• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Diversity demands Alito filibuster

craigfarmer

Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2004
Messages
175
Reaction score
6
The Alito confirmation is the first political test of the New Year. Democrats should begin this year by presenting the country with an alternative agenda on various fronts. Liberals have won the rhetorical debate over "diversity"; so much so that even the most conservative policy-makers don't argue for an objective "meritocracy". The debate centers on the legitimate efforts that are allowable under the Constitution to promote diversity, and how much energy should be used to include more people in the powerful positions in our society.

Democrats however should stand on a principle that all branches of government should be reflective of our population. In addition we need to take affirmative action to ensure this as much as possible. We should be quick to note that our notion of diversity should include geography, gender, race, economic background, ideology, and other relevant factors in our society.

It is unacceptable to have 1 woman on the Supreme Court in a country that is MAJORITY women.

It is unacceptable to have 0 Latinos on the Supreme Court in a country where Hispanics in the aggregrate are the largest minority.

That would mean issues particularly focused on these groups would be decided almost completely without first hand knowledge.

We also need non-judges and non-lawyers on the court.

We need people who understand the world of technology.

We need people who know the intricacies of rural life.

We need younger people on the court.

The obvious truth is that at any one time the court can't represent all of America. Yet over time with a concerted effort, we can do much more than has ever been done in the past. This should be the mission of the Democrats. The value of diversity is in the breadth of new ideas, and a vibrant marketplace where a better product, in this case a court and its' decisions, is produced.

There are certain categories such as women, minorities, and ideology that should take precedent. They are so fundamental to American life today. Imagine a court with 9 conservatives or 9 liberals. It would be unacceptable. Well, likewise a court with 8 men or one without a Latino is also.

The prospect of the court deciding issues concerning immigration, women's bodies, or the rights of young people without adequate represention from these groups is disheartening. Conversely, this court is clearly in a good position to deal with end of life issues because of the advanced age of many of the members.

This principle of true diversity that attempts to utilize the full genius of America is an excellent principle for the Democrats to be known by. We would be standing for a West Virginian to be on the court. Or for a truely excellent young person; for a physically challenged person; for a hard-working business person; for women; etc.

Democrats should develop and fight on this principle and filibuster Alito.

Based on his qualifications, and presentation he is qualified to be on the Supreme Court.

Yet, he should replace a Scalia or a Kennedy under some circumstances.

Justice O'Connor should be replaced by a qualified woman, an ethnic minority or both.

If Clarence Thomas resigns surely most people would argue for another African American to be nominated. That would be correct, and we should expand this idea to better America.

As a party we should be willing to fight for principles and let the politics take care of themselves.



Craig Farmer
https://www.newliberals.org
making the word "liberal" safe again!
 
Joined
Jul 26, 2005
Messages
1,011
Reaction score
306
Location
Geelong, Australia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Why should you be appointed to courts based, on how your last name sounds, how much melanin you have in your skin, or whether you have two xx chromosomes or not.

The law is the law. What the U.S supreme court is people that can do their job objectively, who are not verging on senial, base their decisions on party politcs, or whether that person was the President's personal lawyer or not

The U.S supreme court needs the best people possible, what it doesn't need is people placed on the bench, based on their gender or their skin colour, just to make lefties feel fuzzy inside.
 

cnredd

Major General Big Lug
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
8,682
Reaction score
262
Location
Philadelphia,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Australianlibertarian said:
Why should you be appointed to courts based, on how your last name sounds, how much melanin you have in your skin, or whether you have two xx chromosomes or not.

The law is the law. What the U.S supreme court is people that can do their job objectively, who are not verging on senial, base their decisions on party politcs, or whether that person was the President's personal lawyer or not

The U.S supreme court needs the best people possible, what it doesn't need is people placed on the bench, based on their gender or their skin colour, just to make lefties feel fuzzy inside.
Agreed....

The way the original poster thinks is more based on emotions and "feelings" than logic...

