Join Early Retirement Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 05-27-2009, 08:08 PM   #21
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 898
Quote:
Originally Posted by ERD50 View Post
However, I'm genuinely curious what economic decisions the SC has made in the past. I know I could look it up, but there are some bright people on this forum that are good at putting in terms that are relevant to this group.

Anti-trust stuff, right? That was the SC? Breakup of Ma Bell, was that the SC?

edit/add - geez, how could I forget - the Microsoft case - what a sham that was, and the coursts move too slow to deal with all the tech details anyhow.

-ERD50
Antitrust stuff; labor stuff; the national pastime; and the solitary struggle of one man are all covered in Flood v. Kuhn. Flood v. Kuhn - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. The Justices who originally decided that baseball was exempt from the Antitrust Laws, in a case authored by one of the most esteemed Justices ever to have served on the Supreme Court, Oliver Wendell Holmes, "made law" by reading an exemption into the Sherman Act for baseball. This decision was later affirmed by another Supreme Court, although in the 1950's and 1960's, professional football and basketball were not found to be exempted -- I guess the Justices there were not football or basketball fans. Then came a one Curt Flood, who challenged the exemption one more time and lost -- his case was even argued by a former Supreme Court Justice, many considered to be one of best labor lawyers of the last century.
__________________

__________________
Someday this war's gonna end . . .
ChrisC is offline  
Join the #1 Early Retirement and Financial Independence Forum Today - It's Totally Free!

Are you planning to be financially independent as early as possible so you can live life on your own terms? Discuss successful investing strategies, asset allocation models, tax strategies and other related topics in our online forum community. Our members range from young folks just starting their journey to financial independence, military retirees and even multimillionaires. No matter where you fit in you'll find that Early-Retirement.org is a great community to join. Best of all it's totally FREE!

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest so you have limited access to our community. Please take the time to register and you will gain a lot of great new features including; the ability to participate in discussions, network with our members, see fewer ads, upload photographs, create a retirement blog, send private messages and so much, much more!

Old 05-27-2009, 08:24 PM   #22
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern IL
Posts: 18,264
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisC View Post
Antitrust stuff; labor stuff; the national pastime; and the solitary struggle of one man are all covered in Flood v. Kuhn. Flood v. Kuhn - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Thanks, I just skimmed it, I have to run for a long w/e getaway, but it sure seemed to have a lot of drama and covered a lot of bases (excuse the pun).

Free markets, restraint of trade... interesting. Will read in detail later

- ERD50
__________________

__________________
ERD50 is offline  
Old 05-27-2009, 09:58 PM   #23
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,183
SC did not do Ma Bell. That was a Fed Judge by the name of (if memory serves me correctly) Harold Greene. The SOB has been cussed for oh so many years. This country had the best and safest telecom in the world, and that fool decided that monopoly was a bad thing. Now what we have is a convoluted technical quagmire with more issues than benefits of competition have ever brought about. IMHO gathered from a career pre and post divestiture. We also lost the best R&D in numerous technologies because it became too costly for 1 company to carry vs the nation. Much of the current TV tech cam,e right from Ma Bells labs.

So yes, in my opinion Judges at all levels and especially the SC need to be examined and vetted by the masses as well as the elected. It will not bode well to have another SC justice who wants to make law from the bench. Per her own words (the clip that's been running on all the quasi news shows) that may well be what we are in for.
__________________
crazy connie is offline  
Old 05-27-2009, 10:32 PM   #24
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern IL
Posts: 18,264
Quote:
Originally Posted by crazy connie View Post

This country had the best and safest telecom in the world, and that fool decided that monopoly was a bad thing. Now what we have is a convoluted technical quagmire with more issues than benefits of competition have ever brought about.
Wow, I feel just the opposite - maybe a little revisionist history in your rear view mirror?

I vaguely recall you had to lease each handset, it was illegal to buy and use one on the open market. Limited choices and every little upgrade (oooooh-ahhh, a LIGHTED dial!) was big bucks. Not many homes had a second phone back then.

Remember the SNL (Laugh In?) skit with Lily Tomlin - "We're the phone company, we don't care, we don't have to"? Sure, it was comedy/satire, but it wouldn't be funny if people could not relate to it.

Although I'd say, as monopolies go, sure, some good came out of it, probably more than most.

In fact, I think the issue today is there is still not enough competition in telecom (providers). 25 cents for a text message that costs them less than a fraction of a second of speech to provide (and they an 'bury' the message in empty slots on the network since texts just have to be quick, not nearly as fast as speech). Does not sound like a free market to me.

-ERD50
__________________
ERD50 is offline  
Old 05-28-2009, 11:11 AM   #25
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 595
The only thing that I find truely sad in all of this, is for her, or anyone else, using her race as an issue one way or the other for her confirmation.

My opinion, as it has always been, is that skin color, religion, gender, lefthandedness, wearing glasses, having blue eyes, or any one of hundreds of other personal characteristics, makes up such a small part of who you are as a whole person, that to identify yourself fully by only that one characteristic, is sad in the extreme.

If anyone ever said to me that I would make a better (or worse) decision maker than another, due to my skin color, religion, etc, I would be offended in the extreme! And why is that? That is because that statement removes from me all of my indivduality. The very essence of what makes me a unique mind in all of the world. It attempts to say that all people of a certain color, religion, etc, will all think and act the same way. That somehow I am also interchangeable with any other member of whatever particular group I have been lumped into.

People are individuals.... they should be treated as such. Judge a person by what they say they believe, what they have done in the past, and what they say they will do in the future. Any attempt to attribute (good or bad) traits to a person based on something as trivial as skin color, religion, gender, etc... is to be truly inhuman....
__________________
armor99 is offline  
Old 05-28-2009, 11:26 AM   #26
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
freebird5825's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: East Nowhere, 43N Latitude, NY
Posts: 9,017
Quote:
Originally Posted by armor99 View Post
...
My opinion, as it has always been, is that skin color, religion, gender, lefthandedness, wearing glasses, having blue eyes, or any one of hundreds of other personal characteristics, makes up such a small part of who you are as a whole person, that to identify yourself fully by only that one characteristic, is sad in the extreme.
Good thoughts, excellent in fact. However, human nature is human nature.

We all have run into this type of attitude, in our own way and in our own places, because of our different traits.
Labels will never go away.

I just exited a field where I was prejudged by BOTH genders and where it was often attempted to bulldoze right over me
(in their dreams ) for 25 years because of labels, not who I was or what was in my brain.
No pity party invitations or anger here. It's just the way people are.
__________________
"All our dreams can come true, if we have the courage to pursue them." - Walt Disney
freebird5825 is offline  
Old 05-28-2009, 12:52 PM   #27
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 898
Quote:
Originally Posted by armor99 View Post
My opinion, as it has always been, is that skin color, religion, gender, lefthandedness, wearing glasses, having blue eyes, or any one of hundreds of other personal characteristics, makes up such a small part of who you are as a whole person, that to identify yourself fully by only that one characteristic, is sad in the extreme.

If anyone ever said to me that I would make a better (or worse) decision maker than another, due to my skin color, religion, etc, I would be offended in the extreme! And why is that? That is because that statement removes from me all of my indivduality. The very essence of what makes me a unique mind in all of the world. It attempts to say that all people of a certain color, religion, etc, will all think and act the same way. That somehow I am also interchangeable with any other member of whatever particular group I have been lumped into.

People are individuals.... they should be treated as such. Judge a person by what they say they believe, what they have done in the past, and what they say they will do in the future. Any attempt to attribute (good or bad) traits to a person based on something as trivial as skin color, religion, gender, etc... is to be truly inhuman....
I don't know of what world you live in, but none of the people in my world "fully" view themselves by "one characteristic." Perhaps, that's a misguided extrapolation of a statement made by a Supreme Court nominee.

I think most of us, including those other people who you are casting aspersions, have stepped way beyond the idea of treating people of one group or another as being in one giant monolithic category of race, gender, ethnicity, etc. You appear to persist in thinking otherwise. Why?
__________________
Someday this war's gonna end . . .
ChrisC is offline  
Old 05-28-2009, 12:58 PM   #28
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 11,615
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisC View Post
I think most of us, including those other people who you are casting aspersions, have stepped way beyond the idea of treating people of one group or another as being in one giant monolithic category of race, gender, ethnicity, etc. You appear to persist in thinking otherwise. Why?
Maybe because the single most reported thing about this candidate is her ethnicity and her gender. When the media (and the public) put her accomplishments, her past rulings, her statements regarding issues likely to come before the court ahead of her race and her sex, then we'll have arrived where we need to be.

Even her investments are more significant than her ethnicity!
__________________
"Freedom begins when you tell Mrs. Grundy to go fly a kite." - R. Heinlein
samclem is online now  
Old 05-28-2009, 01:14 PM   #29
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
freebird5825's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: East Nowhere, 43N Latitude, NY
Posts: 9,017
Quote:
Originally Posted by samclem View Post
Maybe because the single most reported thing about this candidate is her ethnicity and her gender. When the media (and the public) put her accomplishments, her past rulings, her statements regarding issues likely to come before the court ahead of her race and her sex, then we'll have arrived where we need to be.

Even her investments are more significant than her ethnicity!
I couldn't have said it better, even on my best day.

She is being nominated to serve as a SCJ, not a female SCJ nor a Hispanic SCJ. Not even a dark-haired SCJ.
SCJ. period.
Accomplishments, rulings, statements carry the major weight here.
Not her gender, ethnicity, nor hair color. Those are secondary (and pretty much non-essential) to her nomination.
__________________
"All our dreams can come true, if we have the courage to pursue them." - Walt Disney
freebird5825 is offline  
Old 05-28-2009, 01:39 PM   #30
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 898
Quote:
Originally Posted by samclem View Post
Maybe because the single most reported thing about this candidate is her ethnicity and her gender. When the media (and the public) put her accomplishments, her past rulings, her statements regarding issues likely to come before the court ahead of her race and her sex, then we'll have arrived where we need to be.

Even her investments are more significant than her ethnicity!
Maybe you should keep on reading about her accomplishments (both personal and career), her past rulings and her statements; The NY Times yesterday covered all of this and more. Yes, gender and ethnicity did dominant the story of her nomination, but why is that an issue for debate? she's a trailblazer and blazing the trail does have special newswothy significance -- it's like saying the media should have simply focused on Jackie Robinson's base-running abilities rather than his race when he broke the color line in Major League Baseball?

My point to Mr. Armor, however, was why does he persist in thinking that people view their ethnicity as the single most important charactistic that defines who they are? You can't get that from media reports of someone who has blazed a trail.
__________________
Someday this war's gonna end . . .
ChrisC is offline  
Old 05-28-2009, 06:59 PM   #31
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 11,615
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gumby View Post
P.S. -- I think there is also something to be said for a judge that did not grow up in an affluent or professional home. It is another area in which the Court is not diverse.
I agree. The economic circumstances in which a person is raised is probably far more important in building a world view and in shaping the available opportunities than is race or even gender. A poor black kid probably has more in common with a poor white kid than he does with the child of a black neurosurgeon.

But regarding the selection of a supreme court judge: The individual should have a record of verdicts, written opinions, and academic work that is vastly more revealing and germane to his/her ability to serve than how much his/her parents earned and where they grew up. We should be talking about this nominee's work and her outlook, not about her skin pigmentation or plumbing. And her work has been, well, not distinguished.
__________________
"Freedom begins when you tell Mrs. Grundy to go fly a kite." - R. Heinlein
samclem is online now  
Old 05-28-2009, 08:54 PM   #32
Moderator Emeritus
Nords's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Oahu
Posts: 26,616
Quote:
Originally Posted by ziggy29 View Post
Yep. "Bork" has been a verb for what, 22 years now?
Not only that, but Roe v. Wade has doubtless shrunk the pool of future Social Security contributors...
__________________
*
*

The book written on E-R.org, "The Military Guide to Financial Independence and Retirement", on sale now! For more info see "About Me" in my profile.
I don't spend much time here anymore, so please send me a PM. Thanks.
Nords is offline  
Old 05-28-2009, 09:51 PM   #33
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 898
Quote:
Originally Posted by samclem View Post
And her work has been, well, not distinguished.
I am going to disagree with you here, and I doubt lay people are in a position to evaluate the work of a judge. And I would trust the judgement of those who appear before her or who have worked with her in the past. But since when is the body of the work of a judge the litmus test for a seat on the Supreme Court? It might disqualify someone from sitting on the Supreme Court - if it shows you're a babbling idiot -- but surely it does not move you up the scale, which is essentially a political decision of the President. Of the Justices currently serving, I wouldn't consider Justices Thomas, Roberts or Alioto as having remarkably distinguished careers on the US Court of Appeals. And none of the current Justices to my knowledge has ever served as a trial judge. A nominee's worthiness as a Justice should not simply be based on his appellate work -- you should look at the whole career of the nominee and in this regard, her credentials, experience and talent appears first rate. She's simply not a first rate, second rate lawyer like Kennedy or Thomas before they became Judges or Justices.

But this is beside the point, even Justices with the most stellar of credentials can become disappointing Justices and some Justices with modest credentials have become extraordinary Justices as well. I think Obama is correct in viewing the total circumstances of a nominee's personal experiences as well as his or her body of work as a lawyer and/or judge. If you don't like her leanings just say so, but to suggest she's not distinguished enough is nonsensical.
__________________
Someday this war's gonna end . . .
ChrisC is offline  
Old 05-28-2009, 10:02 PM   #34
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 11,615
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisC View Post
. . . I doubt lay people are in a position to evaluate the work of a judge.
but then we have . . .

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisC View Post
Of the Justices currently serving, I wouldn't consider Justices Thomas, Roberts or Alioto as having remarkably distinguished careers on the US Court of Appeals
and . .
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisC View Post
her credentials, experience and talent appears first rate. She's simply not a first rate, second rate lawyer like Kennedy or Thomas before they became Judges or Justices.
I guess by your standards I'm not qualified to judge the judge, but we are fortunate enough to be in the company of someone who is. But, according to your remarks, the quality of the judge's judging isn't very significant in whether she gets the job because it is a political decision. Or something like that.
__________________
"Freedom begins when you tell Mrs. Grundy to go fly a kite." - R. Heinlein
samclem is online now  
Old 05-28-2009, 10:10 PM   #35
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Leonidas's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Where the stars at night are big and bright
Posts: 2,847
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gumby View Post
P.S. -- I think there is also something to be said for a judge that did not grow up in an affluent or professional home. It is another area in which the Court is not diverse.
Got intrigued by this so I read up on the current justices' early lives. To my surprise I found a diverse group and thought I would share.

Alito - Kind of hard to pin this one down to one category. His grandfather was an immigrant laborer who brought his father over from Italy as a child. Father was a child of the depression, worked as a park ranger, reform school teacher, high school teacher, researcher for the New Jersey Legislature and finally ended up as the director of the legislative services office of the state.

Roberts - Son of a steel mill manager. Sounds like solid middle class.

Breyer - from a "middle-class Jewish family". Father was a lawyer for the San Fran schools.

Ginsburg - Grew up in Brooklynn, in a "neighborhood consisting mainly of poor, working class Jewish, Italian and Irish immigrants." Father described as a "furrier".

Thomas - (It doesn't get much poorer than this guy) Born in Pin Point, Georgia, "a small, impoverished African American community". Father left when he was 2-years-old, a later fire left the family homeless and they were taken in by his grandfather who made Thomas work on the farm from "sunrise to sunset".

Souter - Another one hard to classify. Father the son of immigrants who became a banker. Mother from wealthier background, Mayflower descendant. Raised on a farm her mother inherited from her family. Upper middle class-to-wealthy I guess.

Scalia - Father a college professor, mother a school teacher. Attended public and catholic schools in what he said was a "middle class" upbringing.

Stevens - "Born to a wealthy family" Daddy owned hotels.

Kennedy - "Son of a prominent attorney"
__________________
There is no pleasure in having nothing to do; the fun is having lots to do and not doing it. - Andrew Jackson
Leonidas is offline  
Old 05-29-2009, 07:53 AM   #36
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 898
Quote:
Originally Posted by samclem View Post
I guess by your standards I'm not qualified to judge the judge, but we are fortunate enough to be in the company of someone who is. But, according to your remarks, the quality of the judge's judging isn't very significant in whether she gets the job because it is a political decision. Or something like that.

Like every other appointed Justice, "she" gets the job because it is a political appointment of the President. It appears that there are basic standards that every nominee must possess for consideration but the President simply is not obliged, and the Senate not required to, select and confirm the "best lawyer" or "best judge" or "most qualified person" or "most well rounded individual" for the job. If the President and Senate were obliged to select the best lawyer or best judge or most qualified person, the Supreme Court would have a different composition of people than the nine currrently serving. And I'm sure people might argue that there are other Judges on the Second Circuit, US Court of Appeals, from the same political party of the President who are better qualified as the current nominee: Judge Carbranes comes to mind. However, the public and the Senate demand that the President select someone who has the "goods" to do the job and at least one notable nominee, Harriet Miers, in the past decade has flunked the test!

Simply stated, she has the "goods" based on her experiences, which include two Senate confirmation hearings as well.
__________________
Someday this war's gonna end . . .
ChrisC is offline  
Old 05-29-2009, 09:13 AM   #37
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Leonidas's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Where the stars at night are big and bright
Posts: 2,847
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisC View Post
Simply stated, she has the "goods" based on her experiences, which include two Senate confirmation hearings as well.
I'm not sure how much I would depend on that first Senate confirmation as a reliable indicator of her possessing the "goods". I understand you made the point that it is a political appointment, but the confirmation process, in which you would think there would be input from both sides, was somewhat "lacking" in her initial appointment to the bench.

Quote:
Why did the first President Bush nominate Sotomayor to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York? Veterans of the first Bush administration say the answer is politics, with a generous helping of horse-trading thrown in. Appellate courts and the Supreme Court are often the stage for ideologically based confirmation fights. The lower district courts are, in the words of one former Bush official, “darn near patronage jobs.”
Why did George H.W. Bush pick Sotomayor for the courts? | Washington Examiner

I'm not taking a political stance here on this subject, because it is obvious that both Republicans and Democrats were passing out District Court positions based on "patronage". I'm just saying that getting picked in the first place was more of a test of her political loyalty/affinity than it was of her qualifications as a jurist.
Quote:
By a number of accounts, Moynihan and D’Amato had a long-standing arrangement from the Reagan years. “It was a special deal whereby D’Amato agreed to defer to the pick of Moynihan for one out of every four district court seats,” another former Bush official told me. “That was a deal that preceded [President George H.W. Bush], so basically Moynihan was picking one of four district court nominees.”
__________________
There is no pleasure in having nothing to do; the fun is having lots to do and not doing it. - Andrew Jackson
Leonidas is offline  
Old 05-29-2009, 10:40 AM   #38
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,812
Getting back to the OP - her investments.

The whole point of this board is "Early Retirement". Most of us view j*bs as things that will eventually be a burden, and look forward to being able to walk away when that happens. Even if we enjoy our jobs, we know that a new CEO could make our dept go away in a heartbeat.

Judge Sotomayor already has virtual lifetime tenure (can be removed only by impeachment) in a job that pays $180k. She apparantly enjoys her work. She's got Federal Civil service retirement pension and health benefits if she should ever choose to leave work. She does not need to leave an estate for anyone. I think her spending/investing strategy makes a lot of sense for her situation.

The primary ER connection is to recognize that the wide variations in personal circumstances should lead to wide variations in spending and investing.
__________________
Independent is offline  
Old 05-29-2009, 12:16 PM   #39
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 898
Quote:
Originally Posted by Independent View Post
Getting back to the OP - her investments.

The whole point of this board is "Early Retirement". Most of us view j*bs as things that will eventually be a burden, and look forward to being able to walk away when that happens. Even if we enjoy our jobs, we know that a new CEO could make our dept go away in a heartbeat.

