Obama Picks Another Woman for Supreme Court

Politics International Politics
41

[quote=“TwoTongues”]
Still, saying she kicked the military in the face is a little hyperbole, eh? You can be a supporter of military personnel, even the military in general, while being stridently, fervently opposed to certain policies. In the US I had many military and ex-military friends and coworkers, and most of them didn’t fit the “racist southerner” stereotype, to say I don’t support their well-being is just silly, but to say I oppose a shitload of US military policy would be an understatement. It’s like those who criticize Israeli policies but are called anti-semitic…[/quote]

Yeah it was a little bit of hyperbole. It was mostly in response to MT’s assertion that because she said she supported the military, while banning recruiters, that it makes her actions above reproach. If she really believed that, then she should have had no problem when they tried to take back the 400 million in annual grants. That would be in line with her fervent belief that it’s an immoral law.

You, as an individual, can be fervently opposed to certain policies. Kagan, as an individual, can do the same. That’s the right of every individual. Being a professor and in a position of power, she should be held to a tougher, more stringent standard than you. Remember that as a Justice on the SCOTUS she’ll have a duty and obligation to uphold the Constitution and all laws of the United States. The Supreme Court has refused to hear petitions on DADT leaving it up to Congress to repeal it.

42

What a bunch of crap. Has she ever violated the Constitution? Has she ever violated any law?

43

Yes, I imagine straight people are not widely discriminated against in Hollywood. I could be wrong. :idunno:

Huh? Professors don’t have the right to be fervently opposed to certain policies? Come again?

44

:laughing: Cute. But the goal should be to empower the historically oppressed (not males) so that they have the qualifications needed for positions of power and influence (not childhood educators or library directors), and to ensure that such positions are in fact open to them on an equal opportunity basis (something I’d argue is not entirely true for, say, Muslims and atheists in American politics at present), not to ensure that any particular demographic is equally represented in any particular profession as in your example. However, your point that changing the environment can be unintuitively difficult is well taken.[/quote]

Equal rights, but only for the historically oppressed? Well ok, let’s pretend men don’t deserve equal rights because they haven’t been historically oppressed, but in any case women have been historically oppressed. And why should they only be helped ‘so that they have the qualifications needed for positions of power and influence’? Why shouldn’t there be equal representation of women in higher math, and men in early childhood education and the information industry? These gender disparities are clear indicators of oppression.

Incidentally one of the reasons why there has been a significant push for girls to take up higher education in math is because it is argued that this is what is holding them back from higher paying and more powerful jobs.

[quote=“Watt, Explaining Gendered Math Enrollments for NSW Australian Secondary School Students’, NEW DIRECTIONS FOR CHILD AND ADOLESCENT DEVELOPMENT, no. 110, Winter 2005”]Many researchers have argued that females who discontinue their mathematical education in high school or soon after prematurely restrict their educational and career options (Heller and Parsons, 1981; Meece, Wigfield, and Eccles, 1990; Secada, 1989). Math has been identified as the critical filter that limits access to many high-status, high-income careers (Sells, 1980) through acting as a gateway to many careers and fields of study. Not taking math can restrict or exclude people from certain kinds of university degrees or other forms of education and training, which can lead to many highstatus, high-income careers.

The participation of girls and women in mathematics decreases markedly as they progress to higher educational and professional levels (Herzig, 2004), and this flow-on effect has sometimes been termed the math pipeline (Stage and Maple, 1996). Women who discontinue their mathematical studies earlier than men may be less likely to attain highly prestigious and highly paid jobs that depend on prior math. They are consequently less likely to secure those high-status, high-income careers that depend on prior math participation.[/quote]

Furthermore it should be pointed out that the lack of men in early childhood education has been identified as a serious social issue, given the increasing number of children growing up without a proximate male father figure and positive male role model, as a result of the deconstruction of the nuclear family and the preference for single parenting.

45

I am not aware of any evidence that straight people are discriminated against in Hollywood. Furthermore, it could just be that if gay people are more successful in Hollywood (as you seem to imply), it’s because they’re just plain better than their straight counterparts. Not everything is about oppression and discrimination.

46

Of course not! But the unoppressed, those who already have equal rights, don’t generally need us to be concerned about establishing such rights for them.

Ok, it’s a worthwhile social issue, but AFAIK it’s not a case of men being unable to enter such positions if they want them. Rather, gender stereotypes as well as unequal pay for such positions mean that fewer men go for those jobs, right? By increasing pay for teachers, you’ll not only attract more men to those jobs, but you’ll ensure that well educated women who hold them are getting pay comensurate with their education level. Anyway, we’re getting a bit far from the Supreme Court pick here.

