Turn on thread page Beta

Moderate O'Connor to retire from US Supreme Court? watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Apparently, it is being widely reported on Capitol Hill that Sandra Day-O'Connor, a moderate-conservative justice of the Supreme Court, will be announcing her retirement shortly. Supposedly, conservative Attorney General Alberto Gonzales will be selected as her replacement. However, there are calls that a woman should be appointed to replace her, since there are currently only two females in the SC. Do you believe such calls are justified?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by psychic_satori)
    Apparently, it is being widely reported on Capitol Hill that Sandra Day-O'Connor, a moderate-conservative justice of the Supreme Court, will be announcing her retirement shortly. Supposedly, conservative Attorney General Alberto Gonzales will be selected as her replacement. However, there are calls that a woman should be appointed to replace her, since there are currently only two females in the SC. Do you believe such calls are justified?
    Yes. Not that I really know much about American politics, though...but it does seem like a good idea.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kew96158)
    Yes. Not that I really know much about American politics, though...but it does seem like a good idea.
    Why, then?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by psychic_satori)
    Why, then?
    Well, it does seem rather unfair there only being two women in the entire Supreme Court - how many people are in it overall? I think a woman should be appointed to the place if she fulfils all the criteria (ie. is fit for the job). I suppose it all boils down to whether positive discrimination is a good idea or not.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    If a woman is as qualified and can be considered as a candidate for the position then good for her but her sex xhouldnt be the reason she gets the position. personally i would not want to gain a higher position because I'm a woman but because I derserved and worked for it.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kew96158)
    Well, it does seem rather unfair there only being two women in the entire Supreme Court - how many people are in it overall? I think a woman should be appointed to the place if she fulfils all the criteria (ie. is fit for the job). I suppose it all boils down to whether positive discrimination is a good idea or not.
    There are nine justices total. I dislike the idea on the principle that the members of the Supreme Court are somehow biased by such an intangible as sex in their interpretations of the Constitution. I don't think it should be a factor in selection, because it sends the wrong message.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by psychic_satori)
    Apparently, it is being widely reported on Capitol Hill that Sandra Day-O'Connor, a moderate-conservative justice of the Supreme Court, will be announcing her retirement shortly. Supposedly, conservative Attorney General Alberto Gonzales will be selected as her replacement. However, there are calls that a woman should be appointed to replace her, since there are currently only two females in the SC. Do you believe such calls are justified?
    If the woman was anything other than an ultra-conservative judge (always the worst type), Id be happy...

    In general do I think it should be a woman? No... sex race etc.... they should be enitrely irrelevant.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by frost105)
    If a woman is as qualified and can be considered as a candidate for the position then good for her but her sex xhouldnt be the reason she gets the position. personally i would not want to gain a higher position because I'm a woman but because I derserved and worked for it.
    Hmm, I have to agree with you there (changing my above view slightly!) - I would rather have a job because I deserved it rather than because of my gender.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kew96158)
    Hmm, I have to agree with you there (changing my above view slightly!) - I would rather have a job because I deserved it rather than because of my gender.
    But would you rather have the job because of your gender than no thave it at all?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    No, because I would know that I didn't really deserve the job. It stands to reason that I wouldn't be good enough at that job to be able to carry out my duties properly. After all, if I had been chosen because of my gender, not because of my ability, then I would therefore not be as good at doing that job as the poor sod who would have got the job because of their ability, if I hadn't got it instead thanks to my gender.

    Do you see what I mean? I hope I'm not being incredibly naive.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lawz-)
    But would you rather have the job because of your gender than no thave it at all?
    Its differnet if you didnt get considered for the job because of your sex but in this case the candidates will be highly qualified top of their game ( I assume ) so if they dont get the position then yeah you'd be gutted but I'd rather not have it than know I got it just because I happen to have 2 x chromosomes.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lawz-)
    In general do I think it should be a woman? No... sex race etc.... they should be enitrely irrelevant.
    ...possible in modern politics?

