Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[iam416]

and what kind of ideological blinders they are saddled with in comparison

Or how much more free-thinking they are in comparison.

[THE_WIZARD_]

Heh. Good call. I hate that phrase -- "all due respect" -- it generally signals no respect is forthcoming. So, I edited.

So, you know, all due respect, fuck off.

Much better.

[iam416]

Diversity is important because it combats ignorance.

Eh. I mean, I guess if you're going try to justify it you might as well do so with a rationale that is impossible to quantify and so broad as to justify nearly any public policy decision in favor of increased "diversity." An outstandingly bureaucratic justification.

In my experience, diversity has mattered not one lick in my workplace. In the communities I've lived -- one massively diverse; one not -- it's not mattered.

But, eh, whatever. So long as it's an all-way street. So long as we understand that, say, gay folks can be ignorant of baptist communities, urban folks massively ignorant of small-town communities and standards, and so on. I'd just hate to think "ignorance" is limited to folks one disagrees with.

[hack]

Or how much more free-thinking they are in comparison.

Dunno what you mean.

[iam416]

Dunno what you mean.

Well, I read the following statement as suggesting folks other than the judges you named would be "saddled with ideological blinders in comparison" :

If we all went to the ancestral homes of the various Kagans and Sotomayors and Srinavasians and looked at what kind of opportunities equally talented people have there, and what kind of ideological blinders they are saddled with in comparison

I gotta say, though, it's not particularly clear, so perhaps that's not what you're saying. Anyway, to my ear "saddled" and "ideological blinders" are pejorative. It doesn't seem like you're extolling the Judges you named, but rather criticizing others. My comment was that the others may be more free-thinking. Who knows.

In any event, it wasn't clear to me, so I may have misread it. But, it seemed absolutely central to your point as you justified your conclusion entirely on that statement, so I tried to understand it as best I could.

[Da Geezer]

Hillary is proud to be a woman, and proud to be the first woman nominee, but her candidacy is based on the fact that she is the most qualified candidate in years. Like her or not, she could hardly have better qualifications than 8 years in the WH as First Lady, United States Senator for 8 years, Secretary of State for 4 years. That's a shit ton more experience than anyone since Nixon probably.

I respectfully disagree.

This is a woman who has a total of 4 years executive experience running for the most important executive position in the US. Some of her "accomplishments" as SoS are:

1. Throwing away a victory in Iraq
2. Allowing the overthrow of Quadafi in Lybia
3. Backing away from the red line that Obama established in Syria
4. being one proximate cause of the refugee problem Europe and the US have.
5. Not attacking Isis, and allowing it to grow.
6. Allowing unlimited illegal immigration into the US; refusing to execute the laws already on the books.

If Hillary is qualified then so is Madelin Albright.

It is absurd to say that eight years as the first lady is "experience" unless you count fundraising. Senators are seldom elected President because the electorate knows that there is little overlap in those job descriptions.

So I once again issue the challenge: Please name Hillary's five greatest accomplishments not related to her genitalia.

[Da Geezer]

IMO, Trump should shut his mouth about the Judge in his case. The Judge's record is good and his decisions are reasonable.

Trump might argue about the extraordinary number of Obama-appointed judges on the Federal bench and point out that another four years of the same would render the judicial system useless in protecting constitutional rights. Over the weekend, Hillary took issue with even the existence of a second amendment right to own firearms. This election is very much about the future of the Federal bench, but using his personal feelings is definitely the wrong way to approach the matter.

[froot loops]

That is his way. You can expect that is how he will operate as the President. All of the documents of that case should be revealed. He should also release his tax returns.

[Hannibal]

Yeah, I understand, but competence/impartiality go hand in hand. He's saying he's not competent to hear THIS case b/c he's biased. Impartiality is one threshold for competence.

I think that most people view competence in an academic sense and they view impartiality in a moral/emotional sense. It's an important distinction.

[Hannibal]

By CHARLIE SAVAGE MAY 14, 2009 WASHINGTON — In 2001, Sonia Sotomayor, an appeals court judge, gave a speech declaring that the ethnicity and sex of a judge “may and will make a difference in our judging.” In her speech, Judge Sotomayor questioned the famous notion — often invoked by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and her retired Supreme Court colleague, Sandra Day O’Connor — that a wise old man and a wise old woman would reach the same conclusion when deciding cases. “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life,” said Judge Sotomayor, who is now considered to be near the top of President Obama’s list of potential Supreme Court nominees.

Here you go, Liberals. Condemn away. Let's see your outrage.

[froot loops]

That is certainly the equivalent of "He's a Mexican, I'm building a wall."

[hack]

Eh. I mean, I guess if you're going try to justify it you might as well do so with a rationale that is impossible to quantify and so broad as to justify nearly any public policy decision in favor of increased "diversity." An outstandingly bureaucratic justification.

In my experience, diversity has mattered not one lick in my workplace. In the communities I've lived -- one massively diverse; one not -- it's not mattered.

But, eh, whatever. So long as it's an all-way street. So long as we understand that, say, gay folks can be ignorant of baptist communities, urban folks massively ignorant of small-town communities and standards, and so on. I'd just hate to think "ignorance" is limited to folks one disagrees with.

My point is that diversity is a means and not an end. The end is meritocracy, and whilst America does a poor job, almost every other country is doing much worse. Either you're in a position to refute what I've said, or you should get out there and see for yourself before deciding.

But we're getting ahead of ourselves. It looks to me like you're blowing off my argument because I might not agree that ignorance comes from the left as well as the right. Are you saying that the only arguments you'll consider here are from people you know agree with you on things? If so, I would suggest that you find out what you need to know simply by participating in this thread over time. A few weeks ago when Israel came up I used the phrase ``the soft bigotry of low expectations'' to describe the left. That unsolicited example of what you're looking for would surely be more telling to you than any prompted replies I could offer right now.

[iam416]

That is certainly the equivalent of "He's a Mexican, I'm building a wall."

It's pretty close. He could have said he'd prefer a "wise white man" because he'd reach a better decision than a "wise Mexican man" -- but that's semantics.

[hack]

I gotta say, though, it's not particularly clear, so perhaps that's not what you're saying. Anyway, to my ear "saddled" and "ideological blinders" are pejorative. It doesn't seem like you're extolling the Judges you named, but rather criticizing others. My comment was that the others may be more free-thinking. Who knows.

I do. I've been to many of those places and talked to many of the small-pond elites who didn't emigrate, or who returned home after going to Harvard. I am saying that the difference between those judges and equally talented people in their home countries is that those judges matriculated into adulthood in a more diverse environment. You can put any talented person unblessed by citizenship in America and they're more likely to flourish. Diversity plays a key role in letting talented people rise no matter their background.

[froot loops]

It's pretty close. He could have said he'd prefer a "wise white man" because he'd reach a better decision than a "wise Mexican man" -- but that's semantics.

It's not close at all.