Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

The language being used here about a SCOTUS appointment suggests the default is always a white male

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Hekate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-02-09 06:17 AM
Original message
The language being used here about a SCOTUS appointment suggests the default is always a white male
We are two-plus generations into producing highly qualified female lawyers and judges. Believe me, there is a deep pool of qualified women, including women of color. As it stands now, O'Connor and Ginsberg have been token women on the Court. It's long past time for there to be more.

There's no excuse at all by now, and if the next three justices on board are all women it will be just fine with me -- though that's mostly a growing reaction to what I've been reading here. If they are two-fers, all the better -- we don't get openings all that often, do we?

I've been rather grieved to see the species of hemming and hawing that's going on at DU. "We shouldn't talk about gender or color." "Of course, I want a FULLY qualified person." "Why of course a woman should be appointed IF she is the best qualified candidate." "We should never appoint by category; that's just wrong." Etc., etc., etc., in that vein.

I don't think people here realize that this is the language that conveys the idea that a woman or person of color should only get the job if they are so qualified that they literally walk on water and then turn it into wine. This is the language that says that the default appointee is still and always will be a white male, because a "qualified" woman or minority is so rare as to be impossible to find.

Thurgood Marshall was that kind of rarity, because in his generation black men almost never got the chance to go to college and become lawyers in the first place. Sandra Day O'Connor and Ruth Bader Ginsberg were also of a generation of women where few got the chances they did even though quite a few went to college.

But that was then and this is now. The Civil Rights Movement and the Women's Movement have both created major changes in the hiring pool for women and minorities. Women as a class, btw, are not a minority at all, and a 1/9 or 2/9 representation on the Court is absurd. In both categories there now exists a very good stock of FULLY qualified candidates for any job at all, including Supreme Court Justice.

I am off to bed now--somehow it got to be 4 a.m. again. I don't mean to post and run, but this has begun to really bother me. I'll check back in later in the day.

Hekate

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
bluestateguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-02-09 06:24 AM
Response to Original message
1. There are plenty of good women jurists to choose from
I am confident that one will be chosen.

But make no mistake about it, if she's a white woman, there will be howling from the racial identity politics crowd about why no Hispanic? Or no Asian? etc.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zodiak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-02-09 10:01 AM
Response to Reply #1
11. Genetically...
a Hispanic and an Asian very much the same thing.

http://www.google.com/url?source=imgres&ct=img&q=http:/...

Culturally not the same, but very close genetically.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hekate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-02-09 02:24 PM
Response to Reply #11
28. roflmao. Genetically all of us humans are much the same thing. Culturally, we have wars over it....
Sorry that observation is not relevant here, but you made me laugh anyway. ;-)

Hekate


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tblue37 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-02-09 03:54 PM
Response to Reply #28
31. Genetically all *primates* are very much the same thing. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zodiak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-02-09 07:54 PM
Response to Reply #28
49. You're right....it's a tangent
Edited on Sat May-02-09 07:54 PM by Zodiak
I just found it interesting that the two "races" you mention are so close together gene-wise.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-02-09 06:30 AM
Response to Original message
2. Well, if you look at the number of slobs whose asses have warmed the bench, the default always has
been a white male. That's just a fact. Sandra Day, Ruth Bader and old Clarence do not a trend make. They're simply a nod to changing times.

It doesn't make it right, though. It's not like we pick these clowns every week. It's a pity that Bush got so many swings at it, really. If the bench were really reflecting the population, there'd be five women up there.

I think it's well past time for a woman whose heritage includes the spanish language. I don't care if her heritage is Mexican, South American, Central American, Puerto Rican, Cuban, straight off the boat from Spain, whatever. That's what I'm pulling for, to be blunt about it.

I don't really care if part of the purpose of the selection is to "make a point." We really do need to start making that point. It should have been made in the last eight years, but I guess that was too hard for Bush to do--he only appointed "ethnic" people to toady positions.

I have no complaints about women being selected as "an example" to fill positions of this nature, they tend to work twice as hard and screw up half as much--probably a legacy of having to be twice as good to get half the pay--so it's a win-win for America.

We'll get someone who works hard and doesn't make a mess of it. Works for me!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jberryhill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-02-09 08:51 AM
Response to Reply #2
7. "whose heritage includes the spanish language"
"I don't care if her heritage is Mexican, South American, Central American, Puerto Rican, Cuban, straight off the boat from Spain"

...Or even the United States, portions of which were speaking Spanish before the pilgrims arrived.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-02-09 04:15 PM
Response to Reply #7
37. Sure, no doubt. That's why I used a broad descriptor. After all,
Mexico used to be a LOT bigger before we turned up! There are people of Mexican heritage whose families have lived in what's now the US way longer than the families of many Americans who think they're members of founding families.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Thothmes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-02-09 07:04 PM
Response to Reply #7
48. Before 1492 not a single person on this or the South American
Continent spoke a word of the Spanish Language. Why is it such a critical criteria for court appointment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hekate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 01:58 AM
Response to Reply #48
50. Perspective and representation
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hekate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-02-09 02:29 PM
Response to Reply #2
29. As a Californian, I agree with that point completely. Latinas, send in your C.V.s!
Thanks for the observation, MADem.

And as for Bush the Lesser, as always he found the grossest ways to eff up. If he'd had the opportunity he would have appointed Clarence Thomas himself. As it was, he tried Harriet Myers, but not too hard.

Hekate


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
quickesst Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-02-09 07:08 AM
Response to Original message
3. I think you're wrong...
Edited on Sat May-02-09 07:09 AM by quickesst
"I don't think people here realize that this is the language that conveys the idea that a woman or person of color should only get the job if they are so qualified that they literally walk on water and then turn it into wine."

That's bullshit, and I don't believe the majority of DU buys into such simple ignorance and prejudices. It may convey that idea to someone who obviously does not understand the simple fact that "the best person for the job" does not require certain physical, or lifestyle attributes. I have never understood the left's loud objections to the very thing they have fought for. Equality without prejudice one way or the other. I cannot count the number of threads I have read here that decry the use of physical, or lifestyle as criteria for judging someone. Sadly, when it happens, it is the left that condemns it's own beliefs. What's so hard to understand that if a person is emminantly qualified for a position, it should not matter whether they are black, gay, straight, white, female, or male etc. The only consideration should be whether the individual will use the best judgment in carrying out their duties to the betterment of all the people who reside in this country. Sometimes the left is their own worst roadblock, good intentions aside. Thanks.
quickesst
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lazer47 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-02-09 07:45 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. Could we just once have someone who is NOT, TAGGED, as
one way or the other, without regard for anything except, their Judaical expertise and understanding that the constitution covers all of us and has been written for the minorities as well as the majority....by the way Blanche Lincoln and Mark Pryor sold us out last night....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jberryhill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-02-09 08:53 AM
Response to Reply #4
8. "Judaical expertise"?

Why do you want to drag religion into it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hekate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-02-09 03:59 PM
Response to Reply #8
33. LOL. Maybe it's time for another Jew on the court to balance all those Opus Dei Catholics...
For a typo that was kind of funny.

Hekate


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Two Americas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-02-09 02:52 PM
Response to Reply #3
30. are you not part of "the left?"
You talk about the left here as though you do not consider yourself to be on the left.

You are repeating the false idea that the choice is between either "the most qualified candidate" OR a woman or poc, as though the two considerations are in conflict or could be. I would say we avail ourselves of more talent when we resist the safe course - selecting a white male - for a wide variety of reasons that should be obvious to all but the most conservative observers.

White males are selected because that is the politically safest course.

The question we should be asking is this: Should we look for the best candidate, or should we take the politically less risky course and select a white male?

There is more talent, not less, outside of the pool of white males. People who are not white males have to work harder and perform at a higher level and have fewer opportunities and so are more likely to be available. Ergo, there is more, not less talent there. If we went solely for talent hardly any white males would ever be selected, at least for a few years until they caught up.

Diversity in hiring and appointment is not charity, it is not pity, is not a favor done to unqualified or untalented people. It is going for the best talent, rather than always selecting from the dominant group - those who have an easier path.

You are expressing the right wing point of view about this. Nothing inherently wrong with that, and I don't mean it as an insult. There will always be people who take that point of view and you have every right to do that. After all we - those of us who are on the left politically - do not discard ideas because they came from the right wing, we reject the right wing because of the ideas they represent. We do need clarity about this however. If right wing ideas are going to be incorporated into the Democratic party, and the left is going to be seen as a problem, we should know that, and acknowledge that rather than pretending otherwise, should we not?


...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EffieBlack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-02-09 08:15 AM
Response to Original message
5. You are exactly right!
I've noticed the same thing, here as well as in the media. The notion that choosing a minority or a woman is "playing identity politics" and is somehow inconsistent with "picking the best qualified person" is quite prevalent. The underlying assumption, of course, is that the default is a white male and anything that deviates from that norm is suspect.

