• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's 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!

President Obama Defends Choosing a White Male for the US Supreme Court

Van Basten said:
The people with the best records tend to come from the most elite schools, overwhelmingly.

The Supreme Court requires the best of the best, that will breed some level of elitism, a meritocratic sort.
Click to expand...

We'll have to agree to disagree.
Not everyone who is of an "elite" mind can go or gets accepted into the elite schools.
Why they're chosen from the elite schools is, in my opinion, more of a product of networking, rather than being "best of the best."
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
So you're saying that of all the potentially capable people, who could be able jurists, that they all only go to Ivy Leagues and that the Ivy Leagues, have an untainted way of selecting said individuals?
That income, legacy admissions, et all, serve no factor on who actually attends?
Click to expand...

Obviously less qualified people can attend but if you are at the top of your undergrad class and you want to go to law school you're going to end up at an ivy league if you want to go there
 
Crovax said:
Obviously less qualified people can attend but if you are at the top of your undergrad class and you want to go to law school you're going to end up at an ivy league if you want to go there
Click to expand...

If you can get in.
They get more applications than they accept and there are perfectly capable people that don't get selected.
Those not selected aren't necessarily because they're less qualified.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
If you can get in.
They get more applications than they accept and there are perfectly capable people that don't get selected.
Those not selected aren't necessarily because they're less qualified.
Click to expand...

Prefectly capable is a big difference than the best of the best and yes they can get in if they choose.
 
Van Basten said:
The people with the best records tend to come from the most elite schools, overwhelmingly.

The Supreme Court requires the best of the best, that will breed some level of elitism, a meritocratic sort.
Click to expand...

Which begs the question< how do we measure the best of the best? Harry is correct that networking means more than actual skill. And I can show you studies that it's no harder to well at Harvard than it is anywhere else. So, how do you measure it?
 
Ntharotep said:
Reuters - Obama Defends Choice of White Male for Supreme Court
"President Barack Obama on Thursday defended his pick of a white man to fill a U.S. Supreme Court vacancy against criticism he could have chosen someone from a more diverse background, saying Merrick Garland was "indisputably qualified" for the post."

Ok. I haven't been a big fan of the current administration (or the one just before it for that matter). I don't hate the President and I can name off a few things that got done under his watch.
That being said...
Seriously??

The President has to defend choosing a white man to fill a position now?
What in the bloody blue blazes is going on in this country??

The rest about Garland facing an uphill battle and the idea that the next President should choose the Supreme Court nominee can be discussed to but the main headline is what caught my eye on this one.

And...debate if there is a debate here...
Click to expand...

Well, he's already chosen two women, who were latino and Jewish. (Sotomayor and Kagan)
 
jmotivator said:
And again, I feel schadenfreude watching idiotic identity politics that dominates the Democrat party finally turn inward.

It's heartening to see traditionally Democrat supporters finally questioning Affirmative Action... they just couldn't see the idiocy until it was leveled against a Democrat.
Click to expand...

Taking into consideration all qualities that someone brings to the table, including race and ethnicity, is not "affirmative action." It is legitimate to ensure that boards and other teams of people are somewhat diverse to reflect the populations they purport to represent.

A discussion among a group of all white males about women's reproductive rights or voting rights and disenfranchisement is a very discussion than one held with white males, black males, black females, Jewish males, and latinos. It is totally legitimate to consider those factors, since everything about a person affects his/her outlook and viewpoint. This does not mean that you can ascertain a viewpoint by their race or gender or ethnicity. Case in point: Clarence Thomas. To get diversity, the Republicans chose, and the Senate confirmed, an inferior person in Clarence Thomas, IMO. That is not the way it should work, IMO.

Having said that, the fact that Obama has twice chosen females as Justices, one beng Latino and one being Jewish, is enough to show that he added to the diversity on the Court. Not choosing a white male that is very qualified and right for the job because he is a white male would be wrong....when the Court is diverse, compared to years past. It would be different if all the other Justices were white males, and this would be yet another one. That would show that it was intentional to create an all white male Supreme Court, since obviously the most qualified would not always be a white male.
 
Last edited:
Ntharotep said:
Reuters - Obama Defends Choice of White Male for Supreme Court
"President Barack Obama on Thursday defended his pick of a white man to fill a U.S. Supreme Court vacancy against criticism he could have chosen someone from a more diverse background, saying Merrick Garland was "indisputably qualified" for the post."

Ok. I haven't been a big fan of the current administration (or the one just before it for that matter). I don't hate the President and I can name off a few things that got done under his watch.
That being said...
Seriously??

The President has to defend choosing a white man to fill a position now?
What in the bloody blue blazes is going on in this country??

The rest about Garland facing an uphill battle and the idea that the next President should choose the Supreme Court nominee can be discussed to but the main headline is what caught my eye on this one.

And...debate if there is a debate here...
Click to expand...

Come on now, you are talking about a liberal Democratic ideology where EVERYTHING is about race. Luckily you don't know anything about the nutty diversity hiring initiatives ordered by the President that go on in the Federal Government. Special emphasis programs for hiring non-whites are seen by many as racial bias against whites. It's created the same kind of environment where managers feel a silent pressure to hire anyone but a white male.
 
Last edited:
Boo Radley said:
Which begs the question< how do we measure the best of the best? Harry is correct that networking means more than actual skill. And I can show you studies that it's no harder to well at Harvard than it is anywhere else. So, how do you measure it?
Click to expand...

Track record as a professional.

You guys make it sound like they just get picked for their diploma, that's just not true. If we're gonna talk reforming the way we do things, we need to be factual.
 
Van Basten said:
Track record as a professional.

You guys make it sound like they just get picked for their diploma, that's just not true. If we're gonna talk reforming the way we do things, we need to be factual.
Click to expand...

It's still a subjective process. That's the point I'm trying to get out. Many behave as if it were an objective process. Nearly everyone considered qualifies. So, subjective, debatable measures have to be used. Such is the case for many jobs.
 
Boo Radley said:
It's still a subjective process. That's the point I'm trying to get out. Many behave as if it were an objective process. Nearly everyone considered qualifies. So, subjective, debatable measures have to be used. Such is the case for many jobs.
Click to expand...

You mean to say it's a mix of both, right? I wasn't really saying otherwise, just that it's more than just your networking skills.
 
Van Basten said:
You mean to say it's a mix of both, right? I wasn't really saying otherwise, just that it's more than just your networking skills.
Click to expand...

Yes, but it's important to note all or nearly all meet the objective part. It's the subjective part that lands the job in most cases.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom