The SUPREME COURT has recently added a knew member named "sotto mayor", who is Hispanic, to my knowledge. The issue here is that she was quoted to saying something along the lines of"i feel i can do a better job than an old white may/guy" i found this to be racist but she got in anyways, claiming that the supreme court ought to be modeled after the %'s of American citizen's ethnicity. This would mean that they would select people based on their race than purely on the judgment of their work, what do you think about this idea?[b]
I think its racist, and idiotically based. What whould be accomplished with it? A member of each minoraty doesen't represent all of the minority, so why should they get in for just bieng a minority?
No it wouldn't. It means that the people's races in the Court should reflect on the number of people in the Court to avoid racial inequality.
If the people's races in the Supreme Court reflected the ratio of races in the US, that would be unjust. If a black man in Court died, then a black man would have to take his place, rather than a white man who might be more qualified for the position, or vice versa.
People shouldn't be appointed to the Supreme court based on race and sex. It should be based primarily on their experience and skill. Race and sex shouldn't play a role.
There's something seriously wrong if in a population of 90% black, you have all white people in the Senate
Assuming it was a fair election, then those people whould be felt to be better suited by the others, so whats the problem?
In the same way, if we are to regard women equal as men, then if sexism is eliminated, the ratio of men to women in the Senate should be half/half
As I said, if it was a fair election then the people whould represent the mijority. Just because your a girl doesen't mean you whould do better for the girl community and vise versa.
NoNames stance is better, Race and Sex shouldn't play a role
There's something seriously wrong if in a population of 90% black, you have all white people in the Senate.
Agreed, then your basing it on Race. A lot.
314-- Assuming it was fair? It can't be fair. The fact that all white men are leading shows some racial aristocracy just by a bit of logic. Its possible it could have been all fair and lovey dovey, but seeing how only 10% of the States people [that were all white] managed to outdo the other 90%'s tryers for Senate in a 'fair' election is rather bizarre!
In the same way, if we are to regard women equal as men, then if sexism is eliminated, the ratio of men to women in the Senate should be half/half.
Not really, Sexism should be eliminated when voting on the women, not when deciding who gets to be voted on or not!
Sottomayor -- being hispanic or not, did qualify into the Supreme Court, though I do quite believe she has a big feel against Racism and therefore felt an obligation to stand up and say she can do it better than your average old white senator. I didn't like it, but thats probably where the view came from. More of an anti-racist thing than being racist herself, I'd say.
i agree but she seemed like a suitable example since she believes that the gov. should resemble the ratios of people in America, also in order to do what was discussed by "314" you would need to change the rules bec. once elected you are in for life on the supreme court, unlike another position in the gov., so you would have to filter out these already in for life supreme court members, that would be illegal seeing how they are in for life(unless ape-ached, or resigned, or found senile)
314-- Assuming it was fair? It can't be fair. The fact that all white men are leading shows some racial aristocracy just by a bit of logic. Its possible it could have been all fair and lovey dovey, but seeing how only 10% of the States people [that were all white] managed to outdo the other 90%'s tryers for Senate in a 'fair' election is rather bizarre
Whitch is why I put assuming it was fair. If the 90% had there say in the vote then race doesen't matter, now does it? But if the election was rigged then it whould, but were here assuming that this hypothetical situation was fair.
i agree but she seemed like a suitable example since she believes that the gov. should resemble the ratios of people in America, also in order to do what was discussed by "314" you would need to change the rules bec. once elected you are in for life on the supreme court, unlike another position in the gov., so you would have to filter out these already in for life supreme court members, that would be illegal seeing how they are in for life(unless ape-ached, or resigned, or found senile)
Incase you don't relize you whould have to change the rules to do this, so that doesn;t affect it. (and I assume you mean impeached?)
The comment that she made wasn't racist, she simply meant that she'd be able to understand and empathize better with minorities than most American white people are able to.
Anyway, it would not even be legal to choose Supreme Court justices based on ethnicity; that is a form of racial quotas.
Than is it a double slandered for understanding comments like that, Perhaps if a old white male said he had more experience with education than a Hispanic racist "in the hood", i sure that would be considered highly racist as it is.
Yet apparently they do play a role, a rather unfortunate one too. I like to see that the Supreme Court is open to members of all races, but I think that they should choose people based on their abilities rather than the color of their skin.
