Bush Picks Judge Samuel Alito for Supreme Court

Dear Debra Law- It is my opinion that as a person who purports to be a lawyer, your rebuttal skills are nonexistent.
Joe was upset with the lack of diversity. I pointed out, using a great many examples that diversity is meaningless ,when compared to ability.

You did not discuss that point.

I said that I did not know what Diversity means.

You did not discuss that point.

I defined Racism and showed that "culture'( which was the key to my post previously) was not INHERENT as the definition of Racism insists.

You did not discuss that point.

Astonishingly, you erased the data on the SAT scores from your rebuttal. I guess you believe if something is censored it does not exist, yet, it is clear that ASIANS OUTCLASS AFRICAN AMERICANS IN SCHOLARSHIP ACROSS THE BOARD.

You did not discuss the SAT scores.

I indicated that African-Americans were hardly represented in large law firms, and in one of Harvard's Phi Beta Gamma groups and commented that these groups did not care about diversity but rather ability.

You did not discuss that point.

I indicated that the Chicago Bulls did not sunscribe to the idea of diversity.

You did not discuss that point.

I pointed out that if "diversity" were to be the be all and end all, thousands of Jewish judges would have to leave the bench to make the judiciary more diverse.

You did not discuss that point.

Would it be possible to address those points or are you just going to throw yourself on the mercy of the court?

0 Replies

Mortkat wrote:

Whereever you went to school, it's a sure bet you are not in one of the 100 top law firms, Joe from Chicago. As such, your legal advice will go from $25.00 to $30,00 an hour, after you tip the ambulance driver.

When will you learn that your gratuitous attempts at insulting me, my profession, and my educational background are just so much wasted effort? Perhaps in your next incarnation.

Mortkat wrote:

Why don't you try to address the substance of my posts instead of being personal. Are you afraid I will best you in the argument?

Hardly. You haven't made any sense since you were Italgato, and you're still not making any sense today, four identities later. Debra_Law patiently and cogently pointed out that your remarks in this thread have been irrelevant and irrational; as I could have told her before she even started, however, her efforts to enlighten you were doomed to failure. You are immune to rational discourse, and thus are only fit for mockery and derision. You remain a pathetic, tiresome troll, Mortogato, and nobody likes you.

0 Replies

Mortkat wrote:

Whereever you went to school, it's a sure bet you are not in one of the 100 top law firms, Joe from Chicago. As such, your legal advice will go from $25.00 to $30,00 an hour, after you tip the ambulance driver.

When will you learn that your gratuitous attempts at insulting me, my profession, and my educational background are just so much wasted effort? Perhaps in your next incarnation.

Mortkat wrote:

Why don't you try to address the substance of my posts instead of being personal. Are you afraid I will best you in the argument?

Hardly. You haven't made any sense since you were Italgato, and you're still not making any sense today, four identities later. Debra_Law patiently and cogently pointed out that your remarks in this thread have been irrelevant and irrational; as I could have told her before she even started, however, her efforts to enlighten you were doomed to failure. You are immune to rational discourse, and thus are only fit for mockery and derision. You remain a pathetic, tiresome troll, Mortogato, and nobody likes you.

0 Replies

Sorry about the double posting. The board is being particularly buggy today and the hamsters won't allow me to delete the duplicate post.

0 Replies

Mortkat wrote:

Dear Debra Law- It is my opinion that as a person who purports to be a lawyer, your rebuttal skills are nonexistent.

You constructed an unintelligible strawman argument. Your strawman argument is not relevant to the topic of discussion: The homogeneous membership of the Supreme Court. I'm not required in any arena to rebut a strawman argument. If and when you make any statements that are relevant to the topic, we can go from there.

0 Replies

Compare

Mortkat wrote:

It is my opinion that as a person who purports to be a lawyer, your rebuttal skills are nonexistent.

***

And who are you? An attorney who bills 2,000 hours a year and makes over $250,000 a year, but still has time to post on this venue?

Where did you get your Law Degree from, Jer from Chicoo, Nova?

When you can post a stronger resume, come back to discuss things with people who can bury you with their knowledge about law.

Or did you go to John Marshall? another refuge for ambulance chasers.

***
Whereever you went to school, it's a sure bet you are not in one of the 100 top law firms, Joe from Chicago. As such, your legal advice will go from $25.00 to $30,00 an hour, after you tip the ambulance driver.

with

Mortkat wrote:

Why don't you try to address the substance of my posts instead of being personal

I think this all belongs in the humor forum, no?

0 Replies

Debra_Law wrote:

Mortkat wrote:
Dear Debra Law- It is my opinion that as a person who purports to be a lawyer, your rebuttal skills are nonexistent.

