Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Pravious

Does anyone actually think that if he nominates a hispanic, or African American (such as when Thomas was apponited), that it will really change the way that minority group would vote?? This is really becoming stupid!

Look, the majority of African-Americans and Hispanics vote liberal... Deal with it! How about we actually make decisions that will reflect true conservative values which will then in turn solidify our base voters... If the MOST QUALIFIED candidate happens to be African-American or Hispanic, great! Then let's nominate them, but keep Affirmative Action and quotas out of our SCOTUS nomination process...


546 posted on 07/19/2005 8:35:25 AM PDT by Hand em their arse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 487 | View Replies ]


To: Hand em their arse
Look, the majority of African-Americans and Hispanics vote liberal... Deal with it!

And why? Because of defeatests like you with your self-fulfilling prophecies. "Oh, gee, we can't get black people to vote for us, no sense wasting time and money trying."

And Hispanics vote fairly conservative, they're a key swing vote, in case you hadn't noticed.

550 posted on 07/19/2005 8:45:19 AM PDT by JohnnyZ ("I believe abortion should be safe and legal in this country." -- Mitt Romney)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 546 | View Replies ]

To: Hand em their arse
If the MOST QUALIFIED candidate happens to be African-American or Hispanic, great! Then let's nominate them, but keep Affirmative Action and quotas out of our SCOTUS nomination process...

When you get to the short list category, there typically isnt a "most qualified candidate". All are about equal. Also what criteria are you going to use? How long they have been on the bench? Their past rulings? Their character? Their judicial philosophy? When you are at this level there is no clear criterion like a batting average in the Baseball. It is all subjective. So you find an judge you like who meets your criteria, you decide on any other soft criteria like race or gender, and then you take into consideration political considerations like the ability to get through the process.

By the way the reason that there werent woman on the court prior to Sandra Day O'Connor was that until the 60's very few women were admitted to law school and those who graduated were offered jobs as secretaries like Sandra Day O'Connor. Today women represent close to fifty percent of the lawyers in this country. There is no reason that Ruth Bader Ginsburg should be the only woman on the Supreme Court unless those making the decisions are overtly using gender against them.

559 posted on 07/19/2005 9:04:51 AM PDT by Dave S
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 546 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson