mysteryman wrote:FreeDuck,
You mentioned a court with 5 slave owners.
I would submit that we have had that,and they ruled fairly.
I refer you to the Amistad,a slave ship that was taken over by slaves.
The USN intercepted it,brought it to the US and the case went all the way to the USSC.
They ruled that the slaves MUST be returned to Africa,instead of being turned over to slave owners.
At that time,the USSC was almost entirely comprised of slave owners.
Yes, they ruled that the Africans in question were not slaves. Not that I don't believe you, but which justices in that decision were slave owners? It wasn't evident from the link.
Quote:So,as long as the justices rule according to LAW and not their opinions or feelings on a matter,then I don't really care where they are from.
In principle, I agree. But I think that a court comprised of people with very similar backgrounds makes it likely that the interpretation of the law will be fairly narrow. The belief in the Constitution as a living document (or not) is itself a matter of perspective, interpretation, and judgment that probably varies with background.
But I will step aside now and let those who know more than I do discuss it. I just wanted to weigh in on why I consider diversity (of background) on the court to be beneficial.
I am heartened that Joe From Chicago has not shown his usual disdain for the esteemed jurist Judge Richard Posner. I hope that he paid close attention to the last section of Posner's quote. I hold that anyone who agrees with Posner on that line cannot therefore be opposed to Judge Alito.
I will reprint the line:
"The decision to do one or the other must be made as a matter of political theory and will depend on one's view of the springs of judical legitimacy and the relative competence of courts and legislatures in dealing with particular types of issue."
Clearly, Posner is arguing that a strict or narrow interpretation depends on "one's view of the springs of judicial legitimacy" and that the courts may rule on some matters and leave others to the legislatures.
Exactly what Judge Alito and Judge Roberts believe.
Free Duck- You go on and on and on about the virtues of Diversity. You may be right. However, I am loathe to commit myself to backing an apparently amorphous concept. What do you mean by diversity?
If the USSC is not diverse, what would make it diverse. What would make it diverse enough?
I do not understand the concept. Apparently, you do understand it.
Would you be so good as to define Diversity and then to indicate SPECIFICALLY how it is to be used in appointments in our society?
Does it indeed trump all other considerations?
Where is diversity in the hierarchy of necessaries?
I await your answer--Please--no more five slave owners comments--You know that is ridiculous.
Mortkat wrote:Free Duck- You go on and on and on about the virtues of Diversity. You may be right. However, I am loathe to commit myself to backing an apparently amorphous concept. What do you mean by diversity?
Well, if I was really going on and on about diversity then you would probably know by now what I meant by it. I don't know if I feel strongly about the virtues of diversity so much as I feel strongly about the demerits of homogeneity. Mostly I'm talking about background, but I suppose it could apply to just about anything.
I realize that using the word "diversity" is like waving a red blanket in front of right-leaning bulls (so to speak), so perhaps I should not have used it. I think there is a case to be made, however, for choosing new justices that are somewhat different (in any significant way) from the current occupants. I haven't made any other assertions or arguments. I don't have a problem with the current make up of the court and am undecided about Alito. If I had put forward any kind of thesis I might feel more of an obligation to answer your question, but I haven't so I don't.
I think Free Duck that you are either gaining wisdom or, as I am inclined to believe, you are intelligent enough to discern that "diversity" may indeed lead one into an impenetrable ideological thicket from which there is no escape.
If one defines "diversity" ( And I see no reason why this definition cannot be used) as policies which assure that each ethnic, gender, race and religious group is placed into key positions with regard to the group demographics in a society, why then there would be at least four negative results.
l. The key positions would be constantly under attack since they would not( for example) conform in 2020 to the demographics of Hispanics, which, of course, had grown quite rapidly since the year 2010.
2. Adherence to this ideal of diversity would, of course, lead inexorably to the proposition that only a proportional representation of, let us say, USSC judges, would fairly operate to the benefit of all groups.
3. The sheer impossiblity of locating sufficient candidates for. let us say, expert statisticians in the Department of the IRS, among each demographic group, would inevitably lead to the nomination of lesser qualified persons to the positions.