"I'd rather have it LOOK even, than really BEING even"...that never works...
 

Navy Pride

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 11, 2005
Messages
39,883
Reaction score
3,070
Location
Pacific NW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
There will be no filibuster of Judge Alito and he will be confirmed with over 60 votes..........
 

scottyz

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
1,575
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Moderate
Navy Pride said:
There will be no filibuster of Judge Alito and he will be confirmed with over 60 votes..........
You basically said the same thing about Harriet Miers...
 

-Demosthenes-

Internet Revolutionist
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
919
Reaction score
7
Location
USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
craigfarmer said:
The Alito confirmation is the first political test of the New Year. Democrats should begin this year by presenting the country with an alternative agenda on various fronts. Liberals have won the rhetorical debate over "diversity"; so much so that even the most conservative policy-makers don't argue for an objective "meritocracy". The debate centers on the legitimate efforts that are allowable under the Constitution to promote diversity, and how much energy should be used to include more people in the powerful positions in our society.

Democrats however should stand on a principle that all branches of government should be reflective of our population. In addition we need to take affirmative action to ensure this as much as possible. We should be quick to note that our notion of diversity should include geography, gender, race, economic background, ideology, and other relevant factors in our society.

It is unacceptable to have 1 woman on the Supreme Court in a country that is MAJORITY women.

It is unacceptable to have 0 Latinos on the Supreme Court in a country where Hispanics in the aggregrate are the largest minority.

That would mean issues particularly focused on these groups would be decided almost completely without first hand knowledge.

We also need non-judges and non-lawyers on the court.

We need people who understand the world of technology.

We need people who know the intricacies of rural life.

We need younger people on the court.

The obvious truth is that at any one time the court can't represent all of America. Yet over time with a concerted effort, we can do much more than has ever been done in the past. This should be the mission of the Democrats. The value of diversity is in the breadth of new ideas, and a vibrant marketplace where a better product, in this case a court and its' decisions, is produced.

There are certain categories such as women, minorities, and ideology that should take precedent. They are so fundamental to American life today. Imagine a court with 9 conservatives or 9 liberals. It would be unacceptable. Well, likewise a court with 8 men or one without a Latino is also.

The prospect of the court deciding issues concerning immigration, women's bodies, or the rights of young people without adequate represention from these groups is disheartening. Conversely, this court is clearly in a good position to deal with end of life issues because of the advanced age of many of the members.

This principle of true diversity that attempts to utilize the full genius of America is an excellent principle for the Democrats to be known by. We would be standing for a West Virginian to be on the court. Or for a truely excellent young person; for a physically challenged person; for a hard-working business person; for women; etc.

Democrats should develop and fight on this principle and filibuster Alito.

Based on his qualifications, and presentation he is qualified to be on the Supreme Court.

Yet, he should replace a Scalia or a Kennedy under some circumstances.

Justice O'Connor should be replaced by a qualified woman, an ethnic minority or both.

If Clarence Thomas resigns surely most people would argue for another African American to be nominated. That would be correct, and we should expand this idea to better America.

As a party we should be willing to fight for principles and let the politics take care of themselves.



Craig Farmer
https://www.newliberals.org
making the word "liberal" safe again!
I wonder what you would be saying if a liberal was nominated...
 

M14 Shooter

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
2,622
Reaction score
68
Location
Toledo-ish OH
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
The obvious truth is that at any one time the court can't represent all of America.
The even more obvious truth is that the SCOTUS isn't supposed to represent -anyone- in America -- that's what Congress is for.

That I am not a black woman in no way means I cannot objectively decide how the constitution applies to a situation concerning a black woman,
 

Navy Pride

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 11, 2005
Messages
39,883
Reaction score
3,070
Location
Pacific NW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
scottyz said:
You basically said the same thing about Harriet Miers...
Since most conservative republicans were against her I doubt that..

That said I dare the left wing dems to filibuster Judge Alito..I wish they would try it........
 

