http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=103694193

Quote :

"NPR has learned that Supreme Court Justice David Souter is planning to retire at the end of the court's current term. The court has completed hearing oral arguments for the year and will be issuing rulings and opinions until the end of June. Souter is expected to remain on the bench until a successor has been chosen and confirmed, which may or may not be accomplished before the court reconvenes in October. At 69, Souter is nowhere near the oldest member of the court, but he has made clear to friends for some time now that he wanted to leave Washington, a city he has never liked, and return to his native New Hampshire. Now, according to reliable sources, he has decided to take the plunge and has informed the White House of his decision. Souter's retirement would give President Obama his first appointment to the high court, and most observers expect that he will appoint a woman. The court currently has one female justice — Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who is recovering from cancer surgery. Obama was elected with strong support from women. An Obama pick would be unlikely to change the ideological makeup of the court. Souter, though appointed by the first President Bush, generally votes with the more liberal members of the court, a group of four that is in a rather consistent minority."

4/30/2009 10:36:04 PM

Paging Reverend Wright.

4/30/2009 10:45:25 PM

man, sure am glad that he is planning on looking only at the qualifications for his appointment. You know, like what sex organs are between the person's legs

4/30/2009 10:46:37 PM

nothing like making sure an even bodied court is one sex

cause there's no way all those penises couldn't take women in notion

they're so unbiased

like you and your game buddies

you guys are ready to think about women

4/30/2009 10:51:49 PM

Im a little torn between the need to appoint the person with the absolute best credentials regardless of sex/race/religion etc, and the need to have a court that represents a more complete cross-section of America.

5/1/2009 9:36:30 AM

remember when they used to appoint businessmen as payback for supporting the president?

5/1/2009 9:45:22 AM

Quote :

"Im a little torn between the need to appoint the person with the absolute best credentials regardless of sex/race/religion etc, and the need to have a court that represents a more complete cross-section of America."

aye.

Though, in these discussions, I wonder what it means to have "the best credentials"? Isn't understanding the view point of women a credential?? I don't see why "credentials" has to mean "the best resume."

Any job you take, you will quickly learn that there is more to their performance than what college they went to. Even in academia, you will find professors that maybe don't represent that mainstream view on a particular subject, but they are hired because they bring a different perspective (Roy Cordato in the econ department comes to mind).

Considering that there are issues that face the court that have a disproportionately impact women, like equal pay for equal work issues, I think having a person that represents the group that would be most impacted by these decisions is a major PLUS. I would go so far to say that it is a valuable credential.

I think Jack McCoy on Law and Order would disagree. He loves to give speeches on how the law is impartial and justice is blind. But I don't think it takes too close of a reading of history to realize that law is in fact the outcome of an interplay among different interest groups. If women are excluded from the decision making process, I don't think it will be too surprising to get decisions that disfavor women. It's kinda the way it worked out for hundreds of years before hand.

PS* Yes, I just cited Jack McCoy as a legal authority. My knowledge of the criminal justice system is based on a combination of my interest in constitutional law back in high school and the hundreds of hours of Law and Order I watched since then.

[Edited on May 1, 2009 at 10:53 AM. Reason : ``]

5/1/2009 10:46:39 AM

he should appoint Denny Crane.

5/1/2009 10:53:29 AM

5/1/2009 11:00:59 AM

Mendoza!

5/1/2009 1:05:18 PM

Quote :

"Though, in these discussions, I wonder what it means to have "the best credentials"? Isn't understanding the view point of women a credential?? I don't see why "credentials" has to mean "the best resume." "

It is opinions like this that are the problem. Credentials does mean having the best resume. Diversity is acquired by NOT looking at a person's race and gender. it just kind of happens. This whole notion that you can achieve it through discrimination is absurd

5/1/2009 1:33:24 PM

More important that even, I think, is the idea that viewpoint diversity can be boiled down to tokenism. "You're a woman, so obviously you're going to have a different point of view than eight men who don't ever really manage to agree on anything anyways."

You want real diversity on the court? Start looking at candidates' judicial philosophies.

5/1/2009 1:40:29 PM

A woman is going to have unique experiences that affect her point of view. Experiences that no man can relate to.

Also, we DO have laws that apply to one sex.

