Danalee said...I wrote a paper on the downfall of Brown v Board of Education 50 years later, that the same problems exist today that did then. I'll have to find it and ammend this comment later.
But my personal views are firmly against affirmative action. I disagree with race and gender being on college applications to begin with. That information should not be given until the applicatant is admited and plans on attending the university or college. Why hold the applicant pool to a standard of certain percentages of race? Why separate people in such a way? I've always felt it just continues the problems we've worked so hard to overcome, with equality and social acceptance between all cultures, genders, and races.
It really is reverse racism- we don't think they are beneath us but we feel we must hold them to a special standard based solely on their race. Why give them special treatment? Sure it's POSITIVE special treatment, but it's classifying them as different than everyone else.
America is more of a tossed salad, especially with affirmative action still around, the black vote going to Barack BECAUSE he is black, and the justice nominee being revered because she is a hispanic woman. The melting pot idea is accepting the fact that they are different races and genders, but not treating them any different, be it better or worse.
I may have gone on tangents because I am so against any grouping of people being treating unfairly or over fairly, and isntead think we should look at them as individuals without regard as race. I'm lucky enough to have gone to school in Florida, where affirmative action is not used and neither is race. They are strictly equal opportunity, where if you are qualified you are admitted. I had a greatly diversified class with black, hispanics, indians, asians, women, men, gay, lesbian, any and everything, simply because with that many people in one place there is bound to be an "appropriate amount of diversity".
(ps- they do have direct feeder programs at my alma mater from low-income high-risk high schools, but they don't consider race just their economic and social backgrounds)
MN Andy said...The issue I have with Sotomayor is that she talks about race as an important factor for her decisions and then she backs those statements up with her decision on the Ricci case. She seems like another attempt by the Obama administration to force affirmative action back into the forefront. It seemed as though the American people were starting to step away from the discrimination that is affirmative action. I guess Obama wants to make sure that doesn't happen. At a time when the economy is struggling the way it is, I think that people should be worried more about who is best to do a job, not who is the correct race for the job. I may even be as bold as to say that affirmative action may have had something to do with the economic situation. Qualifications went out the door for many major corporations in recent years because it could look bad if a minority is turned down for a position. I don't like Sotomayor as a pick. The Supreme Court needs to stay away from politics, and anyone who thinks affirmative action is a good policy should not be a justice.
mikeyr2 said...When looking at her past statements and cases, Sotomayor's judicial philosophy is far from 'troubling', as you say.
You reference the Ricci case as a problem for Sotomayor--but her only problem, as criticized by the chief judge, was the sparse reasoning (very rare for Sotomayor) in handing down the decision...not the rationale itself for the dismissal. Given your own conditional support of affirmative action for the time being--and I applaud you for diverging from conservative orthodoxy here--it would seem you would support the Ricci decision.
I want to focus more on her second comment, because contrary to popular belief, it is not only defensible, but completely accurate. The Court of Appeals *is* where "policy is made". Of course the primary role of the judiciary is to interpret the law; however, what happens when the law is not clear? Well, very understandably, these courts CLARIFY the law, set precedent, and in so doing, make policy. Courts have literally made the policy of what constitutes unreasonable search and seizure, the entire notion of Miranda rights, privacy rights, and the list goes on.
So here's the deal: Republicans have access to hundreds of thousands of lines of text in her many legal decisions, and they have thus far been able to make an issue out of TWO LINES in the speeches, not decisions, she has made--one of which is debatable, and the other of which is as true as "the sky is blue". Of course, I shouldn't leave out the one decision (Ricci), which fortunately continues a societally beneficial policy that you agree with. Sorry, but it doesn't sound like they are going to "win" any argument.
If something in our political DNA wants "impartial umpires", then part of our DNA is delusional, for there is no such thing. Judges are not computers; they are human beings who harbor diverse emotions, experiences, and yes, even political leanings that contribute to their decision-making capacity.
Republicans will never make a good case against "judicial activism" given that, amazingly, they themselves morph into 'judicial activists' when it suits their purposes. The full-court press to overturn Roe v. Wade precedent is but one example. Another glaring example is the highly activist Bush v. Gore decision, decided far from impartially, but on party lines.
Blaine McCaleb pearce, i need a blog like right now about your opinions on the N Korea / American Journalist situation. im starting to think im the only one who believes those idiots almost deserved what was coming to them. what the hell were they doing over there? people are calling them, brave, heroic, etc... and i cant help but feeling like they were being idiots in the first place.
i think 12 years of a labor camp is a little stupid, especially considering they didnt consult with the US Gov. about the sentencing. i mean, what would happen if the US started imprisoning everyone who came here illegally for 12 years labor? we'd have a coast-to-coat autobahn built in a matter of days. actually, that isnt a bad idea.
back to the point at hand. if what we are hearing is correct, that those girls were on the N Korea side of the line, then i cant help but suspect that N Korea is just in some questionable feelings of... say... what the hell are they doing? spies?
id love to see the girls returned, unharmed, but i think that they have some prison time to serve if what we are hearing is correct.
Pearce said...Well, that was a fun debate to watch. Back to what Mike had to say about Justice Sotomayor in the second comment. I maintain that Judge Sotomayor’s judicial philosophy is troubling enough to necessitate serious scrutiny, as should be given any Supreme Court nominee, when she goes before the Senate Judiciary Committee next month. I have not said that I will oppose her confirmation to the high court; however, her words and cases, principally Ricci, concern me. You are incorrect that the only problem with her Ricci ruling was its scant justification. Based on writings about the decision it would appear that her scant reasoning was precisely due to the fact that the judicial ruling was so weak. She hoped to brush it under the rug and, therefore, did not offer a thorough defense of her ruling. I am sure she was dismayed when the Supreme Court, the one on which she will likely sit, decided to take up the case. All observers that I am aware of, by the way, believe that her decision will be overturned when the Supreme Court comes back with their decision in the coming weeks. The Supreme Court of the United States does not overturn a lower court judge on the basis of “sparse reasoning” but rather due to bad judgment in light of the law. Also, my conditional support of affirmative action is not in conflict with my unequivocal objection to Judge Sotomayor’s ruling in the Ricci case. The Ricci case was not one of a black firefighter being chosen over a slightly better qualified white firefighter. In this case, the white firefighters who had struggled and succeeded on the test were inexplicably discriminated against without any overriding good in giving a minority a position of leadership within the firehouse. Because no Black firefighter made a sufficient score to earn the position, no one, not the Whites, not the Hispanics, was given the promotion they rightfully earned. As Peggy Noonan asks, “What is affirmative action and when is it quota making? Was her decision in the Ricci case “empathy” or was it a very selective sympathy that resulted in the victimizing of human beings who were not members of a politically favored ethnic or racial group?” I stated my support, for a short time longer, of affirmative action. I have never supported racial quotas which are a much more egregious and far less defensible example of racial discrimination. This is what was at play in New Haven, if not worse. For a detailed analysis of the case, please read the National Journal piece by Stuart Taylor @ http://www.nationaljournal.com/njmagazine/or_20090613_4064.php
On your last two points, while it is true that the “richness of experiences” that a justice has in his or her lifetime frames and shapes judicial philosophy and decision making, it is expected that the justice be free of any systematic bias that consistently elevates one type of person above another in making decisions. There is a reason that our symbol of justice is wearing a blindfold. To whatever extent possible, our justices are meant to and should be impartial arbiters of the law. To your point about the activist intensions of those who seek to overturn Roe v. Wade, the major problem with Roe v. Wade is that it was activist from the beginning in that the Supreme Court ruled on a case that should have rightfully been left to the states. The mere act of overturning precedent does not make a decision activist. If it did, the Supreme Court by definition would be an activist court regardless of its judicial philosophy.
No comments:
Post a Comment