47

Yes, I imagine straight people are not widely discriminated against in Hollywood. I could be wrong. :idunno:[/quote]

Actually, and to be totally honest, Jews in power in Hollywood would be a better example:

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/dec/19/opinion/oe-stein19

[quote=“LA Times”]How deeply Jewish is Hollywood? When the studio chiefs took out a full-page ad in the Los Angeles Times a few weeks ago to demand that the Screen Actors Guild settle its contract, the open letter was signed by: News Corp. President Peter Chernin (Jewish), Paramount Pictures Chairman Brad Grey (Jewish), Walt Disney Co. Chief Executive Robert Iger (Jewish), Sony Pictures Chairman Michael Lynton (surprise, Dutch Jew), Warner Bros. Chairman Barry Meyer (Jewish), CBS Corp. Chief Executive Leslie Moonves (so Jewish his great uncle was the first prime minister of Israel), MGM Chairman Harry Sloan (Jewish) and NBC Universal Chief Executive Jeff Zucker (mega-Jewish). If either of the Weinstein brothers had signed, this group would have not only the power to shut down all film production but to form a minyan with enough Fiji water on hand to fill a mikvah.

The person they were yelling at in that ad was SAG President Alan Rosenberg (take a guess). The scathing rebuttal to the ad was written by entertainment super-agent Ari Emanuel (Jew with Israeli parents) on the Huffington Post, which is owned by Arianna Huffington (not Jewish and has never worked in Hollywood.)

The Jews are so dominant, I had to scour the trades to come up with six Gentiles in high positions at entertainment companies. When I called them to talk about their incredible advancement, five of them refused to talk to me, apparently out of fear of insulting Jews. The sixth, AMC President Charlie Collier, turned out to be Jewish.[/quote]

Having said that, does that mean there should be members from other religious groups forced into Hollywood? No, but going down the same road, we ought to level the entertainment playing field by teaching the goyim (“non Jews”, for all you goyim) to be more funny and act better - I mean come on, have you ever seen Christopher Lambert, Nicholas Cage, Keanu Reeves??? Goyish to the hilt and can’t act their way out of a bag of knishes…

And who really wants a non-Jewish lawyer or doctor? Have you ever seen a Jew argue? And admit it, when you go through the phone book to find a new doctor, and you see Dr. Rosenstein, Dr. Mohammed, and Dr. Smith, who you gonna call, really?

48

Of course not! But the unoppressed, those who already have equal rights, don’t generally need us to be concerned about establishing such rights for them.[/quote]

This isn’t about establishing rights, its about establishing better representation. If men are under represented in certain industries, we need to do something so that they are represented equally. Don’t forget that some men belong to minority groups which have historically been oppressed.

There’s no ‘unequal pay’ issue. Men and women are paid the same for early childhood education appointments. Gender stereotypes do play a part, and an increasing part as white males in particular are demonized in the media as dangerous around children. That probably doesn’t count as oppression yet though, it’s probably just ‘humorously ironic’, like when white boys are bullied at school (so humorously ironic!). Why do you think that increasing pay for teachers is going to attract more men to the jobs? What evidence is there that the well educated women who are already in the industry aren’t getting pay commensurate with their education level?

Thread split?

49

Of course not! But the unoppressed, those who already have equal rights, don’t generally need us to be concerned about establishing such rights for them.[/quote]

This isn’t about establishing rights, its about establishing better representation. If men are under represented in certain industries, we need to do something so that they are represented equally.[/quote]

Really? Why? I mean, if people of a particular group happen to gravitate toward particular professions for historical or socio-cultural reasons, why is that problematic, as long as pay and opportunities are equitable, and there are no other negative ramifications (such as the lack of male role models in the case you cite earlier)?

Obviously, but they’re not oppressed as men, they’re oppressed as minorities, so affirmative action or whatever other steps are contemplated for redressing the oppression do not need to be taken on the basis of gender in this case.

But early childhood education appointments are paid less than other appointments which require the same or less education, and women are over-represented in early childhood education, which means that women end up getting less pay for the same education level, if I recall correctly. Now that is a problem, in my view.

People do look at pay when considering careers; that’s just a basic fact, no? Personally, I might have considered going the route of becoming a teacher, early on, but low pay was definitely a downer compared to mechanical engineering (what I first pursued).

50

Why are there no Jews on the Supreme Court? No blacks (don’t say it, my Jasmine rice is blacker than him)? No open homosexuals?

Actually Jews should be more represented, given their above average representation in the legal fields. Open homosexuals would get blocked one way or the other by the conservatives/nazis. And my guess is, there is a high likelihood that any black man or woman who makes it to that level of their profession is fairly far away from the “average” black man or discriminated-against minority. Maybe what we should be looking at is representation by social class?

Anyway, should be the best person for the job that closest to the executive’s platform (in this case Obama), and if it’s a fairly even split between a few choices, then you can go for the balancing act. Which is what I suspect Obama and every other president does - well, except for the “Evil One”.

51

Whoa! Now you’ve gone all conservative on me. How do I reconcile that with this:

I thought the whole idea was to ensure that everyone is equally represented everywhere.

But males have been historically excluded from (or under represented in), various industries specifically because of their gender (nurses, midwives, early childhood education teachers, yoga instructors, etc).

I don’t follow the reasoning here. I could hardly complain that my three year bachelor of arts degree wasn’t going to land me the same income as my friend’s three year bachelor of business degree. Nor could I argue that a 6 year education degree should be rewarded with the same income as a 6 year medical or law degree. There are significant qualitative differences of knowledge required, responsibilities and obligations accrued, not to mention risks incurred.

The fact that women are over represented in early childhood education is the product of women choosing to enter the early childhood sector of the education industry, and men choosing not to. The women concerned are choosing to enter a profession which pays lower than another profession, just like pretty much all of us. I fail to see how that’s a problem. Men are unlikely to enter this sector of the education industry until society decides it’s perfectly normal for males to be around young children who aren’t related to them. And that unfortunately doesn’t look like it’s going to happen any time soon.

Certainly people look at pay when considering careers, but in the case of an industry sector from which men have historically been all but excluded, do you really think that raising the pay is going to attract more men? There’s no certainty of that unless it can be demonstrated that low pay is the reason why they’re staying out, and that simply isn’t the case. Furthermore, what makes you think that men don’t enter this sector because the pay is too low, whereas women enter the sector despite the pay being low? That doesn’t speak very highly of either men (avaricious), or women (stupid).

I don’t mean to be difficult by the way, I’m actually interested in this particular dilemma for a range of reasons, not least because of the fact that it’s an interesting litmus test if we want to talk about social equity and social health.

52

Hope everyone is sitting down. I agree with MT. Kagan is eminently qualified and she did not attack or discriminate against the military. Anyone who suggests the same is going to be dealing with a losing hand. Confirm her. I say this as a Republican who respects her handling of the law and for her success in interpersonal relationships. She will be an asset.

53

I’m with Fred. I see no reason that opposition to Don’t Ask Don’t Tell should be equated with opposition to the military. I thought the Solomon case was an idiotic challenge, but it was one which numerous respected legal scholars participated, so I’m not inclined to hold it against her.

As to underrepresentation of certain groups. I view that as President’s perogative. With only 9 positions on the court there’s absolutely no way that every category someone might identify with is going to be represented. If the President feels there is some group which in particular deserves representation, that’s why he gets to make the nominations. Mostly, though, he needs to pick candidates who can do the rather mundane lawerly work that makes up the majority of the courts work.

54

Wait, but 1. I think they are underrepresented by choice, I’ve never heard of anyoine stopping a male from becoming a kindergarten teacher or offering to pay them less, and 2. in childhood education’s case, doesn’t that have more to do with the fact that it is generally a lower paying job? Ditto the library directors.

Also, I would argue there’s a HUGE nay MONOLITHIC (cue Also sprach Zarathustra) difference between the social evil of underrepresentation on the positions of governmental power, especially the supreme court with its small size and national grasp, and that of early childhood education, where I fail to see how the race or sex of the teacher has any measurable effect on the kid. (curious though, I wonder if white kids with black teachers in their youth are less prone to racism?)

55

[quote=“Mother Theresa”]politbureau, sorry but your concerns are misplaced. Judges, and Supreme Court justices especially, have always had the power to make law. They MUST have the power to make law. Making law is the essence of what Supreme Court justices have always done.

Why? Because it is a judge’s job to examine the facts in a case, examine the laws, and make a ruling on how the relevant laws apply to those relevant facts. . . . [/quote]

The IRS “makes law” too in applying the policies laid down by our elected representatives to practical situations and conditions involving the power to tax. It’s a derived power though and while the derived power to “make law” of the Supreme Court is far greater in scope it’s historically been a derived power nonetheless. That was until the 1940’s when a new phenomenon arose in the way the liberal Supreme Court jurists began to view the Court and its powers.

At that point jurists first began to assert the notion that the Supreme Court has an inherent power to make law co-equal with the legislative branch due to the innate moral and intellectual superiority of the elite class of jurists and legal scholars Supreme Court justices were traditionally selected from. In the 1950’s under the Warren Court this notion of the Supreme Court’s inherent right to make fundamental law of the land coequally with elected representatives reached full force and continues to this day. Originally the pretext for “judicial activism” was that liberal jurists were “discovering” new legal principles in the Constitution but of late that prevarication has been dropped in favor of the truth which is that if justices are carefully selected from an elite class of scholarly progressives with extensive legal experience they will be better equipped to expand the scope of constitutional law than venal and politically compromised politicians. Hence the storms of controversy surrounding the selection of Supreme Court justices in recent years because there is little dispute they are today being handed the unprecedented power to not only administer the law but to also make laws which will profoundly affect the rest of us for decades to come and there’s little we can do about it once they’re appointed because they’re appointed for life with no practical redress against their decisions. Thus the new culture among potential justices to carefully hide their political views until after their appointment to the Supreme Court.

Liberals haven’t been alone in usurping the power of elected representatives in recent decades. Conservatives have been doing the same with signing statements in which, in effect, the executive branch simply declares itself above the law while signing them into effect for the rest of us.

56

Wait, but 1. I think they are underrepresented by choice, I’ve never heard of anyoine stopping a male from becoming a kindergarten teacher or offering to pay them less…[/quote]

Yes they are under represented by choice. I already said that myself.

I haven’t seen any evidence for this. I just went through that point with DB. And since when was a library director a ‘lower paying job’? I wouldn’t have minded being on AU$100,000+ a year thanks. Maybe that’s ‘a lower paying job’ where you come from, but that’s significantly higher than the average salary in Australia, and that’s a standard entry point salary for a library director in Australia. That’s what you expect in your first year. Four years later you’re on AU$120,000. Even a library technician (a para-professional), earns AU$60,000 in their first year.

But again, as with DB, you seem to imply that there are more women in early childhood education because while men choose not to take ‘lower paying jobs’, women choose to take ‘lower paying jobs’. This doesn’t make much sense to me.

Of course there’s a difference between the level of social evil, but that doesn’t mean the lesser evil should be ignored. If you ‘fail to see how the race or sex of the teacher has any measurable effect on the kid’ then you must have missed my previous post:

57

Isn’t there something fundamentally wrong with a political system in which citizens have to resort to a naked power grab in order to avoid being disenfranchised? And once disenfranchised having no redress whatsoever against the policies which disenfranchise them because the public officials which enacted them are completely unaccountable because they remain in office until they either die or retire?

58

According to Machiavelli’s Discourses, no. Provided there’s a minimal balance of power between the competing factions, that’s the essence of a vibrant republic.

59

According to Machiavelli’s Discourses, no. Provided there’s a minimal balance of power between the competing factions, that’s the essence of a vibrant republic.[/quote]

A political system which relies on naked power plays is indeed Machiavellian in nature. I don’t think that’s a virtue though but rather an ethical failure:

[quote]Mach·i·a·vel·li·an

of, like, or befitting Machiavelli.
2.
being or acting in accordance with the principles of government analyzed in Machiavelli’s The Prince, in which political expediency is placed above morality and the use of craft and deceit to maintain the authority and carry out the policies of a ruler is described.
3.
characterized by subtle or unscrupulous cunning, deception, expediency, or dishonesty: He resorted to Machiavellian tactics in order to get ahead.
–noun
4.
a follower of the principles analyzed or described in The Prince, esp. with reference to techniques of political manipulation.
[/quote]

60

Yes they are under represented by choice. I already said that myself.[/quote]
I didn’t see your making that statement, but if you did say so, then why did you bring them up in this discussion, since the issue is under-representation due to discrimination of some sort: no one is talking about forcing a group of people (in this case males) to take a job they have chosen not to take.

I haven’t seen any evidence for this. I just went through that point with DB. And since when was a library director a ‘lower paying job’? I wouldn’t have minded being on AU$100,000+ a year thanks. Maybe that’s ‘a lower paying job’ where you come from, but that’s significantly higher than the average salary in Australia, and that’s a standard entry point salary for a library director in Australia. That’s what you expect in your first year. Four years later you’re on AU$120,000. Even a library technician (a para-professional), earns AU$60,000 in their first year.[/quote]
Yuh-whuh-huh? In an elementary school or high school? What kind of librarian you talkin’ about Harvard University library? There is no US elem, jr high, or high school librarian making US$100,000, except maybe in extremely upscale private schools, and even there I have my doubts. If Oz pays those salaries, I’m learning the Dewey decimal system (or whatever mess they have down there) pronto.

What I was stating was, males tend to have higher paying job options than women proportionally, the logical implication then would be that more women by proportion would be taking the lower paying jobs, and public education jobs, especially kindergarten, are relatively low-paying in the education system. Does that make more sense?

Of course there’s a difference between the level of social evil, but that doesn’t mean the lesser evil should be ignored. If you ‘fail to see how the race or sex of the teacher has any measurable effect on the kid’ then you must have missed my previous post:

I did miss your previous post, but I would like to see your sources for that, as it is not clear to me what the “social evil” is in the preference for single parenting. I can see the lack of positive male role model being a serious issue, but not on the scale of Supreme Court makeup, which is kind of a one-off super-case. I wold suggest no one here is saying these lesser evils should be ignored.