I went back to reread this.  You really confuse me Kasz.

You assume the absolute worst of me, accusing me of thinking that all members of a race are the same.  I may not have worded it the best that I could, but I certainly didn't mean what you insinuated.

Then later in the thread, you state that it is possible for people to remain unbiased in their decisions.  That basically assumes the absolute best of a person.

Opposite ends of the spectrum there.

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.

You believe that judges can remain impartial sqrl, I don't.

I think that how their parents raised them, the friends they grew up with, the church they went to, their life experiences, the law school they went to, the professors they studied under, etc., will all affect the decisions they make.  Those things affect everyone in ways they may, or may not realize.  More often then not, I think it is the later.  That is why I would prefer more diversity in the court.

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.

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.

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?

You believe that judges can remain impartial sqrl, I don't.

I think that how their parents raised them, the friends they grew up with, the church they went to, their life experiences, the law school they went to, the professors they studied under, etc., will all affect the decisions they make. Those things affect everyone in ways they may, or may not realize. More often then not, I think it is the later. That is why I would prefer more diversity in the court.

(reposted)

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.

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?