Proxy
Did you hold equal concerns when the Supreme Court was heavily biased toward white males.

I really don't see why you have a problem with these appointments.

Hispanic and African Americans make up a significant portion of the American population yet there is not the same level of representation in the judiciary.

As Foxy has demonstrated the qualifications and merit of this latest appointment speak for themselves.

A bit of history of the make up of the judiciary over the last 30 or so years:

http://primebuzz.kcstar.com/?q=node/18562

I think once again many are 20 years behind here. That post should read Will judicial Tyranny ultimately fall to Democracy ?

The whole discussion if based on a moot point.

There is no legitimate democracy in any human society on planet Earth.

All we have is a system where you can choose 2 out of around 2 MILLION candidates...where both represent the values of the current society.
There can be no significant difference to the social and daily lives of citizen-slaves living in society regardless of who wins any election.

For more information, visit My website at www.Truthmedia.8k.com and scroll down and find the "Democracy" essay.

<<For a person to achieve the position of Dean
of that law school means that their knowledge,
and credentials are impeccable.>>
No, it means that Kagan likely got there through affirmative action,
just like she’s being appointed to the Supreme Court through affirmative action.
The trouble is that affirmative action is rife like a cancer through the entire system.
The result is that it is no longer possible to say that any female or ethnic person got to where they did on the basis of merit.
It is absurd to say that a person’s filling a role points to her merit when selection criteria other than merit were employed to put her in that role.
Of course, progressives have difficulty understanding this concept.
Recalling Judy Jackson, former Attorney General of Tasmania: “The next Supreme Court justice will be a woman AND her selection will be based on merit”.

<<Greater gender diversity in any group will likely
result in decisions that are MORE democratic>>
The job of the Supreme Court is not to democratically interpret the laws.
The fact that decisions are resolved along democratic lines is incidental.
The job of the Supreme Court is to interpret and apply the law.
Furthermore, why is it always OK to say that women are better than men at this and that and the other, when it is NEVER okay to say that men are better than women at anything.

<< Women encourage more co-operation in groups and strive
to find resolutions that make everyone happy. >>
Refer above. The job of the Supreme Court is to make everyone happy??
It is an impossibility to make everyone happy when resolving a court case.
One side wins and the other side loses.
What on earth are you talking about?

<< men tend to…focus on the majority vote." >>
Which is…duhhhh…democracy.

<< And finally, as President Obama said:
"I have selected a nominee who”>> exactly mirrors my radical beliefs and will be there to help implement my version of radical change for the next forty years.

Dear Proxy,

Kindly re-read my post.
You seem to have a problem
in grasping even the barest simple
concepts. I won't explain again
the jist of what Prof. Christopher
Larimer was saying.


As I've stated to you in the past...
Any criticism born of ignorance, mistrust, or
hatred is not only ineffectual and a complete waste of
time, it's harmful. You're not likely to be in a
position to have something worth saying unless you've
spent years immersing yourself in gaining knowledge,
experience, and understanding, and only then if your
agenda isn't hostile. Do you know anything about the
institutions of learning in the US?
Do you anything about
their Senate Judiciary Committee or the nomination
process for the Supreme Court? Do you know what it
takes to become Dean of the Harvard Law School?
Do you know what it takes to become Solicitor General
of the United States? Do you know when you bring in
a person from an underrepresented social group that
they will bring in a different perspective. Did you know
thst women are more adept to make decisions that reflect
group preferences, rather than individual preferences?
Yet you still insist that women will enforce their own
views on Government? Where on earth do you get your
inside knowledge from

What exactly is it that makes people get so sucked into believing that academic achievement makes an individual competent ? The whole god damned world has been run by academics for the past 40 years & look at the state it's in ?
Why are people so dead against voting for capable leaders, after all they always complain that our leaders don't perform. Forget Party loyalty. It means nothing these days. As Julie Bishop so rightly pointed out on TV last night, it doesn't matter who leads the ALP. It is the ALP that is the problem not Kevin Rudd. Julia Gillard is the exception. She is an academic with an academic problem. The inability to differentiate between theory & practice. In theory Democracy is great. In practice it doesn't work.