tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28102666.post3401306967372768259..comments2024-03-28T04:26:30.557-05:00Comments on Boston 1775: “We the People...in order to...Establish Justice”Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28102666.post-17745751508715678572009-06-03T13:03:12.678-05:002009-06-03T13:03:12.678-05:00“Every time” is correct. As the example of the fir...“Every time” is correct. As the example of the first court shows, Presidents have been picking Supreme Court justices for diversity since the beginning. Jeffrey Toobin’s item in the latest <i>New Yorker</i> notes how concern for geographic diversity (and tokenism) was succeeded by religious diversity, gender diversity, ethnic diversity. <br /><br />For that reason, mandating a particular makeup of the court seems unnecessary, and likely to become out of date. Can we identify the forms of representation that will concern the American public in forty years?<br /><br />I think a lot of the nattering about Sotomayor is simply politics. Conservatives don’t want <i>any</i> non-conservatives on the court, even a pragmatic liberal like her. Had President Obama nominated a rich white man from the left, the right wing would be finding other reasons to complain about him and raise funds. <br /><br />The facts that Sotomayor is female and Hispanic make her appealing for political reasons. But they also allow bigots and those who play to them a handy way to fire up some opposition.J. L. Bellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15405157000473731801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28102666.post-24500253579834203422009-06-03T12:52:23.228-05:002009-06-03T12:52:23.228-05:00Every time we have a supreme court opening we have...Every time we have a supreme court opening we have the same national discussion. Should the members of the court collectively (resemble, represent, mirror etc.) the composition of the American people? Answering "yes" to this question assumes that nine people can somehow represent a nation economically, racially, sexually, socially, etc. A very unlikely proposition.<br /><br />But, to keep this from happening, why not solve it by legislation. Should we have a law that identifies the priorities for future supreme court appointees based on some of these "other" considerations in addition to having superior legal background and knowledge? We could then have a quota system that would be well known and analyzed prior to the presidential appointments.<br /><br />Good idea?kfrancherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07357740735813693403noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28102666.post-87397298955494430672009-05-30T23:37:08.961-05:002009-05-30T23:37:08.961-05:00Well done! It's ironic that politicians will criti...Well done! It's ironic that politicians will criticize the idea that justices might let their personal experience cloud their judgment... yet they will just as quickly lament a nominee who does not share their personal ideas.Rob Velellahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14284492589098267999noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28102666.post-77108986396676547522009-05-30T14:23:32.080-05:002009-05-30T14:23:32.080-05:00amen to that!amen to that!todhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17522321435125970138noreply@blogger.com