Bush says ‘diversity’ key for next top court pick
- Thread starter rick_reno
- Start date
- Status
publius
Member
I was irritated and not at all optimistic the last time I heard that.
Then there was a circus at confirmation, and I was less than impressed by the whole thing, nominee included.
Since then, I've warmed to Judge Thomas considerably. The right man for the wrong reason. Good enough.
longeyes
member
Diversity 101
Communication is only possible because of common objects and experiances. Words and symbols are used to represent ideas or concepts common to the communicators. Americans, regardless of subculture, will likely find it easier to communicate than an American and a Frenchman, who would find it easier to communicate that a human and a silicon based life form from the other side of the galaxy. The Americans have more shared reference points; common foods, music, holidays would mean a greater chance that any idea on one side is present on the other. However, throughout their lives Americans from different subcultures still have countless unique experiances that are not shared outside the culture and cannot be mutually accessed. Therefore you can never truly understand the sum total of my prespective, nor I yours, and whether you believe that or not doesn't make it any less true. Further that assumes that you want to try and understand my prospective, and act for some sort of mutual good, which in light of mankind's history is not a safe assumption. Getting along and respecting one another are noble goals but they are a far cry from truly, completely and viscerally understanding someone else. Diversity tends to insure that everyone has a stake in the welfare of the society, and that people's tendency to act in their own self interest can be relied on to ensure that prospectives reasonably close to any given individuals are represented."
Bunk.
But thanks for the lecture, Professor. I'm printing this up and putting it in my wallet so I can keep it close to my heart. It's interesting to know that because there are always barriers to complete understanding and identification I am compelled to make political choices based on race, ethnicity, and gender. I'll keep that in mind as a bright red flag on what a socialist America would look like--if I and people like myself were to let that happen.
You should read Peter Schwartz's essay on diversity and multiculturalism wherein he makes a cogent argument that such concepts are meant to destroy all values and all rational discrimination.
Communication is only possible because of common objects and experiances. Words and symbols are used to represent ideas or concepts common to the communicators. Americans, regardless of subculture, will likely find it easier to communicate than an American and a Frenchman, who would find it easier to communicate that a human and a silicon based life form from the other side of the galaxy. The Americans have more shared reference points; common foods, music, holidays would mean a greater chance that any idea on one side is present on the other. However, throughout their lives Americans from different subcultures still have countless unique experiances that are not shared outside the culture and cannot be mutually accessed. Therefore you can never truly understand the sum total of my prespective, nor I yours, and whether you believe that or not doesn't make it any less true. Further that assumes that you want to try and understand my prospective, and act for some sort of mutual good, which in light of mankind's history is not a safe assumption. Getting along and respecting one another are noble goals but they are a far cry from truly, completely and viscerally understanding someone else. Diversity tends to insure that everyone has a stake in the welfare of the society, and that people's tendency to act in their own self interest can be relied on to ensure that prospectives reasonably close to any given individuals are represented."
Bunk.
But thanks for the lecture, Professor. I'm printing this up and putting it in my wallet so I can keep it close to my heart. It's interesting to know that because there are always barriers to complete understanding and identification I am compelled to make political choices based on race, ethnicity, and gender. I'll keep that in mind as a bright red flag on what a socialist America would look like--if I and people like myself were to let that happen.
You should read Peter Schwartz's essay on diversity and multiculturalism wherein he makes a cogent argument that such concepts are meant to destroy all values and all rational discrimination.
longeyes
member
"Therefore you can never truly understand the sum total of my prespective, nor I yours, and whether you believe that or not doesn't make it any less true."
And having said that you apparently think you have said something profound rather than something grandly obvious. You aren't perhaps either an academic or a recent graduate, by any chance?
The fact is I do understand as much of your perspective as I need to. While we indeed lack mystical conjunction my nose presents a familiar leftwing odor. I plan to trust it.
And having said that you apparently think you have said something profound rather than something grandly obvious. You aren't perhaps either an academic or a recent graduate, by any chance?
The fact is I do understand as much of your perspective as I need to. While we indeed lack mystical conjunction my nose presents a familiar leftwing odor. I plan to trust it.
Sam Adams
Member
While I think that choosing a judge or a justice, who is supposed to interpret the words of the Constitution and the laws of this country, should have nothing whatsoever to do with skin color or gender, Bush has an opportunity to really shove this diversity crap back up the Leftist orifice from whence it came. That opportunity is: Janice. Rodgers. Brown.
Black and female - let's see the Dims vote against her!
longeyes
member
Yes! Rogers Brown is the American Left's worst nightmare.
Watching Schumer and Kennedy and Boxer and Biden attempt to skewer Rogers Brown without looking like meanspirited buffoons would be worth paying to see.
Watching Schumer and Kennedy and Boxer and Biden attempt to skewer Rogers Brown without looking like meanspirited buffoons would be worth paying to see.
longeyes
member
"The president is under pressure from many quarters — including his wife — to pick a woman or a minority for the seat of Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, who is retiring."
From the Land of the Free to the Land of Yes, Dear?
From the Land of the Free to the Land of Yes, Dear?
Camp David
member
Alex45ACP said:
I agree; however, I acknowledge that the President is mindful of the society we now live in wherein such "diversity" and "multiculturism" plays a big part. Regardless of the President's feelings toward "diversity" and "multiculturalism", one needs to play along in order to achieve cooperation; in this case, a second appointment to the Supreme Court. It was apparent how much trouble Judge Roberts caused and he was supremely qualified; image how much difficulty a lesser nomination could cause, or a nomination that wasn't a member of the diversity/minority group? Believe me, I am sure the president is tempted to nominate another white caucasian qualified nominee, and I wish he would, but I doubt it will happen! So, regardless of how stupid and absurd "diversity" and "multiculturalism" are, politicians need to adopt it, or be criticized severely...
Picking a Justice of the Supreme Court:
"Now, what we need is a woman, with black skin, with a Mexican surname and an Indian ancestor back there somewhere. It would help a lot if she is a fundamentalist Christian lesbian. What am I leaving out?"
GWB.
:banghead:
"Now, what we need is a woman, with black skin, with a Mexican surname and an Indian ancestor back there somewhere. It would help a lot if she is a fundamentalist Christian lesbian. What am I leaving out?"
GWB.
:banghead:
JohnBT
Member
True diversity would require the nomination of a person who isn't a lawyer.
What the court needs is your basic intelligent working person with loads of common sense.
Naw, too radical an idea.
John
What the court needs is your basic intelligent working person with loads of common sense.
Naw, too radical an idea.
John
I think LAR-15 nailed it. Not that it'll work that way anyhow.
Although if the President really wanted diversity on the Supreme Court, he'd be doing as JohnBT said. A pleasant thought, but obviously one that would never work in the real world. Too bad!
pax
Although if the President really wanted diversity on the Supreme Court, he'd be doing as JohnBT said. A pleasant thought, but obviously one that would never work in the real world. Too bad!
pax
Janice Rogers Brown would be the ideal choice, diversity aside. Unfortunately I think the current PC fad in diversity is "hispanic", which means that a very qualified individual -- who happens to be a black woman -- may not get the nomination because she's not part of the "popular" minority group.
Sometime back I worked for a government agency that based all hiring/promotion on diversity.
What I saw was position after position filled with people who were in over there heads. We need to find a way to put all this nonsense aside and hire qualified people, but I won't hold my breath on that.
What I saw was position after position filled with people who were in over there heads. We need to find a way to put all this nonsense aside and hire qualified people, but I won't hold my breath on that.
RealGun
Member
I think affirmative action on the Supreme Court is just as much a problem as that kind of thinking anywhere else. The Court becomes culturally political rather than composed of those who are best qualified. So called disadvantaged people are chosen only to respond to political pressures. It is lack of prejudice in considering candidates that really counts.
longeyes
member
We wouldn't want to be criticized severely. No, that would hurt. Let's pursue the stupid, absurd, painless path. By all means.
Standing Wolf
Member in memoriam
You left out the vegans.
Yanus
Member
Diversity?
I nominate Michael Jackson
He's black......he's white....... he's black n' white!
Yanus
I nominate Michael Jackson
He's black......he's white....... he's black n' white!
Yanus
longeyes
member
crony baloney
I see Harriet Miers, White House Chief Counsel, is on the alleged short list for SCOTUS. She was formerly W.'s personal attorney. Texas hospitality rearing its head again?
Say it ain't so. Please.
Perhaps W.'s personal trainer could be head of Special Forces?
Bush needs to be transcendent with this pick. He needs an Originalist Babe Ruth--with no asterisk.
I see Harriet Miers, White House Chief Counsel, is on the alleged short list for SCOTUS. She was formerly W.'s personal attorney. Texas hospitality rearing its head again?
Say it ain't so. Please.
Perhaps W.'s personal trainer could be head of Special Forces?
Bush needs to be transcendent with this pick. He needs an Originalist Babe Ruth--with no asterisk.
lostone1413
Member
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2004
- Messages
- 447
GWB will pick someone just like him. Someone who it doesn't bother destroying the Constitution. Someone who is against the 2nd amendment. If you think he isn't look at his AG and what has he done for the gun owners. The next requirement will be someone who sees nothing wrong with the Police State we are heading for and believes it is alright to crush the middle class. Soon the haves and have nots. Of I forgot they must also go along with the open borders. I voted for GWB twice but in almost 60years i've never seen someone sell our country out as bad as him. He is a traitor so will the one he wants to appoint be a traitor
- Status
