2 women, 2 minorities in the entire history of the Supreme Court

[bigtree]

16 Chief Justices, and over 100 Associate Justices.

TWO women appointed, TWO members of a minority appointed.


I agree with the need for diversity on the Court. I think it is very important for there to be a diversity of life experiences on the Supreme Court, including the diversity of experience that nominees of different race, ethnicity, and gender may possess.

How important is diversity on the Supreme Court to you? How does your concern apply to the present court without O'Connor?

[AX10]

1. The Anglo-Mob has ruled this country from day 1.

It's always going to be that way, minus a revolution of course.

[Malingerer]

2. It doesn't concern me...

I don't care if the justices are black, white, brown, yellow or red. All that matters to me is that the they do their job of interpreting the consitution correctly.

[Erika]

5. "Correctly" Impossible with a limited view

that minorities and women could add.

The white males all have the same experience or has any of them ever given birth? Have any of them ever been discriminated against because of their skin color?

Face it, the Supreme Court has its token black, and now one woman.

[dsc]

7. true

but I will take a hundred Brennans before I would want another Thomas.

[bigtree]

6. life experience should matter when deciding the diversity of cases

from around the country. Race, gender, and ethnicity can alter one's life experience in a unique way.

[Kraklen]

10. Abject racism and sexism doesn't concern you?

That's a shame.

[BurtWorm]

14. Then why not appoint someone female, black, brown, yellow or red

who can do their job, if Americans really don't care. There are plenty of white men on the court. Is there no one who isn't a white male who would be as good as or better than Roberts?

[Erika]

3. White males ruling the country

White good old boy system is alive and prospering under W.

[ripcord_tx]

12. Not all white males

Condaleeza Rice. Rod Paige. Colin Powell. Alberto Gonzales. Margaret Spellings. Carlos Gutierrez.

[noiretextatique]

17. who hired these folks? eom

[Erika]

27. Did W nominate Gonzales to the Supreme Court?

No, the far right wingers want the status quo when it comes to the Supreme Court. The Good old male white boys.

[MercutioATC]

4. How many new members since the 1960's, though?

Women and minorities really didn't begin to be accepted into the mainstream until then.

[bigtree]

11. Now they are accepted

Doesn't Bush's choice represent a step back from that modern legacy?

Respectfully, is diversity on the court important to you, or not?

[MercutioATC]

15. Of course it is.

I just don't think that 2 women and 2 minorities is an abysmal track record, taking our history into consideration.

[bigtree]

18. fair enough

something to consider.

[noiretextatique]

20. yes it is

the abysmal track record isn't really abysmal because we're were overt racists and sexists for most of our history...
sounds like a bushism.

[bigtree]

21. there it is

I suppose we could take into account just how much/how little progress we've made on various issues and concerns since that un-enlightened period to determine the true impact of a diverse court.

But, I don't think race, gender, or diversity alone definitely determine any action or decision a justice may undertake. They are important factors in the selection, but not flawlessly determinate of future conduct.

[noiretextatique]

25. of course they aren't...in a racist and sexist country

like this one still is. they (race and gender)should be irrelevant, but they aren't because: white and male is STILL "the norm."

[noiretextatique]

19. the abysmal history

is the reason for the abysmal track record.

[MercutioATC]

22. Agreed, but it is what it is.

I don't think 2 minorities and 2 women is far out of line with demographic representation, considering the history.

[noiretextatique]

26. considering the history, and the current reality

it makes perfect sense.

[MercutioATC]

28. Actually, the only progress has been in the last 25 years...

...and Republicans were responsible for half of it.

I'm just saying that this is probably not the issue on which to base finger-pointing.

[noiretextatique]

29. it's an issue that is not specific to one party

i agree with you about not finger-pointing...it wouldn't work out too well for democrats.

[MercutioATC]

30. And I agree with you about the need for continued improvement.

[theboss]

8. It's a better percentage than the presidency

Just sayin'....

[bigtree]

32. but, they were appointed

not elected.

[ripcord_tx]

9. Wouldn't make a differenc

I don't think that would have made any difference. Clarence Thomas was opposed.

[bigtree]

16. Welcome to the discussion ripcord

I think that Thomas' was defined less by his race, which he seemed to himself discount, but rather by his experience as EEO head overseeing discrimination claims, and also his stated and written views on abortion. I daresay, many of his supporters on the right hoped they could capitalize on Thomas's race to provide a wedge between the judge and those in, say, the civil rights crowd, who held widely divergent views on issues involving race.

[bloom]

13. I think it's very important

and it's symbolic of the atmosphere/values/goals of the country.

I think the make-up of the court should reflect the population - not just whichever group has the most power.



"Women to Lose Rights in 'New' Iraq
Meanwhile, the New York Times is reporting that a draft of Iraq's new constitution would greatly curtail women's rights, imposing the Sharia or Koranic law in personal matters like marriage, divorce and inheritance. It also would limit their representation in parliament. The draft would guarantee legal rights for women, as long as they do not "violate Sharia," meaning that Shiite women could not marry without their family's permission and that husbands could divorce them simply by saying so out loud three times. The draft would also drop or phase out a measure included in the interim constitution requiring that women make up at least 25 percent of the parliament. The constitution is set to be finalized by mid-August."

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/07/20/141...

[CWebster]

23. clarnce Thomas doesn't represent a minority

Unless you mean back when the minority was boy to the man.

[bigtree]

24. He is a minority

He's a black republican.

[noiretextatique]

31. poor, oppressed, misunderstood...

i remember a hostile, whiny speech he gave to the NAACP a few years ago. it was all about how black people didn't like him

[bigtree]

33. and that mug of his

all broken down.

I sense more than a little vengeance behind his rulings on race. He is a man with more than a few missions.

[noiretextatique]

34. he's the ward connerly of the court

working out his personal racial issues in ways that hurt people who look just like him. too bad the rest of us have to live with it. i predict a horrible end for him...

[RedCloud]

35. May you become an entire forest, bigtree!

Really the rhetoric has to change. Make avail of these issues. Learn how to turn heads and opinions and not spit out demo/repug same as usual messages.

"For way too long women, our nations' forgotten majority, have had to deal with rulings from a Supreme Court that was almost entirely male and even on situations that are unique to females..."

These words will start to make some of those red state females begin to question their voting patterns.

"By the year 2020 one out of every four children born in the United states will be of Hispanic background. It is high time the Supreme Court was composed of some members who will understand this ethnicity and work to make our country multi-lingual so we can better communicate with those from our neighboring countries and indeed our hemisphere..."

Don't let the repug wing-nuts steal the Hispanic vote. That multi-cultural pride and awareness should be a hallmark of progressive thinkers and not many Hispanics will want to turn their backs on their own heritage or see it relegated to second class citizenry.