Navy Pride

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 11, 2005
Messages
39,883
Reaction score
3,070
Location
Pacific NW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
-Demosthenes- said:
I wonder what you would be saying if a liberal was nominated...
Liberals have been nominated and confirmed under a liberal president.....:confused:
 

scottyz

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
1,575
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Moderate
Navy Pride said:
Since most conservative republicans were against her I doubt that..

That said I dare the left wing dems to filibuster Judge Alito..I wish they would try it........
Navy Pride said:
I think no matter who the president nominates the democrats will try and block her and if they do try and filibuster the nominee they will be toast because the republicans have the nuclear option to use.......

It should be fun........As the President once said that irritates the left so much........"Bring it on."
http://www.debatepolitics.com/showpost.php?p=102452&postcount=40

Navy Pride said:
I don't care how much the dems compliment her now there will be a huge fight over her confirmation.............Her confirmation moves the court farther to the right and the left will do everything they can to block it.....

The Republicans have the hammer though and will use it......Make no mistake about it........
http://www.debatepolitics.com/showpost.php?p=103429&postcount=83

Navy Pride said:
The democrats are staying quiet now but come confirmation time the usual suspects Kennedy. Boxer, Kerry, and Clinton will vote nay........

Much to the consternation of our liberal friends Harriet Meirs will be confirmed with about 75 votes and will be and outstanding conservative justice who will interpret the law and not make it....

You heard it here first.......
http://www.debatepolitics.com/showpost.php?p=112962&postcount=131

Navy Pride said:
Like I said in a previous post when push comes to shove and the vote is taken the usual suspects will oppose her and Republicans will fall in line and vote for her confirmation.......She will receive more votes then Roberts did.......

Take it to the bank.........
http://www.debatepolitics.com/showpost.php?p=115054&postcount=180
 

Navy Pride

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 11, 2005
Messages
39,883
Reaction score
3,070
Location
Pacific NW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative

scottyz

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
1,575
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Moderate
Navy Pride said:
You have entirely to much time on your hands my friend..........your point is?
Says the man with 5,000 posts... The point is you said the same thing about Miers confirmation.
 

Navy Pride

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 11, 2005
Messages
39,883
Reaction score
3,070
Location
Pacific NW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
scottyz said:
Says the man with 5,000 posts... The point is you said the same thing about Miers confirmation.
The conservatives turned on her and she withdrew her nomination..I still think she would have been a good justice but Alito will be a better one.......
 

-Demosthenes-

Internet Revolutionist
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
919
Reaction score
7
Location
USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Navy Pride said:
Liberals have been nominated and confirmed under a liberal president.....:confused:
No liberals cried nonrepresentaion then too. That's my point. If you choose when to use certain morals or beliefs based on if it supports a partisan goal or not, not only is it contradictory, it's... well, idiocy.
 

aquapub

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 16, 2005
Messages
7,317
Reaction score
344
Location
America (A.K.A., a red state)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
craigfarmer said:
The Alito confirmation is the first political test of the New Year. Democrats should begin this year by presenting the country with an alternative agenda on various fronts. Liberals have won the rhetorical debate over "diversity"; so much so that even the most conservative policy-makers don't argue for an objective "meritocracy". The debate centers on the legitimate efforts that are allowable under the Constitution to promote diversity, and how much energy should be used to include more people in the powerful positions in our society.

Democrats however should stand on a principle that all branches of government should be reflective of our population. In addition we need to take affirmative action to ensure this as much as possible. We should be quick to note that our notion of diversity should include geography, gender, race, economic background, ideology, and other relevant factors in our society.

It is unacceptable to have 1 woman on the Supreme Court in a country that is MAJORITY women.

It is unacceptable to have 0 Latinos on the Supreme Court in a country where Hispanics in the aggregrate are the largest minority.

That would mean issues particularly focused on these groups would be decided almost completely without first hand knowledge.

We also need non-judges and non-lawyers on the court.

We need people who understand the world of technology.

We need people who know the intricacies of rural life.

We need younger people on the court.

The obvious truth is that at any one time the court can't represent all of America. Yet over time with a concerted effort, we can do much more than has ever been done in the past. This should be the mission of the Democrats. The value of diversity is in the breadth of new ideas, and a vibrant marketplace where a better product, in this case a court and its' decisions, is produced.

There are certain categories such as women, minorities, and ideology that should take precedent. They are so fundamental to American life today. Imagine a court with 9 conservatives or 9 liberals. It would be unacceptable. Well, likewise a court with 8 men or one without a Latino is also.

The prospect of the court deciding issues concerning immigration, women's bodies, or the rights of young people without adequate represention from these groups is disheartening. Conversely, this court is clearly in a good position to deal with end of life issues because of the advanced age of many of the members.

This principle of true diversity that attempts to utilize the full genius of America is an excellent principle for the Democrats to be known by. We would be standing for a West Virginian to be on the court. Or for a truely excellent young person; for a physically challenged person; for a hard-working business person; for women; etc.

Democrats should develop and fight on this principle and filibuster Alito.

Based on his qualifications, and presentation he is qualified to be on the Supreme Court.

Yet, he should replace a Scalia or a Kennedy under some circumstances.

Justice O'Connor should be replaced by a qualified woman, an ethnic minority or both.

If Clarence Thomas resigns surely most people would argue for another African American to be nominated. That would be correct, and we should expand this idea to better America.

As a party we should be willing to fight for principles and let the politics take care of themselves.



Craig Farmer
https://www.newliberals.org
making the word "liberal" safe again!


This is total crap. Democrats have been proved wrong on diversity time and time again. Ever heard of Jayson Blair?

The vague, questionably existent benefits of having perfect racial representation on the court, in schools, and in the workplace can NEVER justify taking jobs and opportunities away from people who are more qualified. The Dems position on diversity is typically thoughtless, emotional, and anything but "progressive."
 

-Demosthenes-

Internet Revolutionist
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
919
Reaction score
7
Location
USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
This is total crap. Democrats have been proved wrong on diversity time and time again. Ever heard of Jayson Blair?

The vague, questionably existent benefits of having perfect racial representation on the court, in schools, and in the workplace can NEVER justify taking jobs and opportunities away from people who are more qualified. The Dems position on diversity is typically thoughtless, emotional, and anything but "progressive."
The morality of racism is almost beside the point when it is invoked when it is useful for the liberal agenda, and ignored when it is not. It's nothing that they believe, it's something they use.
 

Navy Pride

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 11, 2005
Messages
39,883
Reaction score
3,070
Location
Pacific NW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
scottyz said:
Says the man with 5,000 posts... The point is you said the same thing about Miers confirmation.
I admit I have time on my hands but I am retired and live on a measley $5,500. a month.........

What is your excuse?:roll:
 

Navy Pride

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 11, 2005
Messages
39,883
Reaction score
3,070
Location
Pacific NW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
-Demosthenes- said:
No liberals cried nonrepresentaion then too. That's my point. If you choose when to use certain morals or beliefs based on if it supports a partisan goal or not, not only is it contradictory, it's... well, idiocy.
Very refreshing my young friend.Keep fighting the good fight..........
 

F41

Active member
Joined
Sep 8, 2005
Messages
341
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Navy Pride said:
That said I dare the left wing dems to filibuster Judge Alito..I wish they would try it........
Well if they did, it might be comforting to know, and I get this from a reliable source, Bush has promised he wold not wiretap their speeches
so the liberal Senators can to speak their minds and have no fear that anyone will ever hear a word they say.
 

-Demosthenes-

Internet Revolutionist
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
919
Reaction score
7
Location
USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
ThePhoenix said:
Well if they did, it might be comforting to know, and I get this from a reliable source, Bush has promised he wold not wiretap their speeches
so the liberal Senators can to speak their minds and have no fear that anyone will ever hear a word they say.
Ohhhhhh, Alito is a wire tapper and should his nomination should be filibusted. Logical genius.
 

craigfarmer

Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2004
Messages
175
Reaction score
6
Australianlibertarian said:
Why should you be appointed to courts based, on how your last name sounds, how much melanin you have in your skin, or whether you have two xx chromosomes or not.