It's very sad to me that this attitude is still so present today.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooky3 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-02-09 10:34 AM
Response to Reply #5
16. the idiot Lou Dobbs did that while talking to Jeffrey Toobin yesterday
and Toobin was WAY too weak in his reply.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JerseygirlCT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-02-09 08:30 AM
Response to Original message
6. Agreed
There are many very qualified women - more qualified than some now sitting on the court, in fact. (See Thomas, Clarence). I do think Obama's choice should come from among them. One woman, and an older one who's had some health problems at that, does NOT in any way adequately represent 51% of our population.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pab Sungenis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-02-09 09:19 AM
Response to Original message
9. Part of the problem is that English has no specific neuter gender.
The neuter or indeterminate gender usually defaults to the masculine, which makes it look like we're always talking about men when we actually don't know what the case would be.

I would use "he" or "him" when there is a possibility it could be either a man or woman and there was no way of knowing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooky3 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-02-09 10:11 AM
Response to Reply #9
14. This is improper usage because it perpetuates sexism regardless of your intent.
There is a tremendous body of evidence suggesting that such usage DOES incline readers and listeners to think only of men.

Further, the problem can be solved. It's a false dichotomy to suggest that because English has "no specific neuter gender" that one must use "he or him" when intending to include women as well. There are MANY ways to avoid reverting to the masculine as a default.

See the widely cited American Psychological Association publication manual as just one example of the many guides for addressing this issue. Here's also a good summary of the problems with this usage and how to avoid it.

http://www1.umn.edu/urelate/style/language-bias.html

"...Use the following guidelines in dealing with sexist language.

1. Dont use a masculine pronoun (he, his, him, himself) when the person in question could be either male or female. Use such a word only to refer to a specific man. Instead:

Use plural pronouns.

Biased: A student is responsible for his own schedule.
Recast: Students are responsible for their own schedules.

Rewrite the sentence to eliminate pronouns.

Biased: An instructor plans his lectures carefully, for he knows his words will be carefully copied.
Recast: An instructor plans lectures carefully, knowing they will be carefully copied..."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
polmaven Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-02-09 12:46 PM
Response to Reply #14
27. And there is absolutely
nothing wrong with the good, reliable "her/him" (and I use it in that order only because it is more alphabetical).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooky3 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-02-09 06:04 PM
Response to Reply #27
43. yes, that works - isn't it amazing how "difficult" some people find such simple solutions to be?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pab Sungenis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-02-09 05:10 PM
Response to Reply #14
42. This is almost as stupid as insisting on renaming history "herstory."
The basic fact is that in English, you substitute the masculine when gender is indeterminate. It's not the only language that does it, either. For example, in Spanish a group of masculine nouns is "los," a group of feminine is "las," but when mixed or indeterminate it's "los."

It isn't sexism at work, just grammar.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooky3 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-02-09 06:05 PM
Response to Reply #42
44. no, what's stupid is expecting people to tolerate sexism rather than make simple, considerate change
Edited on Sat May-02-09 06:15 PM by spooky3
Maybe you didn't see the summary of reasons why at the link I posted earlier, so here it is:

"The dictionary defines sexism as discrimination by one sex against the other, especially by males against females, under the assumption that one sex is superior to the other. Applied to our language, sexism means that masculine forms and masculine marked words predominate. For example, English usage frequently suggests that what is masculine is more important than what is feminine (a man-sized job is important, but woman's work is trivial). Our pronoun system uses he, his, him, and himself both in the literal masculine sense and in the generic sense to mean a person of either sex. Dozens of generic terms (chairman, congressman, statesman, workingman, brotherhood, fellowship) contain masculine markers. When such terms are used generically, misinterpretation can result and females are unintentionally excluded from consideration.

Becoming aware of the biases that exist in English is the first step in dealing with sexist language. Perhaps the most important principle involved is that of equal and parallel treatment. As writers and editors, we should ask ourselves such questions as: Do the terms or usages I choose contribute to clarity and accuracy, or could they be misinterpreted? Does my language suggest that what males do is normal and what females do is exceptional? Could I substitute a mans name for what I write about a woman and have it read equally well?

Eliminating sexist biases from what we write can lead to treatment of women and men as persons, not members of opposite sexes. Andno small accomplishmentit can lead to more precise language and clearer communication.

A further incentive exists for eliminating sexist language and implications from the publications of a federally supported educational institution like the University of Minnesota. Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 states that such institutions may not use or distribute any publication that "suggests, by text or illustration, that treats applicants, students, or employees differently on the basis of sex.""
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Quantess Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 02:03 AM
Response to Reply #44
51. I agree. Thank you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
polmaven Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-02-09 06:18 PM
Response to Reply #42
47. Just because it has
always been done that way, doesn't mean that people can't evolve into inclusive language.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kiva Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-02-09 09:47 AM
Response to Original message
10. Some of the comments here have also been bothering me.
As you say, we've been producing female lawyers and jurists in volume for a couple of generations, and it's foolish to assume that the president would have to lower his standards to find a qualified woman for the court. The fact is that there are dozens of people (men and women) who are qualified and who would be capable of supporting our rights and Constitution, which is what we are asking from from a SC justice. The question is which of these people Obama will nominate.

I'm in my 50s and lived through the years of quotas and affirmative action. Over the years I've heard many people, mostly those who benefited from previous racist and sexist policies, complain that they did not get jobs, or promotions, or scholarships because of requirements that the playing field be leveled. I'm not saying these people themselves were racist or sexist, or that they weren't qualified for these goodies; the fact is that society (and our legal system) recognized that women and people of color had been unfairly penalized in these arenas and that the only solution was to give preferences to those who had been shut out of the system in the past.

Were some white men who didn't get the job or promotions or college admission penalized? Yes. Were these policies successful? Yes. As noted above, we have almost two generations of society who have largely accept that women and people of color are as qualified and capable as white men. This is really the point--not that a few exceptional women or members of a minority group are so brilliant that they can't be ignored, but that we recognize that all of these groups have people who are smart and ambitious and creative and talented.

This is why I'd like to see our president nominate a woman to the SC. I'm sure there are many of qualified and capable men, but there are also many qualified and capable women. Putting another woman on the court (or two or three) won't somehow lower the intelligence or ability of the court--instead it will affirm our commitment to our ideal of equality.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Enrique Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-02-09 10:04 AM
Response to Original message
12. David Brooks said Obama should pick "someone like John Roberts"
in the context of the conversation, his "political wrap" segment on Lehrer last night, it was clear what he meant.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hekate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-02-09 04:02 PM
Response to Reply #12
35. John Roberts is so white and blue-eyed he's kind of adorably ethnic in his own right...
But his ethnicity is well-represented at all levels already.

David Brooks is getting weird.

Hekate


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Honeycombe8 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-02-09 04:18 PM
Response to Reply #12
39. I didn't hear that, but he was probably talking about Roberts' legal career
which was distinguished and respected by both Repubs and Dems. He was also known to be conservative, of course, but of an independent mind, within the context of being consersative.

I wish someone besides Roberts had been appointed and confirmed, but it could've been a lot worse.

An Obama choice will be of the liberal mind, of course. But should be highly distinguished, respected on both sides of the aisle, and be concerned mainly with the Constitution rather than supporting a specific ideology...is probably what he meant.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooky3 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-02-09 10:04 AM
Response to Original message
13. The myth of the "best qualified"
is a pretty transparent cover for problematic attitudes.

The reality is that, for this job, and for most others that a lot of applicants would love to have, there are dozens, if not hundreds of people who are extremely well-qualified.

Among this group, deciding which qualifications are "best" is a highly subjective judgment. Given the gross underrepresentation of women on the court (11% vs. 51% in the population, and vs. probably at least 35% of the top qualified candidates) and many other considerations, gender is a far better factor to consider than most other factors that could be used to make this coin flip decision.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ruggerson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-02-09 10:28 AM
Response to Original message
15. Correction: the default is always a STRAIGHT white male
a gay man or a lesbian is SO far off the radar screen, it doesn't even occur to most liberals.

Despite the fact that there are plenty of them out there.

The only group, btw, that suffers from reverse affirmative action in these high profile appointments, in that they don't get appointed BECAUSE they are gay and the administration does not have the political courage to do it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hekate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-02-09 03:57 PM
Response to Reply #15
32. Ah yes, I should have added that. You make a very good point...
Maybe the first appointment Obama gets is a two-fer and the second appointment he gets is a three-fer -- I'm getting giddy at the possibilities. Really, though, I want my Latina to be a Methodist or a Unitarian given the preponderance of Catholics on the current Court.

Sorry, in conceding your point I didn't mean to go bouncing off to the side. We'll get there.

Hekate


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ruggerson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-02-09 04:21 PM
Response to Reply #32
40. I agree with everything you wrote in the OP
and perhaps in his second term he'll find the courage to do a three-fer. I'm thinking he is going to get at least three appointments, and imho, they should all be women.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-02-09 04:17 PM
Response to Reply #15
38. Well, ya never know. The default is either a straight white male, or a closeted white male. NT
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saltpoint Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-02-09 10:37 AM
Response to Original message
17. I'm hoping and predicting that one of several qualified female candidates
will emerge as President Obama's choice for the SCOTUS appointment.

At the moment it's just too much of a boys' club. RBG is the lone female. I think it would be a healthier mix to have more womenfolk.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ruggerson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-02-09 10:40 AM
Response to Reply #17
19. the next THREE appointments should all be women
and one of them should be openly gay.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saltpoint Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-02-09 10:54 AM
Response to Reply #19
24. It would be refreshing.
Hi, ruggerson. Good to see you.

The fundies are already a lost tribe, wandering in the desert, whining and wailing. Who knows if a messiah will appear to lead them back to the village? They keep putting their faith into nutbags and psychotics and hate-mongers, and then can't understand why reasonably sensible voters choose liberal Democrats.

As they did last November -- at several levels of their local ballots.

The trend for acceptance of LGBTQ folks is uneven, but the line is on the ascent. New England seems to be doing better than the Deep South, although the Iowa court decision was a lift and a half.

The internet allows gay and lesbian high schoolers an opportunity, in the privacy of their rooms at home, to type in a couple key words and find that they are not an isolated or "wrong" population, but rather, part of a universally acclaimed history and culture. There is likely a lot of acceptance in that knowledge, something that the same-aged kids never had for all the previous generations of human existence.

When a high schooler can discover universal identity and acceptance in a couple clicks of a mouse, laws which discriminate against that identity have much less chance of surviving.

A computer and internet account, then, might be the final death blow to bigotry. Affirmation is suddenly globally available and it's same-day service, too. When Charles Grassley was in high school I doubt he even thought that his state's Supreme Court would unanimously sanction the right of lesbians and gay men to marry, including all the attendant privileges afforded to straight folks.

Plenty of work still to be done. But I think an openly gay appointment to the Supreme Court is not only desirable but maybe even likely in the next 8 years, roughly the length of Obama's remaining (2) term(s).

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Occam Bandage Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-02-09 10:39 AM
Response to Original message
18. "a woman or person of color should only get the job if they are so qualified..."
I think a woman or a person of color should not be offered the job unless they are the absolute single best-suited person in the country. The same, of course, goes for white males. "Qualified" for me is not a standard many may meet; it denotes the person who is absolutely best for the job. If that's a minority, great. If it's a woman, great. If it's a white dude, great.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooky3 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-02-09 10:44 AM
Response to Reply #18
20. you're falling victim to the myth of the "best qualified"
see my post above.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Occam Bandage Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-02-09 10:50 AM
Response to Reply #20
22. The fact that the judgment is in some ways subjective
does not mean that a judgment is impossible.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooky3 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-02-09 06:08 PM
Response to Reply #22
45. That was not my argument. Please re-read my post.
Maybe you don't have much experience with real-life selection of professional people where there are hundreds of highly qualified applicants for a complex job. If you did, you would know that there are VERY few instances where there is only one person who can legitimately be labeled "best qualified."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ruggerson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-02-09 10:46 AM
Response to Reply #18
21. You don't think that's the way these appointments are made
do you?

There are a host of political considerations that go into USSC appointments. Always have been, always will.

Whether someone is the "best suited" in the country to do it (which is subjective anyway) is only one part of the equation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Occam Bandage Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-02-09 10:50 AM
Response to Reply #21
23. No, I think the appointments are made like any other political decision is made.
That doesn't mean that's how I would like to see it happen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nothing Without Hope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-02-09 11:02 AM
Response to Original message
25. Very true - but the then it IS unfortunately still the default
And the near-universal blindness to the built-in prejudice you point out shows that we have a long way to go. Thanks for pointing this out - it's been missed by far too many.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Celebration Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-02-09 11:56 AM
Response to Original message
26. personally
I will only be satisfied if he nominates a female, left handed lesbian with dark skin, who speaks Spanish as a first language. She also should have graduated from an accredited law school somewhere along the line.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SoCalDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-02-09 04:00 PM
Response to Original message
34. Christian white male has always been the "default"..nothing new..nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hekate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-02-09 04:08 PM
Response to Reply #34
36. Exactly, tho that has been changing over the last couple of generations & now we have Obama...
... as another milestone on our road to change every assumption.

As our Rachel would say, "Yay!"

Hekate


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlooInBloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-02-09 04:22 PM
Response to Original message
41. Because EVERYBODY knows that if it's not a white male, then it's "identity politics"...
Edited on Sat May-02-09 04:22 PM by BlooInBloo
aka "affirmative action hire". aka "reverse racism". aka "non-(white men) are by definition unqualified".

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooky3 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-02-09 06:17 PM
Response to Original message
46. It's very sad that at a progressive board, there are some people who not only don't "get it"
they argue with those who do, rather than listen and try to progress.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun Sep 21st 2014, 12:31 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC