Previous Entry | Next Entry

out of left field

  • Jul. 20th, 2005 at 10:42 AM
BtVS: Spike + Buffy
"Bush also ignored advice offered by First Lady Laura Bush last week to choose a woman to succeed the nation's first female Supreme Court justice, and he decided against making history by naming the first Hispanic justice."

All that talk about naming a woman (as ought to have been done), and then *bam!*. Who the hell is this guy? Which isn't to say there aren't plenty of women who can't comprehend that women's rights, such as abortion, are something that ought to be championed, but that truth aside, how about we start letting the Court be more representative of the American population? But I would not be in favor of them appointing Hispanics before equalizing the male-female ratio (by adding white or black women). I'm trying to be realistic, not racist; women and blacks were an integral (and ignored) part of this nation long before any significant Hispanic population trickled in through the southern border (oftimes illegally).

Even once they have conducted a thorough examination of this Roberts guy (and MoveOn.org is already circulating a petition against his confirmation), there's no guarantee he will vote as expected. Others before him have voted against policies supported by the presidents who appointed them. *sigh* Anyone got a crystal ball?

On an almost-related topic, I lied yesterday. I said that the thing that would make me the happiest is getting sterilized. I am replacing that with my desire to be completely rid of my uterus (and my right ovary while they're at it). Two birds with one stone that way.

"We continue to believe that Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled," Roberts wrote, saying later that this was simply an expression of his client's views, not necessarily his own.
  • Mood: sleepy sleepy
  • Music:Esthero

Tags:

Comments

( 3 comments — Leave a comment )
[info]breathingfire wrote:
Jul. 20th, 2005 08:44 pm (UTC)
the thing is, 50% of the population is female, while only 5% is black male (i think right?). so to ignore the whopping number of available females for any other 'minority' (women aren't actually a physical minority, just under-represented) is to work very hard to keep a woman out of office.
| Reply | Thread
[info]unimag wrote:
Jul. 20th, 2005 09:00 pm (UTC)
You don't name a woman just because of 'equality' - that's not what equality means. Obviously this guy isn't a particularly brilliant choice, but if the best person for the role was a man, then a man should be appointed.

As soon as you start quota-filling, you're being just as sexist as the people who refuse to even consider one gender.

And that stuff about Hispanics was bollocks, by the way - if you're after a representative court, then you want it to be representative of the nation you have now, not the nation as it was founded. While you're on the subject of representation - do you have any physically disabled justices? Do you even consider that these people are representative of your population, too (with specific needs and points of view that far outweigh any ethnic and gender differences)?

Equality means giving everyone the opportunity to succeed; it doesn't mean appointing people to make up the numbers.
| Reply | Thread
[info]sapphire_knight wrote:
Jul. 20th, 2005 11:06 pm (UTC)
Ok, I retract my "quota-filling" statement, but the rest stands. And I certainly didn't mean to imply what you're objecting to in the first statement. But that "best person for the job" doesn't particularly apply to this job, in my opinion. They have a decent handful of people very qualified, but that is obviously not enough to be handed the job in this situation.

total population: 0.97 male(s)/female (2005 est.)
white 81.7%, black 12.9%, Asian 4.2%, Hispanic or Latino (of any race) 12.5%, disabled 21%
| Reply | Parent | Thread
( 3 comments — Leave a comment )