We don't need diverse judicial philosophies, we need a representative assortment of judicial philosophies.

5/1/2009 1:55:58 PM

So if that's true, why is it that Ruth Bader Ginsberg is one of the more predictable judges on the Court? When in doubt, vote with Souter and Stevens. Scintillating.

And "representative" judicial philosophy? Representative of what exactly - other than your pretty much obvious assumptions of tokenism laid bare.

Meanwhile, if we're all about "diverse life experiences" now, instead of, I don't know, interpreting the Constitution, then why not simply eschew judicial philosophy entirely and go out and find ourselves a gay asian rodeo clown? That'll certainly put some "life experience" onto the Court.

5/1/2009 2:30:07 PM

Quote :

"So if that's true, why is it that Ruth Bader Ginsberg is one of the more predictable judges on the Court? When in doubt, vote with Souter and Stevens. Scintillating."

Being predictable has nothing to do with it

Quote :

"And "representative" judicial philosophy? Representative of what exactly - other than your pretty much obvious assumptions of tokenism laid bare. "

Representative of the nuanced population of America, I already said that. Its the same reasoning behind "jury of one's peers". If thats what "tokenism" is to you, then I'm fine with "tokenism".

Quote :

"Meanwhile, if we're all about "diverse life experiences" now, instead of, I don't know, interpreting the Constitution, then why not simply eschew judicial philosophy entirely and go out and find ourselves a gay asian rodeo clown? That'll certainly put some "life experience" onto the Court."

Yep, thats pretty ridiculous. Are you trying to prove some point?

5/1/2009 2:58:36 PM

Quote :

"Being predictable has nothing to do with it"

It has everything to do with it if the conclusions one reaches are exactly the same.

Quote :

"Representative of the nuanced population of America, I already said that. Its the same reasoning behind "jury of one's peers". If thats what "tokenism" is to you, then I'm fine with "tokenism"."

I forgot - every woman in America, like every man, every black person, every Asian, etc. has had a uniform series of non-overlapping experiences by group. One's life experiences can be neatly summed up by their group identity - how convenient.

Quote :

"Yep, thats pretty ridiculous. Are you trying to prove some point?"

I believe I already have proven at least one point, already. But more specifically, I believe we've established that "life experience" isn't even what's at issue here - it's about tokenism. Making damn well sure we fill our quotas, and to hell with both credentials and viewpoint diversity.

Thank you for making my case for me.

5/1/2009 3:04:42 PM

You're just making a case against your own convenient misinterpretation of my statements.


[Edited on May 1, 2009 at 3:21 PM. Reason : im done]

5/1/2009 3:17:40 PM

By all means then, bathe us in the glow of your wisdom. Like you do so often elsewhere.

5/1/2009 3:24:56 PM

Quote :

"jury of one's peers""

for the record, this is not guaranteed by anyone or anything. It is not even mentioned in the constitution. its a common misunderstanding that people make.

impartial jury is guaranteed, but of ones peers is not. often time of one's peers =/= impartial.

5/1/2009 3:48:04 PM

Quote :

"It is opinions like this that are the problem. Credentials does mean having the best resume. Diversity is acquired by NOT looking at a person's race and gender. it just kind of happens. This whole notion that you can achieve it through discrimination is absurd"

Like it just "kinda happened" for the past 200 years? Look, I know that the New Right loves to co-opt the equality rhetoric of the 1960's, but to pretend that discrimination simply doesn't exist is what is really absurd. The reason we have had decisions that negatively impact women/blacks/etc is BECAUSE they have been under-represented at all levels of government. But now you're saying we should just trust that, some how, diversity will work its way into the system in spite of historical evidence???? Thanks but no thanks.

5/1/2009 10:34:18 PM

Quote :

"The reason we have had decisions that negatively impact women/blacks/etc is BECAUSE they have been under-represented at all levels of government. But now you're saying we should just trust that, some how, diversity will work its way into the system in spite of historical evidence???? Thanks but no thanks."

Really? We had decisions that adversely impacted women and minorities because there weren't enough of them in the government, and not because of negative attitudes which were endemic, and thus transmitted through their representatives?

