I think our current POTUS has made it clear he will nominate justices who will not wear the blind-fold of justice but will interject the “correct” kinds of bias into their rulings in order to further his political agenda.

It is sheer lunacy to think that one’s personal experiences and background won’t come into play when making that judgment call. And in that process, I want (at least) a few people who are used to being in the losing group, the disenfranchised group, the underclass, the outsiders, the poor, etc., making that decision. People who are less likely to have the ability to identify with the underdog are, I think, less likely to fairly apply and evaluate the law.

Wow. That’s what I’ve been getting slapped around for saying for some time now. Only I was talking about women in the church.

Oh, yea, but we’re not “the outsiders,” we’re the “elect.”

I forget. Who nominated the Court’s second African American justice?

Brad Kramer: “The problems arise when you have the wrong kind of life experience like, oh just to choose a random example, that of a female with Puerto Rican heritage.”

Or that of an African American who rose from abject poverty (and didn’t even grow up speaking standard English) like Mr. Justice Thomas? (Oh, I’m sorry, I forgot: he doesn’t count because of his political orientation and because of who nominated him.) Whatever anyone’s reservations about Judge Sotomayor may be, I haven’t heard anyone say that their concerns center on the fact that she’s Puertoriquena.

Brad Kramer: “That kind of life experience is bad to bring to the bench, because, being something other than neutral (i.e. white male), it will skew and distort your perspective. And that’s bad. Real bad.”

And once she’s confirmed, she can join Mr. Justice Thomas with a skewed perspective. Heck, who knows? Maybe one day, that perspective won’t be so skewed.

Brad Kramer: “Not all life experiences are created equal — at least in the sense that all (free, property holding, white) men are created equal. Says so right in the Constitution.”

The Constitution says nothing about anyone being created equal. And our failure to live up to our ideals is not the fault of the Constitution itself; it’s simply the fault of our not giving the Constitution full effect.

Right. Except there was more than one “comment”: there was [at least one] whole speech-full. ;-D

Right. Nobody has any problem with any of her speeches in their entirety. We’re just concerned about little bits and pieces. http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NjFkZjk1NmI2YzlkZjZhNzYzY2U0OTc1ZjIzOTJiYjk=

Jana (#20): “Her confirmation is already opposed by a greater number of Americans than support her.”

Now, if only she were running for office! ;-D

Geoff B. (#23): “[H]ow about a ‘wise black man’ like Clarence Thomas, who was raised desperately poor and suffered discrimination along the way but is opposed to the liberal agenda?”

Unfortunately, Justice Thomas’s life—despite the poverty and racism he experienced—failed to teach him the proper lessons to equip him to sit on the Court. Overcoming poverty and racism aren’t enough; one must also have the appropriate political orientation. Two-out-of-three won’t suffice. (It’s kinda like how law school is supposed to turn aspiring prosecutors into good little defense attorneys after they’re taught how unfair the system is—how the only reason the justice system exists as currently constituted is simply to stick it to “The Little Guy.”) ;-D

Starfoxy (#35): “Geoff B- I don’t think anyone is saying that the judges should be representative of the population (thereby requiring a different judge for every flavor of human), but rather that they should not be a homogenous group.”

Oh, I think homogeneity is FINE, as long as it’s the right KIND of homogeneity: the sort of homogeneity that embraces intolerance masquerading as tolerance; the kind of homogeneity that embraces “diversity”—as long as one thinks like one is SUPPOSED to think; and so on. ;-D