Is this quote racist and/or sexist?

[Sqrl]

theRepublic said:

Kasz216 said:

theRepublic said:

Kasz216 said:

theRepublic said:

outlawauron said:

akuma587 said:
I think its pretty racist how the Supreme Court is completely unrepresentative of the American people. 1 women and 2 minorities (Clarence Darrow and Ruth Bader Ginsberg). Any government body should ideally be representative of the actual public.

Diversity and Equality are great but race shouldn't qualify anyone to me Supreme Court Justice.

They shouldn't be qualified by race alone, but I do think there needs to be more diversity on the court.  I know that justice is supposed to be blind, but I don't think it actually happens in real life.  There needs to be different points of view.

You do realize you just suggested that all people of the same race think alike right? 

No, I suggested that people of different races are likely to think differently due to different life experence.  If you don't like that, I really don't care.

No you suggested that everyone on the supreme court would think the same if they were the same race.   You said "We need a diverse court so we'll have different points of view."

Stop trying to spin what I said.

At the risk of piling on... that is what you wrote....even if it's not what you meant.

@topic,

I think the Latino and "diversity" angle is terribly transparent politics to be honest.  The media practically went nuclear over Gonzales despite very similar back stories.  This has nothing to do with diversity and everything to do with the liberally sanctioned "right kind" of diversity.  Sadly "diversity" has just become a code word for the means of racism and sexism deemed justified by the ends.

The issue of diversity really is a moot point for judges anyways.  Cases have facts and we have laws.  Facts are examined within the context of the laws and a decision is to be reached that best upholds the law and its meaning.  What color your skin is or what neighborhoods you grew up in do not change the facts or the laws...so why should it change the outcome?  The answer to that "why?" is of course the completely prepostrous notion of judicial empathy.

When Obama says he wants a judge with empathy he is really saying "I want a judge who will violate the constitution and their oath to impose liberal idealogy via the courts rather than do the dirty work to pass a law via the legislature (ie the right way).".  The oath the judges take specifically forbids considering the persons involved and specifically mandates that rich and poor should be treated equally.  Where does empathy come in if you are specifically fordbidden from considering the persons involved?  The answer is that it plainly does not come in and so the only way that empathy is a meaningful criteria is if you expect them to violate their oath and make it a factor in their decisions.

That people even contend this point is the epitome of willful ignorance, or even worse; complete intellectual dishonesty for the sake of idealogy.

The bottom line is that the Supreme court is made up of nine PEOPLE.  Not  'x' whites, 'y' blacks, and 'z' latinos.  Just nine people.  And for the sake of our laws and our country everyone should want the nine most impartial, pragmatic, fair-minded, and judicially experienced people this country has to offer.  Offering up anything less simply to play politics with the laws of your country is...well frankly its treasonous to me. And before GoP posters cheer this comment realize that GoP Presidents have been far from innocent on this count.

I actually think Sotomayor has a very good amount of experience for the court and barring the issue of empathy and a few minor concerns over this quote I wouldn't object (from what I've seen so far) to her nomination and confirmation.  But the intent to use empathy as a guide is by itself enough to disqaulify anyone from serving as a judge at any level, much less on the SCoTUS.