Nevermind ingrained attitudes of sexism and racism - those would have simply disappeared if a sufficient number of women and minorities were represented in the government. Of course, how exactly one would accomplish that, given the pre-existence of negative attitudes, is anybody's guess. But we all know that if we just have people of the right identity represented, vast negative social values will simply disappear!

How could it not be true? It's all so very simple!

5/1/2009 11:34:46 PM

^ I never said that was the only reason. But if we're going to play extremes are you suggesting that those attitudes have disappeared? racism/sexism is still around friend. Things didn't start to change until women/blacks started to impose themselves on the streets.

Or maybe you're right. Maybe it was all because attitudes changed among white men. Suddenly, for no reason, they became charitable to folks that didn't look like them. And we can trust them in the future to be jes as charitable. :-B

Whatever.

PS* Here's some food for thought. I wonder if we ever would have had Dred Scott back in 1857 if we had some black SC justices. Or if blacks were at all franchised. Thank god white folk became saints we can trust to represent our interests.

[Edited on May 2, 2009 at 12:32 AM. Reason : google]

5/2/2009 12:24:08 AM

Frankly, you confuse cause and effect. Which is not really all that surprising.

A lack of representation by underrepresented groups is a symptom of a larger-scale societal problem. Simply placing people in positions of influence does not change the underlying social problem - backlash is inevitable. Or did you forget about the Reconstruction period?

What is required is for the underlying attitudes to be changed. Which requires direct engagement of those attitudes - which is why the civil rights movement succeeded where other efforts - like Reconstruction - clearly failed.

[Edited on May 2, 2009 at 12:38 AM. Reason : .]

5/2/2009 12:38:18 AM

underlying attitudes...of people in power...

see where i'm going with this???

the attitudes of white men mattered because they were the people in power.
if blacks/women had more power, the attitudes of white men would matter less.
therefore, the best way to protect the interests of the minority is not to bank on the sentiment of the poweful, but to give the minority power to protect their interests.

and let me just say that blacks/women did not gain power because white men just up and felt sorry for 'em.
they took it.

hope that clears up cause and effect for you.
and any remaining confusion you may have.


[Edited on May 2, 2009 at 12:48 AM. Reason : peace]

5/2/2009 12:46:14 AM

soon as i heard this i was like thank god

5/2/2009 1:04:54 AM

^^I am not the one confusing cause and effect, here. And you still have it backwards.

Underrepresented groups didn't simply run up and seize power in a coup. And they weren't simply helicopter-dropped in, rendering the opinions of the old guard moot. They prevailed upon society at large through direct engagement that their situation was a moral wrong in need of rectification. They changed the values of a society at large by a mass engagement of the public, and prevailed upon the larger public opinion. This in turn lead to the changes they agitated for through the representation of the public.

Notice the word here: the public. Not some old white guys in power. These groups have prevailed by engaging the public, who in turn have the ability to put different lawmakers in charge. This is how they managed to put pressure on those in power.

Women didn't get the right to vote by being appointed to Congress. While Reconstruction saw a number of blacks rise to positions of power, these gains were immediately swept away once Southern whites were re-enfranchised. The attitudes never changed.

But hey, don't let facts get in the way of a good argument.

[Edited on May 2, 2009 at 1:10 AM. Reason : ^]

5/2/2009 1:08:42 AM

^ "the public"? who exactly are you talking about? Here's a fact for you. Women represent 50% of this country last i checked. Aren't they part of the public? Sounds like the only "public" they had to work against was the white guys *in power*.

Now, again, I am not saying that changing social attitudes don't contribute to improving the situation. I never said different. In fact, now that white men are less bigoted than they used to be makes things a lot easier and better for everyone. BUT *my point* is that the best way for women and minorities to protect their interests is to actually have a stake in the decision making process. Not to hope that white men will have the "good for all humanity" at heart (because historically they haven't).

And nothing you have said has even attempted to challenge that argument You keep hollaring that attitudes matter. Well sure they do! But power matters more.

PS* My point here is that we can argue cause and effect in terms of the historical events all day long. Its clear we disagree there. But I am not interested in arguing the nuances of the womens lib movement. What I am really interested in is the public choice aspect of the question. In particular, I am interested in whether there is a legit argument for why women or minorities should be specifically selected for the supreme court. I think I have made a descent argument. Feel free to address that.

[Edited on May 2, 2009 at 2:10 AM. Reason : ``]

5/2/2009 1:51:11 AM

Quote :

""the public"? who exactly are you talking about? Here's a fact for you. Women represent 50% of this country last i checked. Aren't they part of the public? Sounds like the only "public" they had to work against was the white guys *in power*."

No, they had to work against the broader public who elected and would continue to elect those white guys. This is the point. Change the voters, and inevitably the representatives follow.

Quote :

"Now, again, I am not saying that changing social attitudes don't contribute to improving the situation. I never said different. In fact, now that white men are less bigoted than they used to be makes things a lot easier and better for everyone. BUT *my point* is that the best way for women and minorities to protect their interests is to actually have a stake in the decision making process. Not to hope that white men will have the "good for all humanity" at heart (because historically they haven't)."

I have to wonder if the argument is really this difficult to understand. Those in power care not of any kind of benevolent universality in their outlook - they care because their political survival depends upon this.

Every elected representative of the public depends upon keeping public support. And keeping public support in general means reflecting the values of their constituency. When the constituency maintains bigoted and narrow views toward minorities, the representatives reflect this - or they get booted out. When the constituency reflects more progressive values, their representatives in turn necessarily adapt to this - or they are replaced. It has nothing to do with keeping the "good of humanity" at heart, and everything to do with the values of those they represent.

Quote :

"And nothing you have said has even attempted to challenge that argument You keep hollaring that attitudes matter. Well sure they do! But power matters more."

I'm sorry you're too dense to follow such a simple argument, or even recognize one presented in front of you. Historically, simply dropping such people into power when attitudes persist against them is simply a recipe for backlash. I find it interesting that you completely ignore the example of Reconstruction - either because you obstinately refuse to read it, or because you're honestly that ignorant of history.

The only way that underrepresented groups have historically succeeded is to prevail upon the attitude of the majority. Only, and only when the values of society are challenged does permanent, lasting change result.

Quote :

"PS* My point here is that we can argue cause and effect in terms of the historical events all day long. Its clear we disagree there."

No, it's simply clear that you fail to comprehend causality. Not surprising, but very clear.

Quote :

"But I am not interested in arguing the nuances of the womens lib movement."

No, you're not interested in arguing from a factual point of view. You're interested in a fanciful, completely counter-factual view of history that suits your political ends.

Quote :

"I think I have made a descent argument. Feel free to address that."

Feel free to address mine. It's still there waiting for you.

5/2/2009 2:33:35 AM

Quote :

"Those in power care not of any kind of benevolent universality in their outlook - they care because their political survival depends upon this. "

how the fuck do you know?

are our politicians not human beings anymore? just those who elect them are?

i mean sure i take your broader point for what it is, but to contend that politicians ONLY act out of political considerations is extremely cynical and almost certainly untrue.

that being said, politics will certainly play a role in who obama puts up for this nomination, but he also seems to take the judicial branch of government very seriously, so i doubt he'd just pick the person who he thought would benefit him the most politically.

5/2/2009 2:41:09 AM

Quote :

"i mean sure i take your broader point for what it is, but to contend that politicians ONLY act out of political considerations is extremely cynical and almost certainly untrue."

They act primarily out of such. And to deny such is to be hopelessly naive.

5/2/2009 2:53:32 AM

Steve,

You continue to miss my point. Let me simplify it....

I am specifically addressing the question of whether there is a legit reason to look for a woman to appoint to the supreme court. My argument is that by making sure women's interests are represented in the court, there is a lower chance the court will produce decisions that disproportionately impact women in a negative way.

Has changing social attitudes helped women and minorities achieve better representation? You bet. I never once denied that. What the fuck does this have to do with the conversation? No clue. Ditto on reconstruction and everything else you're complaining about.

Take her away.

[Edited on May 2, 2009 at 3:06 AM. Reason : ``]

5/2/2009 3:05:39 AM

Quote :

"I am specifically addressing the question of whether there is a legit reason to look for a woman to appoint to the supreme court. My argument is that by making sure women's interests are represented in the court, there is a lower chance the court will produce decisions that disproportionately impact women in a negative way."

If this is your argument, fine. However, I would argue first that this is an extremely rough gague of matters, if only because "what is important to women [or insert group here]" is extremely variable.

To wit: Justice Thomas is black. And yet, of the justices, he is actually one of the least likely to support upholding racial preferences in hiring/admissions, despite it obviously being in the interest of racial minorities.

See where I'm going here?

Obviously, you've probably gone out and met at least one woman in your life who isn't pro-choice. Ditto to my argument there.

If your goal is to ensure that women's (or minorities', or whoever's) interests are effectively represented on the Court, pick someone with a solid track record for legal advocacy on their behalf. You're more likely to get the outcome you want, and person with a solid track record advocating on behalf of those issues is more likely to produce defensible legal doctrine. Simply because they are a member of an impacted group is no good guarantee of effective jurisprudence - or even the desired results.

5/2/2009 3:17:35 AM

and you miss HIS point, socks. His point is that slapping a woman in there WON'T address women's issues. It will just cause backlash if the public doesn't give a fuck about women.

5/2/2009 3:19:16 AM

i don't think (at least i hope) that this mythical woman will necessarily represent one or another side of a specific issue, just more that they will have the female perspective on an issue that a man could not really have. god knows what myriad issues a supreme court nominee will see in their years (likely decades) of service.

^^^and that's as it should be. that's the entire intent. but you were using absolutes and saying that political considerations were a politician's only considerations.

^doesn't the public give a fuck about women though?

[Edited on May 2, 2009 at 3:23 AM. Reason : .]

5/2/2009 3:23:03 AM

Quote :

"just more that they will have the female perspective on an issue that a man could not really have."

So, tell me, how exactly does a vagina change a person's perspective in a way that a penis doesn't? I'm just curious

5/2/2009 3:25:21 AM

they're different perspectives. if the court were 8 women and one man, i'd think that they needed more men on there.

5/2/2009 3:27:07 AM

DrSteveChaos

thanks for catching up to 3 hours ago, because here is exactly how I stated the argument when I first posted it:

Quote :

"If women are excluded from the decision making process, I don't think it will be too surprising to get decisions that disfavor women. "

But I guess its not surprising it took you this long to come around.

With regards to the rest of your post, I never said that blacks would always support affirmative action or that women would always be pro choice. *shrug* so glad we agree there too (I also think the sky is blue).

I do agree with your broader point that being a member of a particular group doesn't guarantee that you will be the person to represent their interest. But I never said other wise. I would stress, though, that we don't always have perfect information about where judges stand on most issues (remember Roberts nomination?). So some times you have to go with second best indicators (like gender or race).

These second best indicators are especially important since you do not want appoint an advocate to the bench as you suggest (keeping the interests of women in mind is not the same as advocacy and advocacy is not the purpose of a judge. I don't think the head of legal affairs at NOW would make a good SC justice).

But it sounds like we're pretty much together on this. finally.
nighty night.

[Edited on May 2, 2009 at 3:39 AM. Reason : ``]

5/2/2009 3:30:19 AM

dude. you two are nowhere near being "together" on this. you've just completely decided not to listen to what he is saying

5/2/2009 3:39:56 AM

^ he says that being a member of a particular group doesn't always make you the best person to represent their interests. Right here is where he says it:

Quote :

"Simply because they are a member of an impacted group is no good guarantee of effective jurisprudence - or even the desired results."

I agree with him completely.

But, I recognize we usually have limited information about where judges stand on most issues. So we have to go with second best indicators. I think being a woman is a pretty strong second-best indicator you will keep women's interest in mind, even if it is not a perfect indicator.

Hope that helps clear up your confusion.

[Edited on May 2, 2009 at 3:47 AM. Reason : ``]

5/2/2009 3:44:20 AM

then you are suggesting that Chaos agrees with your "second indicators." And I don't see that he has

5/2/2009 3:46:41 AM

I am not suggesting that. I hate that you misread my statement.

I was referring to the fact that he sees my point and that we seem to agree in principal (that having someone on the bench to represent the interests of women will result in a lower chance of decisions that negatively impact women), even if we disagree in practice (how do you decide who best represents the interests of women).

Hope that clears up any remaining confusion you may have.

5/2/2009 3:50:33 AM