4. The subservience of the absolutely imperative virtues of MERIT, TALENT AND ABILITY would be ground under by "diversity"
How much "diversity" is enough? Is "diversity"to trump Merit, Talent and Ability?
Why was someone like Ben Bernanke named to succeed Alan Greenspan?
Is it because he has Merit based on his past history as Chairman of the Economics Department at one of the best Universities in the USA- Princeton?
Is it because his Talent was recognized when he was named as a Fed. Regional Chairperson?
Is his ablility mainfest in his outstanding scholastic background as a graduate of MIT and Harvard?
Are there better candidates for the USSC than Judge Roberts, a white male who is a Roman Catholic? If so, by all means. let us hear them.
In my many years of listening to potential judges expound, I have never heard anyone as brilliant as Judge Roberts.
If "diversity" is taken to its logical terminus, the USSC would have 5 women, 4 men, one African American( who could be either male or female) One Hispanic( who could be either male or female) no Jews, six Protestants, three Roman Catholics, and no atheists.
If that kind of division is said to be too extreme and, of course, infeasable, what is "Diversity"?
Just a few changes?
And what would those"few" changes meant to further Diversity really be?
I am very much afraid that it would be:
Jesse Jackson--Another African-American, who. of course, would have to be a "liberal" would ensure true diversity on the USSC.
Molly Yard--A true feminist who would protect the Right to choose" would be sufficient to begin.
Grover Nordquist--A judge who understands the economy like Judge Bork would be a good first step.
Do you get the picture, Free Duck?
I just surfed over to
writ.findlaw.org, always a trove of well-argued legal commentary. It turns out they have two articles on the Alito nomination. In the first article, Michael Dorf addresses the implications of Alito being a Catholic: what it tells us about American attitudes toward religion (mostly good things, with a qualification), whether Catholicism is a good predictor of how a judge may decide (it is not), and a few other things.
Michael Dorf wrote:Thus, in a country with a history of anti-Catholic bias, anti-Semitism, anti-Mormonism, and pogroms against Jehovah's Witnesses as recently as the 1940s, members of the majority religious group will, it seems, have just two of nine seats on the Supreme Court with nary an issue being raised. That fact shows that, in important respects, we have become a religiously pluralist nation.
Yet the news is not entirely good. As I explain below, there remain doubts about Americans' capacity for religious tolerance for persons of other faiths, and beyond the sectarian divisions, there appears to be a new line of battle being drawn. This line separates, on the one hand, non-believers and believers who treat their faith as a private matter, and, on the other hand, believers of all faiths who question the notion of church-state separation.
Full article
In the second article, Julie Hilden looks at
Saxe v. State College Area School District, a First Amendment case Alito decided. She likes what she sees.
Julie Hilden wrote:So who won the case in the end? The Christians - but, significantly, not because they were Christian.
To Judge Alito's credit, it is easy to imagine this opinion having been written almost exactly the same way, had the plaintiffs instead been gay students who complained that the school was trying to silence their "harassing" criticism of Christian students for their anti-gay teachings. The gay students, too, would have been allowed to speak, by the very same logic.
That is the way an opinion that, like this one, addresses a facial challenge (that is, a challenge independent of any particular application of the statute) ought to be written. But all too often, such opinions are skewed by the identity of the plaintiff. That's not the case here.
One test of a fair judge is if you can switch parties, and know you'd still get the same result. For this opinion, at least, Judge Alito surely passes that test.
Full article
I don't have an opinion yet on the extent to which I agree or disagree with either article. But I found them both interesting, intelligent, and well-reasoned, so I can warmly recommend reading them.
Mortkat wrote:
Do you get the picture, Free Duck?
The picture I get is one of someone who is determined to interpret the word "diversity" in a political and policy manner and who would really like to discuss something other than what is being discussed.
According to dictionary.com diversity means:
1.
1. The fact or quality of being diverse; difference.
2. A point or respect in which things differ.
2. Variety or multiformity: "Charles Darwin saw in the diversity of species the principles of evolution that operated to generate the species: variation, competition and selection" (Scientific American).
That is the definition implied when I used the word and that is all that I meant by it. As to political implications and policies, that's not what I'm talking about and that might be something better discussed on another thread. It is not necessary to leap from my opinion -- that homogeneity is not desirable -- to a conclusion which requires government policies to promote diversity. The one does not imply the other.