You constructed an unintelligible strawman argument. Your strawman argument is not relevant to the topic of discussion: The homogeneous membership of the Supreme Court. I'm not required in any arena to rebut a strawman argument. If and when you make any statements that are relevant to the topic, we can go from there.

That rebuttal is sufficient or it should be. The problem is most people who try to make a point using a strawman argument don't realize what they are doing or what a strawman argument is, otherwise they would not be using that (lack of) tact.

0 Replies

Debra Law,
You said...

Quote:

Here's the issue: Should we be concerned about the LACK OF DIVERSITY on our nation's highest court?

Simple answer...NO
There are times when diversity does not come into the equation at all,and this is one of them.

We want the best,no matter what race,religion,or sex they are.

0 Replies

Steppenwolf wrote:

I think this all belongs in the humor forum, no?

Well, it certainly gave me a chuckle. Laughing

0 Replies

Joe from Chicago, Debra Law and Nikki all prove what I have know for a long time. When faced with an argument that one can't handle, attempt to deride the messenger.

Joe from Chicago, especially, has shown that he susbsists on his so-called reputation as a shyster attorney. Actually, his arguments are lame most of the time.

Debra Law appears to be an expert in avoiding any confrontation with the question at hand.

These "lawyers" should be able to show that my arguments are invalid with one paragraph of their scholarly prose. They do not.

Mysteryman has joined the debate--He asks: Should we be concerned with the lack of diversity on the Supreme Court.
Answer-No.

We want the besxt, he says, no matter what race, religion or sex they are.

The ball is in your court, lawyers, Make up a defense of "diversity" and show why it is "necessary" for the Supreme Court or indeed any field of endeavor.

Ignore Mysteryman's question and be exposed as frauds.

0 Replies

Joe from Chicago replies that my comments about his law background are wasted efforts. My comments about his law background are not personal but only meant to show that "alleged" expertise does not necessarily translate into pertinent knowledge concerning very much unless it is "black Letter" law which anyone with an IQ over 110 can assimilate after two weeks of study.

Similarly with Debra Law. Joe and Debra do not realize that after they "regurgitate" the left wing pablum offered by the "crits" they are forced to face the more established criteria of the "Federalists"

I find it ironic that Joe from Chicago dismisses my criticism of his opinions; cares nothing about my criticism, yet cares enough to devote an entire post to rebutting my criticism! Quite revealing!!!!

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

Debra Law,
You said...

Quote:
Here's the issue: Should we be concerned about the LACK OF DIVERSITY on our nation's highest court?

Simple answer...NO
There are times when diversity does not come into the equation at all,and this is one of them.

We want the best,no matter what race,religion,or sex they are.

I could argue that in matters of judgment, as this obviously is, more than a single perspective would be beneficial. It's possible that it's not completely necessary, but I don't know that for sure. What do you think of these examples assuming that all of the justices in question are highly qualified?

A court in which 5 of the justices are brothers.

A court in which 5 of the justices are women.

A court in which 5 of the justices are from the same state.

A court in which 5 of the justices are slave owners.

A court in which 5 of the justices are former oil company executives.

A court in which 5 of the justices are former members of the socialist party.

It seems to me that it would be possible to make the argument that lack of diversity on the court could matter.

0 Replies

Free Duck's arguments ( 5 slave owners) are ridiculous. He seems to forget that the Senators of the United States, who REPRESENT their constituencies, are the ones who will APPOINT the Nominees. The President does not appoint the nominees. FreeDuck seems to think that the people, the voters, the electorate, the constituencies, would not PUNISH the Senators who Appoint 5 slave owners.

Let the process work. The Senators will approve or reject the nominees. So called " diversity" will be a factor when the Senators think it should be a "factor". Free Duck seems to think that the Senators do not have their fingers on the pulse of the electorate.

Little does he know!!!

0 Replies

I have a proposal for Free Duck. Let's subject the judges on the Federal Bench to a thorough examination of background. Let us then apportion judgeships on the basis of religion. Joe from Chicago seems to have gotten his shorts in a knot because there would be five Roman Catholics on the USSC if Judge Alito was approved.

I then propose that the judgeships be REORGANIZED so that the Religious Background of the Judges equals the percentage of the religious background of their particular religious group in the USA.

Do you realize, Free Duck, that you would literally have to remove hundreds of Jewish judges, most of whom are fine judges and scholars, since Jews only comprise about 4% of our population.

With the goofy parameters that would be set up by the bogus "diversity" guidelines, the scholastic background, legal training and peformance on the bench of those Jewish judges would mean nothing in the face of Diversity.

Besides, if diversity were really to be examined, the proponents of "diversity" do not really want true diversity, they just want more of their own.

Proof? See how many professors of Law you can find in the top Law Schools who come from a "fundamentalist" religious background.

Then check out the number of "fundamentalist" religious people in the US.

Diversity is a code word for appointment of more minorities--nothing more--therefore it is not true diversity unless it considers all of the groups represented in the USA.

0 Replies

The president appoints the nominees who, my examples presumes, are qualified. I said nothing to indicate that my examples are in the present tense. Mortkat does not answer the question posed or even consider the examples.

0 Replies

Mortkat, you have made too many false assumptions about my position. I have said nothing advocating what you propose and you seem to be willfully ignoring my actual argument, which was actually less argument than it was posing a question for consideration.

Let me pose it another way. Why would a black person be concerned if he/she were being tried in front of an all white jury?

0 Replies

The assumption( which I do not accept) is that the white jury would not be able to judge the black person fairly.

You forget that we were speaking about judges.

The key, when we speak about judges, is that they should be appointed with regard to their ability and record as judges, nothing more.

Now, if a black judge, who has THE SAME QUALIFICATIONS as a white judge or a Latino judge, is available, his or her nomination should be considered.

Appointments, based mainly on race, are usually disasterous.

My experience as an Educator, has shown me that the replacement of thousands of white teachers in the large cities, with black teachers( since they allegedly have a better rapport with their black students) has done NOTHING to advance the purpose of EDUCATION in the inner city, which is, of course, learning as reflected in objective test scores.

0 Replies

Mortkat wrote:

The assumption( which I do not accept) is that the white jury would not be able to judge the black person fairly.

I did not make that assumption.

Quote:

You forget that we were speaking about judges.

Nope. I haven't forgotten. What I'm trying to point out is that judgment is a matter of perspective. What about my examples? You haven't addressed them at all. Five judges from the same family? Five from the same state? Any concerns there?

I'm not addressing your other comments because I think they are irrelevant since nobody has suggested replacing the judges with some who better represent the population without regard to qualifications.

0 Replies

I'm not Morkat (whom, if Joe is correct about his identity, you won't be able to extract a rational argument from.) But I found your quesiton interesting, so here are my answers:

FreeDuck wrote:

A court in which 5 of the justices are brothers.

I would be worried for reasons of cronyism, but not for lack of diversity.

FreeDuck wrote:

A court in which 5 of the justices are women.

No problem at all.

FreeDuck wrote:

A court in which 5 of the justices are from the same state.

I would be worried for reasons of cronyism, but not for lack of diversity. And I would be somewhat less worried than if the justices are brothers.

FreeDuck wrote:

A court in which 5 of the justices are slave owners.

This one is too far from reality to be easy to answer. But if you allow me to change it into "an 1880 court in which 5 of the justices are former slave owners", no problem. In the early years of the Federal Republic of Germany, we had courts with larger shares of former Nazis, and they generally decided their cases justly once our democratic system was established. (There were some exceptions to that rule.)

FreeDuck wrote:

A court in which 5 of the justices are former oil company executives.

I would be worried for reasons of cronyism, but not for lack of diversity. I would be somewhat less worried than if the justices are brothers, but somewhat more than if they are from the same state.

FreeDuck wrote:

A court in which 5 of the justices are former members of the socialist party.

No problem at all. My comment about former Nazis in early democratic Germany applies to this example as well.

I'm just noticing that I haven't stated my position about the five Catholics on the court. They concern me about as much as the fact that Alito's nomination would increase the number of "Tony"s to three: Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Samuel Anthony Alito. Because the share of "Tony"s in the general population is only a small fraction of the share of Catholics, this imbalance is even grosser than the Catholic overhang.

(PS: Nice to run into you again, FreeDuck. I hope your new line of work is boring so you come post here more often.)

0 Replies

Hey Thomas! Nice to see you too.

I should have been clearer about my slave owners example -- it was meant to be past tense. I found your answers to be pretty interesting. Here's my take.

Slave owners -- in that time they would have had cases coming before them that would determine whether the civil rights of blacks were constitutionally protected, even whether they were or were not property. It seems like they might have a uniquely one-sided perspective in a matter such as that. Likewise, a court of all men might surprise me in ruling for women's reproductive rights, but I wouldn't expect them to be able to see the far reaching implications the way that just one woman could. The rest are pretty much in the same vein, for me. Cronyism is always an issue, but perspective is what is really important.

The matter of perspective is, I think, about the only real argument I can make against having a homogeneous court. Five justices isn't a very big majority so it's hard for me to take issue just yet, but were it seven justices from similar background, I might start to argue for diversity. I should say, though, that I have been in and out on this thread and don't know what the specific arguments are for/against diversity or even what we mean by diversity. I did read one of joe's earlier posts where he expressed concern that Alito was from the same circuit as several others. I took that to mean that he was looking for a different kind of diversity rather than the usual gender/racial/religious sort.

0 Replies

Bush Picks Judge Samuel Alito for Supreme Court

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know