The law is the law. What the U.S supreme court is people that can do their job objectively, who are not verging on senial, base their decisions on party politcs, or whether that person was the President's personal lawyer or not

The U.S supreme court needs the best people possible, what it doesn't need is people placed on the bench, based on their gender or their skin colour, just to make lefties feel fuzzy inside.
===

First of all, I purposely enlarged the debate beyond physical characteristics because, diversity should include the totality of our experience. I don't know if you're Australian, but if you are; imagine the Supreme Court deciding an international dispute concerning some area law, without any members of the court EVER having traveled outside of the U.S. to foreign lands? Now, it may be impossible to acquire first-hand knowledge of every country on earth, but what if all nine have never experienced another country's laws, and customs. Yet they are making a decision that has real-world consequences only from briefs and lawyer's arguments. Once a group of people were certified to be capable of doing a job, experience in international affairs would be a valid preference, just as race, gender, ideology, etc.

In most jobs the idea of QUALIFIED is very subjective. For the minority of positions, an objective test score, or physical standard can be set. But for the majority, MERIT and QUALITIFICATIONS have no real meaning. What makes a football coach qualified? A senator? A lawyer? etc.
Once a person attains the minimum educational requirements, the rest is
a political judgement, and we should make it, with the whole population in mind.
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,893
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
You know what? I agree. The supreme court should be more diverse and representative of our nation.

Here's what I propose:

Currently, ALL NINE of the NINE Justices are Judges with law degrees. Less than 1% of the nation are Judges. So let's replace them with a more representative balance. How about a teacher, a used car salesman, a computer programmer, a babysitter, a cook, a minister, a bartender, a mechanic, and someone who's unemployed?

Only half of the country has a high school degree, so we can only have 5 high school graduates, MAX.

And 90% of our country doesn't know the bill of rights. Guess a Justice who knows that is out of the question.

Sounds good to me.
 

cnredd

Major General Big Lug
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
8,682
Reaction score
262
Location
Philadelphia,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
RightatNYU said:
You know what? I agree. The supreme court should be more diverse and representative of our nation.

Here's what I propose:

Currently, ALL NINE of the NINE Justices are Judges with law degrees. Less than 1% of the nation are Judges. So let's replace them with a more representative balance. How about a teacher, a used car salesman, a computer programmer, a babysitter, a cook, a minister, a bartender, a mechanic, and someone who's unemployed?

Only half of the country has a high school degree, so we can only have 5 high school graduates, MAX.

And 90% of our country doesn't know the bill of rights. Guess a Justice who knows that is out of the question.

Sounds good to me.
Sometimes I wish you would just respond with some sarcasm....:2wave:
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,893
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
cnredd said:
Sometimes I wish you would just respond with some sarcasm....:2wave:
i would never do that.
 

JOHNYJ

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 9, 2005
Messages
567
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Australianlibertarian said:
Why should you be appointed to courts based, on how your last name sounds, how much melanin you have in your skin, or whether you have two xx chromosomes or not.

The law is the law. What the U.S supreme court is people that can do their job objectively, who are not verging on senial, base their decisions on party politcs, or whether that person was the President's personal lawyer or not

The U.S supreme court needs the best people possible, what it doesn't need is people placed on the bench, based on their gender or their skin colour, just to make lefties feel fuzzy inside.
I use to work for a ompany that until the 1960's that wouldn't hire Irish Catholics.I geuss those days are back.Liberals would not allow Catholics or Evangelical protestants on the Supreme court if they had their way.Of course they Can't say that.So they mumble and talk around it. Quotas thats what we are talking about. Well we are about to have 5 Catholics o the court and if the liberals don'tlike it, Tough .
 
Top Bottom