    I suppose the correct thing to do is appoint someone whose views most correspond with the present administration, democracy and all...the supreme court would forever be playing catch-up...but la -di-da...
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ArthurOliver)
    ...possible in modern politics?

    I suppose the correct thing to do is appoint someone whose views most correspond with the present administration, democracy and all...the supreme court would forever be playing catch-up...but la -di-da...
    Politics should have no place in judicial appointments.

    The British system is, actually, wonderful IMO - the judges are as objecive as any in the world, and are interested almost entrely in the truth of the matter, leaving their personal views at the door... of course you cant exclude all prejudice - but they at the very least make the effort....

    The US judiciary is a political football...
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by frost105)
    Its differnet if you didnt get considered for the job because of your sex but in this case the candidates will be highly qualified top of their game ( I assume ) so if they dont get the position then yeah you'd be gutted but I'd rather not have it than know I got it just because I happen to have 2 x chromosomes.
    Just to note, the president nominates whomever he wishes, so there isn't any sort of conventional list of candidates who are interviewed or anything. Judges don't know that they are actually being considered unless they are informed by the president, which usually only occurs if they are going to be nominated (since I don't believe any SC-contenders have turned down the position).
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kew96158)
    No, because I would know that I didn't really deserve the job. It stands to reason that I wouldn't be good enough at that job to be able to carry out my duties properly. After all, if I had been chosen because of my gender, not because of my ability, then I would therefore not be as good at doing that job as the poor sod who would have got the job because of their ability, if I hadn't got it instead.

    Not being the best doesnt mean you couldnt do the job.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lawz-)
    Not being the best doesnt mean you couldnt do the job.
    Yes I know - I daresay that you could do it adequately - but nevertheless, you wouldn't be able to do it as well as the best. In any case, I would feel guilty at depriving the 'best' person of their rightful job.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kew96158)
    Yes I know - I daresay that you could do it adequately - but nevertheless, you wouldn't be able to do it as well as the best. In any case, I would feel guilty at depriving the 'best' person of their rightful job.
    Good for you ... good attitude to have ...

    However being the best falls by the way-side for those in favour of social engineering through endless tinkering.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lawz-)
    Politics should have no place in judicial appointments.

    The British system is, actually, wonderful IMO - the judges are as objecive as any in the world, and are interested almost entrely in the truth of the matter, leaving their personal views at the door... of course you cant exclude all prejudice - but they at the very least make the effort....

    The US judiciary is a political football...
    Interpretation of the Constitution will always have some sort of a slant, which translates to a political sway, though. It's the nature of having an opinion on the document.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by psychic_satori)
    Apparently, it is being widely reported on Capitol Hill that Sandra Day-O'Connor, a moderate-conservative justice of the Supreme Court, will be announcing her retirement shortly. Supposedly, conservative Attorney General Alberto Gonzales will be selected as her replacement. However, there are calls that a woman should be appointed to replace her, since there are currently only two females in the SC. Do you believe such calls are justified?
    I think positive discrimination is a bit of a tricky area. I do see some positives arising from it, but in the end I have to disagree with it and state that sex/race etc should not be a factor in considering someone for a position.
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by psychic_satori)
    Apparently, it is being widely reported on Capitol Hill that Sandra Day-O'Connor, a moderate-conservative justice of the Supreme Court, will be announcing her retirement shortly. Supposedly, conservative Attorney General Alberto Gonzales will be selected as her replacement. However, there are calls that a woman should be appointed to replace her, since there are currently only two females in the SC. Do you believe such calls are justified?
    no, any replacement should b viewed purely on individual merits.
    there are few women in top flight of law cos of historic pressures, that will change with time.
 
 
 
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: July 3, 2005

3,153

students online now

800,000+

Exam discussions

Find your exam discussion here

Poll
Should predicted grades be removed from the uni application process
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.