Judge Sotomayor already has virtual lifetime tenure (can be removed only by impeachment) in a job that pays $180k. She apparantly enjoys her work. She's got Federal Civil service retirement pension and health benefits if she should ever choose to leave work. She does not need to leave an estate for anyone. I think her spending/investing strategy makes a lot of sense for her situation.

The primary ER connection is to recognize that the wide variations in personal circumstances should lead to wide variations in spending and investing.
Retired Federal Judges don't get a Federal Civil Service pension; they get lifetime pay at the salary they were receiving before retirement and keep their Federal health benefits; and they can enter "active retirement status," in which they can still occasionally sit as Judges on Federal cases and retain their own office. One former US Supreme Court Justice, Tom C. Clark, used to ride the Circuits as a retired Justice of the Court, and hear lots of cases. Retired Justice Byron Whizzer White likewise maintained an office and heard cases at the lower court level. Not sure whether Retired Sandra Day O'Connor has heard any cases yet, but it would be a real privilege for any trial lawyer to try a case before a retired Justice. She had been a trial judge before she went to the Supremes.

If you were to look at the investments of other Justices who primarily had careers of Federal service like Justices Alito or Thomas before they got appointed to the Supreme Court, I'm sure they would have similar investment profiles to Judge Sotomayor. Thomas, in particular, because for most of his career he was unmarried like Judge Sotomayor and had little income from a spouse.
__________________
Someday this war's gonna end . . .
ChrisC is offline  
Old 05-29-2009, 01:12 PM   #40
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 898
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leonidas View Post
I'm not sure how much I would depend on that first Senate confirmation as a reliable indicator of her possessing the "goods". I understand you made the point that it is a political appointment, but the confirmation process, in which you would think there would be input from both sides, was somewhat "lacking" in her initial appointment to the bench.
I think that once you've gone through confirmation, at least once, it necessarily means you have the "goods." It doesn't mean you're politically safe for a step up, but it does mean that your legal experience has proven good enough for a seat on the Federal Bench. Once on the Bench, one could disable himself from continuing to have the "goods." That did not appear to be the case with United States District Judge Sotomayor before she stepped up to the United States Court of Appeals. (Heck, it did not happen with Justice Thomas who only served a year on the Bench before his appointment to the Supreme Court -- perhaps he's been wise to stand mute as a Judge and Justice during oral arguments, lest people get the wrong idea of his ability.)

I found your post about the Justices' backgrounds and diversity quite interesting. Diversity, for many, is in the eye of the beholder. Some would say the current gang is hardly diverse at all: most are from Yale and Harvard law schools, a majority are from the same religious order, none attended public colleges as undergraduates or law students, most are from the Northeast. Have they had "diverse personal experiences" -- well I'm not so sure about that either; only one really appears to have personally experienced real poverty. In fact of all of Justices, I would say Souter and Thomas have personal experiences that truly set them apart from the gang. And Souter's personal experiences in small town New Hampshire has shaped his outlook of the Bench. And then you have the issue of only one woman and minority on the current team. Whether diversity adds to the decision-making process is certainly debatable, but sometimes the perception of diversity is as powerful or more important than whatever element diversity might add to the decision-making process. By that I mean, that sometimes our notions of fairness and equal Justice before the law is shaped by our perception of diversity and our sense that people like us are judging us-- I think this is demonstrated by the strip-search case before the Court involving the 13 year old girl, where I heard that Justice Ginsburg remark after the case was argued and given the temperment of her colleagues that "they've never been a 13 year old teenage girl." In general, the public needs to be assured of the legitimacy and fairness of our judicial system -- when the system lacks diversity for all that come before the bar of justice, the credibility of the system is undermined.
__________________

__________________
Someday this war's gonna end . . .
ChrisC is offline  
Closed Thread


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Obama Chooses Sonia Sotomayor for Supreme Court haha Other topics 1 05-26-2009 04:42 PM
The Supremes Martha Other topics 10 10-03-2005 07:47 PM
Marijuana and the Supremes Martha Other topics 16 06-09-2005 11:01 AM
Look out, the Supremes are out to get ya!!!! mickeyd FIRE and Money 30 12-09-2004 09:35 AM

 

 
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:58 PM.
 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.