Quote:
Originally Posted by asaris
Except no one thinks this. As Rekna pointed out, every single candidate that's being considered for this position is very qualified. The issue isn't picking an unqualified woman over a qualified man -- it's picking a qualified woman rather than a qualified man. There are hundred, if not thousands, of people in the United States who are perfectly qualified to be Supreme Court Justices. So it's perfectly legitimate to pick someone based on some factors other than their pure knowledge of law, the Constitution, and precedent. Lots of people are so close on that as to be virtually indistinguishable. It's the intangibles that matter.
|
Extremes such as "no one" and "every(one)" are rarely, if ever, true. Indeed, many times they're not and I'd be wary of those persons who use them.
But, beyond that, no matter what way you try to slice it, gender and race are not "intangibles". They never have been and they never will be. It's utterly ridiculous to assert as much. Do you know what it's called when you make gender and race the deciding factors? Discrimination (In this case, it would be reverse discrimination), plain and simple. See, if a man were ever to be picked over a woman on the basis that he's a man, the person decided would be labeled sexist. Conversely, if a person who was white was picked over a minority on the basis that he's white, the person who decided would be labeled a racist. And if those two cases aren't cool, then neither is the reverse. And, unfortunately for some of you guys and gals, Obama has already come out and stated that certain groups are "underrepresented" on the bench and pretty much everyone and their grandparents know Obama is more than likely going to appoint a woman because of it. It's funny how in the midst of cries for equality you get demographic qualifiers like race, gender, orientation, etc. being thrown out under the guise of "intangibles".
There's a stark difference between choosing a woman or whomever because she's the best for the job, and choosing a woman because she is, in essence, not a man. But I suppose people will go to any lengths to defend Obama, even if it doesn't make much sense at all and would be denounced if the situations reversed.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Charlatan
Wasted tears are what? The tears of a clown.
Do you really think the vetting process that a nominee has to go though is going to allow someone who isn't qualified into the Supreme Court? (that's a rhetorical question by the way -- the answer, as we all know it, is no).
|
And in a perfect world, no. But we don't live in a perfect world, do we? Political ideology is the game in Washington. Qualifications aren't nearly as important as electing/apointing someone with the similar views to your own.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dippin
Can you name a single example of a person that Obama has talked about that has little to no real experience?
The thing that is frustrating sometimes around here is that so often we have to spend so much time setting the record straight, that we don't get to discuss the real issue.
Of all the names being floated around, there is not a single "Harriet Miers" in the bunch.
|
Since Obama himself has been hush-hush about it, no. I'll admit that my last post was written a little hastily, since Obama himself hasn't said much of anything about his appointee(s). I will say, however, that there has been a lot of clamor to appoint a non-judge/lawyer/something like a governor to the Supreme Court, which is just stupid.
...Plus, I have absolutely zero faith in any pick Obama makes, anyway, as he's a poor judge of character/ability.