,894

    Re: Buchanan: With Kagan, too many Jews on Supreme Court bench

    Quote Originally Posted by Dezaad View Post
    @RightinNYC


    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:

    "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.
    You're completely ignoring the things that came before it. Here's the FULL context:

    "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.

    Indeed, of the last seven justices nominated by Democrats JFK, LBJ, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, one was black, Marshall; one was Puerto Rican, Sonia Sotomayor. The other five were Jews: Arthur Goldberg, Abe Fortas, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan.

    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?
    Given that, the best paraphrase of what he's saying is this:

    "Elena Kagan only paid lip service to diversity at harvard, hiring almost all white people. Even mainstream reporters agree that she had a terrible record on diversity. This comes from a WashPost article about how the black community is angry at Obama for not upholding his promises of diversity, despite the fact that they disproportionately supported him. Democrats have not backed up their words with actions. The only black supreme court justice came from the Republicans, and Democrats tried to stop it. Of the last seven justices nominated by democrats, one was black, one was puerto rican, and five were jews. That means that jews will account for 1/3 of the court, while only being 2% of the nation. Is this the democrats idea of diversity?"

    When you look at it with the full context, it's clear that the whole jewish bit is just a part of his larger point: That democrats don't practice what they preach on diversity.

    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?
    If people claim that his statement is "anti-Jew" but that an identical statement referring to catholics would not be "anti-catholic," then yes, it's absolutely relevant. It helps point out that they're hypocrites.

    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).
    Again, I'm not a fan of Pat Buchanan, nor do I doubt that he has said some pretty absurd things. That doesn't mean that anything he says is automatically "anti-Jew," just like the fact that someone has been anti-XYZ in the past doesn't mean than any later statement mentioning XYZ is automatically bigoted.

    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?
    I don't care if you listen. I'm not arguing that Buchanan is some brilliant scholar whose words should be engraved into our hearts. I'm simply pointing out the hypocrisy that I see in claiming that this statement alone constitutes bigotry.
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  10. #50
    Slayer of the DP Newsbot
    danarhea's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    39,752

    Re: Buchanan: With Kagan, too many Jews on Supreme Court bench

    Quote Originally Posted by chevydriver1123 View Post
    I love how Paleocons are always bitching and whinning about identity politics but yet Buchanan is bitching about the fact she's a jew. Then again it is Pat Buchanan so I really shouldnt be that surprised. Its not like there are other things to complain about; anti-second amendment, not too keen on the first to name two. Stay classy asshole

    Buchanan: With Kagan, too many Jews on Supreme Court bench | Raw Story
    This Paleocon is very disappointed in Buchanan. Looks like he wants to be the Joe Biden of the Conservatives. LOL.
    The ghost of Jack Kevorkian for President's Physician: 2016

Page 5 of 9 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •