By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - Is this quote racist and/or sexist?

Sqrl on 28 May 2009
theRepublic said:
Sqrl said:

The edit actually doesn't change my point really. I don't argue against the idea that your experiences shape your biases...that is a given. My contention is that selecting people for those biases as a way to "counteract" (or "balance" if you want to flower it up) other biases is insane because the members will inevitably change leaving the court biased. 

By selecting the least biased people the majority will anchor the bias and prevent it from corrupting.  And like I said nullifying existing bias by adding bias is nullifying the nine justice dynamic and basically making it a 7 justice dynamic...and then a 5 and then 3...and eventually nullified to just 1...and whichever bias occupies the 1 odd seat basically runs the court. It's an absolutely shortsighted way to handle things.

Least bias, most impartial means that you have a stable court where one or two justices allowing bias to get the better of them has no impact.

In short the "counteractive" or "balance" bias approach produces a highly unstable court...the most impartial approach produces a stable court.  The only question once you realize that is whether you want stability in the rule of law...kind of an easy question for me.

You missed my question.  (Damn my edits)

I would call most of the court very partial judges right now, what makes you think this is going to change drastically in the future?

To your point about trying to balance biases, I wouldn't do that, I would just have the court look more like America's demographic makeup.  That is the best you could really expect to do.

I agree actually, I think the court is very politcized right now, but I'm not talking about what it is, but rather what it should be.

To your last point: So you're advocating that the court have a bias that is representative of america and that their rulings should reflect the bias of america on average?

I don't understand why you would advocate for the intentional introduction of bias...of any makeup.  Why not aim for the most impartial application of law we can manage as imperfect as we are?  Saying you will always have bias is one thing, but it doesn't mean that we have to accept bias as part of the decisions when we have a 9 judge dynamic that is specifically designed to handle this exact issue. 

Not to mention, and I'm sure you'll hate me for pointing it out, but your argument is again assuming that everyone of a given race thinks alike.  If you take it as a given that people of one race don't all think alike then nominating based on race, by your own logic, is absolutely pointless.  Not everybody from one race is going to have the same views so the claim that somehow a 9 person sample is even remotely meaningful defies basic statistics. I actually just did a quick calculation and with a population of 300 million and a sample of 9, barring sampling error (which would exist), you have a margin of error of nearly 33.3% meaning your range of error is 66.6% (MOE is +/-). This means that by basic statistics if we select justices to represent america we will almost always end up not representing america.

The entire idea is simply flawed.

 
To Each Man, Responsibility
Around the Network
Sqrl on 28 May 2009
The Ghost of RubangB said:
She said "I hope that..." which means she hopes diversity is good, but isn't sure if it is. She also said she wasn't sure several times. She was doubting a universal definition of wisdom, which I like, and disagreeing with the notion that men and women look at things exactly the same. Within the quote she's disagreeing with Sandra, which proves she's right.

That's what you guys are talking about, right?

I mean, nobody's arguing that white men have "richer" lives than latina women, are they?

I actually agree that the "I would hope" bit softens it but the full paragraph I posted earlier dispells much of that softening for me.  Particularly when I realize that even her "hoping" that what is at least a somewhat racist comment is true is just as bad as believing it is.

Either way I think a single comment is hardly worth judging a person over.  There is a lot more to go on from her legal opinions that, to me at least, has far more weight to the choice than this. In short this is something to consider, but its a very small part of what should be considered for any complete or worthwhile assessment of her as a judge much less her as a person.
To Each Man, Responsibility
Tyrannical on 28 May 2009
TheRealMafoo said:
Tyrannical said:

Why would she think a female Hispanic judge would do a better job of interpreting a constitution written by old white men then an old white man would?

 

When the constitution was written, Thomas Jefferson was 33, and John Adams was 41.

 

Not sure I would call them old.

 

Edit: Ops, that was the Declaration if Independence. The Constitution was written 11 years later, so they were 44 and 51.

 

Getting to the edge of old.

 

Jokes are funnier when you don't over anaylze them.



Yet, today, America's leaders are reenacting every folly that brought these great powers [Russia, Germany, and Japan] to ruin -- from arrogance and hubris, to assertions of global hegemony, to imperial overstretch, to trumpeting new 'crusades,' to handing out war guarantees to regions and countries where Americans have never fought before. We are piling up the kind of commitments that produced the greatest disasters of the twentieth century.
 — Pat Buchanan – A Republic, Not an Empire

TheRealMafoo on 28 May 2009
Tyrannical said:
TheRealMafoo said:
Tyrannical said:

Why would she think a female Hispanic judge would do a better job of interpreting a constitution written by old white men then an old white man would?

 

When the constitution was written, Thomas Jefferson was 33, and John Adams was 41.

 

Not sure I would call them old.

 

Edit: Ops, that was the Declaration if Independence. The Constitution was written 11 years later, so they were 44 and 51.

 

Getting to the edge of old.

 

Jokes are funnier when you don't over anaylze them.

 

Your jokes usually have a hint of racism in them, so they're not that funny to begin with :p



ocnkng on 28 May 2009
Millennium said:
Rule Number One: If you have to ask whether or not a quote is racist of sexist, it probably is.

this.



 

It is better to die on one's feet

then live on one's knees

Around the Network
akuma587 on 28 May 2009

A lot of Supreme Court law is 100% court made. Its common law. Congress cannot change many of the Supreme Court's ruling on a wide variety (but not all) of issues or else they will violate separation of powers. We live under a common law judicial system. Unless a statute is involved (and the majority of the Supreme Court's cases do not involve statute), it doesn't matter what Congress has to say. You can't defer to Congress when Congress doesn't have the subject matter jurisdiction to speak on the issue.



We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls.  The only thing that really worried me was the ether.  There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke

It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...."  Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson

Tyrannical on 28 May 2009
akuma587 said:
A lot of Supreme Court law is 100% court made. Its common law. Congress cannot change many of the Supreme Court's ruling on a wide variety (but not all) of issues or else they will violate separation of powers. We live under a common law judicial system. Unless a statute is involved (and the majority of the Supreme Court's cases do not involve statute), it doesn't matter what Congress has to say. You can't defer to Congress when Congress doesn't have the subject matter jurisdiction to speak on the issue.


Congress can over rule any Federal court decision based on State Law, the State Constitution, or Federal law. I'm pretty sure all applicable common law has been codified at the federal level. I'm not so sure on the state level, but I'd be surprised if it hasn't been codified as well.



Yet, today, America's leaders are reenacting every folly that brought these great powers [Russia, Germany, and Japan] to ruin -- from arrogance and hubris, to assertions of global hegemony, to imperial overstretch, to trumpeting new 'crusades,' to handing out war guarantees to regions and countries where Americans have never fought before. We are piling up the kind of commitments that produced the greatest disasters of the twentieth century.
 — Pat Buchanan – A Republic, Not an Empire

Desroko on 28 May 2009

"Codified common law" is a contradiction in terms.

There is no general federal common law.

Congress cannot, in fact, overturn SC decisions dealing with state legislation or constitutions.



theRepublic on 28 May 2009
Sqrl said:
theRepublic said:
Sqrl said:

The edit actually doesn't change my point really. I don't argue against the idea that your experiences shape your biases...that is a given. My contention is that selecting people for those biases as a way to "counteract" (or "balance" if you want to flower it up) other biases is insane because the members will inevitably change leaving the court biased. 

By selecting the least biased people the majority will anchor the bias and prevent it from corrupting.  And like I said nullifying existing bias by adding bias is nullifying the nine justice dynamic and basically making it a 7 justice dynamic...and then a 5 and then 3...and eventually nullified to just 1...and whichever bias occupies the 1 odd seat basically runs the court. It's an absolutely shortsighted way to handle things.

Least bias, most impartial means that you have a stable court where one or two justices allowing bias to get the better of them has no impact.

In short the "counteractive" or "balance" bias approach produces a highly unstable court...the most impartial approach produces a stable court.  The only question once you realize that is whether you want stability in the rule of law...kind of an easy question for me.

You missed my question.  (Damn my edits)

I would call most of the court very partial judges right now, what makes you think this is going to change drastically in the future?

To your point about trying to balance biases, I wouldn't do that, I would just have the court look more like America's demographic makeup.  That is the best you could really expect to do.

I agree actually, I think the court is very politcized right now, but I'm not talking about what it is, but rather what it should be.

To your last point: So you're advocating that the court have a bias that is representative of america and that their rulings should reflect the bias of america on average?

I don't understand why you would advocate for the intentional introduction of bias...of any makeup.  Why not aim for the most impartial application of law we can manage as imperfect as we are?  Saying you will always have bias is one thing, but it doesn't mean that we have to accept bias as part of the decisions when we have a 9 judge dynamic that is specifically designed to handle this exact issue. 

Not to mention, and I'm sure you'll hate me for pointing it out, but your argument is again assuming that everyone of a given race thinks alike.  If you take it as a given that people of one race don't all think alike then nominating based on race, by your own logic, is absolutely pointless.  Not everybody from one race is going to have the same views so the claim that somehow a 9 person sample is even remotely meaningful defies basic statistics. I actually just did a quick calculation and with a population of 300 million and a sample of 9, barring sampling error (which would exist), you have a margin of error of nearly 33.3% meaning your range of error is 66.6% (MOE is +/-). This means that by basic statistics if we select justices to represent america we will almost always end up not representing america.

The entire idea is simply flawed.

 

First bold

So you are actually talking about some sort of ideal world where people can actually know their own biases and selectively filter them out?  How do these impartial judges get selected?  It wouldn't happen the way judges are selected now.  How do you suggest the Constitution be amended to change the selection process?

Second bold

No it doesn't.  It assumes that people of different backgrounds have different life experience.



Switch Code: SW-7377-9189-3397 -- Nintendo Network ID: theRepublic -- Steam ID: theRepublic

Now Playing
Switch - Super Mario Maker 2 (2019)
Switch - The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening (2019)
Switch - Bastion (2011/2018)
3DS - Star Fox 64 3D (2011)
3DS - Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney (Trilogy) (2005/2014)
Wii U - Darksiders: Warmastered Edition (2010/2017)
Mobile - The Simpson's Tapped Out and Yugioh Duel Links
PC - Deep Rock Galactic (2020)

Kasz216 on 28 May 2009
theRepublic said:
Sqrl said:
theRepublic said:
You believe that judges can remain impartial sqrl, I don't.

I said "the most impartial", not "completely impartial".  The point is with nine people who are extremely impartial you have 8 people anchoring anyone who shows some small bias on a given case.  That is sort of the idea of having a large panel rather than a single justice.

Where we actually disagree is that I think it is foolhearty to try and "tune" the court by thinking you can assess which biases are greater and adding someone with an equal but opposite bias to counteract.  This reasoning is insane because the positions aren't permanent and adding offset bias inevitably will produce more bias than just assigning the least biased people you can.

Not to mention that it is a method of reactionary nullification which diminishes the purpose of it being a nine member panel rather than utilizing it as the immense strength that it is.

I editted on you.  Sorry.

I would call most of the court very partial judges right now, what makes you think this is going to change drasticly in the future?

By continueing to add more impartial judges.  These guys are getting old afterall.

It's better to wean poison out of your system... rather then rely on a delicate balance of different poisons and hope you aren't screwed.