Turn on thread page Beta

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

    Offline

    18
    actually thats a bit 2faced cos i usually support pos discrimination...
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by psychic_satori)
    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.
    There are some decisions the court makes that have a greater impact on women than men. Laws pertaining to abortion, for example. That may be why there is a push to replace her with another woman.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Made in the USA)
    There are some decisions the court makes that have a greater impact on women than men. Laws pertaining to abortion, for example. That may be why there is a push to replace her with another woman.
    Still, the justices aren't put there for their "human perspective" on issues.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by psychic_satori)
    Still, the justices aren't put there for their "human perspective" on issues.
    True - but when a candidate is being considered, factors such as their stance on certain controversial topics is somewhat taken into account, as well as how conservative/liberal they may be. For instance, when Sandra Day O'Connor herself was nominated, her views on abortion and feminism were keenly looked at.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gwenyth!)
    True - but when a candidate is being considered, factors such as their stance on certain controversial topics is somewhat taken into account, as well as how conservative/liberal they may be. For instance, when Sandra Day O'Connor herself was nominated, her views on abortion and feminism were keenly looked at.
    Rationalized political opinions are not the same as assuming she must have a notable opinion on abortion because she's got a vagina.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Times have changed and today a female nominee would be looked at differently.

    However in 1981 there was indeed a correlation between feminism and O'Connor's 'vagina' - considering the fact the world had just experienced the '70s pro-choice, human rights, feminist etc. movement as well as the fact that O'Connor would become the first female Justice.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gwenyth!)
    Times have changed and today a female nominee would be looked at differently.

    However in 1981 there was indeed a correlation between feminism and O'Connor's 'vagina' - considering the fact the world had just experienced the '70s pro-choice, human rights, feminist etc. movement as well as the fact that O'Connor would become the first female Justice.
    I'm not questioning the truth in that, but in reality, sex should not play a part in determining a candidate's qualifications for the role, especially not in the highest American court.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I actually never agree with interference in the judiciary by the legistlative or the executive. It seems absurd that a supposedly neutral section is determined by the president or the prime minister.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    The next justice certainly should not be determined on race or sex etc, purely on ability and merit alone. Although to be honest this is going to be coloured by political predjudices, a disadvantage of the US judiciary I suppose. I much prefer the British system, but then, I am a Brit.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alexdel)
    I actually never agree with interference in the judiciary by the legistlative or the executive. It seems absurd that a supposedly neutral section is determined by the president or the prime minister.
    Well who is supposed to appoint them?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chrism)
    Well who is supposed to appoint them?
    A vote by all judges would be a good idea..
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    And who would appoint those judges?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chrism)
    And who would appoint those judges?
    There are plenty of judges already appointed...and they are not appointed by the president. Plenty of state judges etc. which combined would provide a balanced view.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alexdel)
    There are plenty of judges already appointed...and they are not appointed by the president. Plenty of state judges etc. which combined would provide a balanced view.
    You mean those appointed by the state executives and elected by the public?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lawz-)
    You mean those appointed by the state executives and elected by the public?
    The difference being it is a host of different state executives and since the country is evenly divided it will eleminate the bias that one particular executive i.e the president would have electing the supreme court judge.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alexdel)
    The difference being it is a host of different state executives and since the country is evenly divided it will eleminate the bias that one particular executive i.e the president would have electing the supreme court judge.
    It doesnt eliminate the bias at all as the judges picked by state executives only deal with state issues. As such, the bias is simply divided up in a cell like structure - there is no mixing of the different views.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alexdel)
    There are plenty of judges already appointed...and they are not appointed by the president. Plenty of state judges etc. which combined would provide a balanced view.
    All the federal judges are appointed by the President.
    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?
    If you put a Woman on the surpeme court .... and then, one day it's that "time of the month" for her ... then youv just did something Dangerous! Cause what if she lost her temper, and decides to push the Button? We'd have World War 3 on our hands! All because the little lady was not content to be doing dishes like God intended.
    Offline

    0
    (Original post by psychic_satori)
    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'd go along with Janice Rogers Brown.
    Offline

    0
    (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.
    Picking a person for the supreme court has nothing to do with the best judicial person, it has to do with politics.

    Back in the '80s, Reagan nominated Judge Bork, considered one of the best judicial minds in the country. Well, it just happened that poor ol' judge Bork was anti abortion. You can just imagine what happened to him, the democrats tore him limb from limb, butchered the poor bugger, the closest thing to a lynching that I've ever seen.
 
 
 
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

1,981

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.