Thomas, thanks for the link and recommendation. I will have a look today since it appears to be a slow day at work.
Who said anything about Homogeneity? Unless you believe that White Roman Catholic Males are the only ones who have the talent and ability to be good judges, it is clear that there may be many more persons of talent and ability who will fill the bill.
It has become a sport for the left leaners to excoriate Judge Thomas.
Yet, his teacher and the dean of the Yale Law School, the august and highly respected legal scholar, Dr. Calabrese, commented ( in an unauthorized biography on Judge Thomas) that the Law Professors at Yale considered Clarence Thomas and HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON as roughly equivalent in talent as students.
Imagine, the "lowly" Thomas equivalent to the smartest woman in the world-Hillary Rodham Clinton--according to Dr. Calabrese.
You may have missed my comment,Free Duck, Diversity does not mean, to most striving for power, a push away from homogeneity. It means, rather, a drive towards more of their own-
Jackson wants an African-American
Molly Yard wants a feminist
Bill Kristol wants a "strict" constructionist.
The USSC will be staffed with those people picked by the president. Only in rare cases( Bork/Fortas/Meiers) will his or her pick be ignored.
You don't really think that the next president will make her pick from a group of conservative males do you? Hillary would never do such a thing.
You are certainly well versed in law, Thomas. May I ask you if you have ever read the opinion given by WIlliam O. Douglas in Griswold vs. Connecticut with regard to "penumbras".
But, maybe you don't want to go there because it is too controversial.
Have to post this wonderful bit from Fox...
Quote:Fox News is refusing to air an ad critical of Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito, citing its lawyers' contention that the spot is factually incorrect.
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Alito-Ad.html
So you think it would be better to present false information, a la CNN?
Better? No. Quite unremarkable? Yes.
I was unaware that there was a legal responsiblity for any network to accept any and all ads. Does anyone have a reference?
Perhaps Blatham is thinking of Dr. Goebbels and his meetings with the editors of the daily Berlin newspapers and correspondents from other papers who were summoned to the Propaganda Ministry every day and were told by Goebbels or one of his aides WHAT NEWS TO PRINT AND WHAT TO SUPPRESS, HOW TO WRITE THE NEWS AND HEADLINE IT, WHAT CAMPAIGNS TO CALL OFF OR INSTITUTE OAND WHAT EDITORIALS WERE DESIRED FOR THE DAY.
I can assure Blatham, Ads or no Ads, Judge Alito will be appointed in January--much to the discomfort of the left wing.
Mortkat wrote:I was unaware that there was a legal responsiblity for any network to accept any and all ads. Does anyone have a reference?
Blatham didn't say it was illegal. He said it was "a wonderful bit from Fox" -- which it is. As far as I know, Fox isn't legally liable for the ads it broadcasts being factually correct,. I find it funny they even
asked a lawyer whether it is.
BBB
I've learned of many Alito's decisions while sitting on the bench to recognize an ideologue. His votes demonstrate a frequent minority opinion out of step with the other panel judges. He votes the majority of time to support government and corporations. He clearly votes to increase the power of government, especially the Executive Branch over the Legislative Branch. He is an activist judge with opinions similar to those held by Justice Thomas. He is further to the right than Justice Scalia. While he may be a technically competent judge, he is not a mainstream conservative and not fit for appointment to the Supreme Court.
BBB
Huh. The bar association gave him a thumbs up.
There is no reasom Alito will not be approved. It's just a show at this point to see which dem can be the biggest ass.
Re: BBB
BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:I've learned of many Alito's decisions while sitting on the bench to recognize an ideologue. His votes demonstrate a frequent minority opinion out of step with the other panel judges. He votes the majority of time to support government and corporations. He clearly votes to increase the power of government, especially the Executive Branch over the Legislative Branch. He is an activist judge with opinions similar to those held by Justice Thomas. He is further to the right than Justice Scalia. While he may be a technically competent judge, he is not a mainstream conservative and not fit for appointment to the Supreme Court.
BBB
Would you mind sharing a link to the cases that led you to this conclusion? FindLaw webpages would be perfect; but if you only have the casenames, that would be fine too.
