With Bush’s appointment of yet another white Catholic male, it appears that diversity was mistakenly taken out in the Harriet Miers shoot-out. That’s unfortunate.
Ruth Marcus of The Washington Post writes:
“The Miers pick represented the elevation of gender over quality; instead of adding to the sense that it is normal and appropriate to have women on the high court, the choice made it look as if presidents have to make sacrifices to scrounge up female nominees.
“But I also find it disturbing that the drive for diversity has been so quickly, so blithely abandoned: Been there, tried that, now we can pick who we REALLY want. Diversity at the expense of quality is no virtue, but quality without diversity is nonetheless a vice.”
Posted by Melissa Cooley
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
53 Comments
The diversity we should be looking for is diversity of thought, opinion, and reason. We shouldn’t mistake the accidents of one’s sex, religion, or ethnic background as being equivalent.
For example, a white, Catholic male born to a poor, working class family, who’s had to struggle to achieve his position, might be more sensitive to issues of gender equality than a woman with Protestant fundamentalist leanings.
I’ll take diversity of reason over diversity of appearance every time.
Who is Ruth Marcus and why should I care what she thinks?
I don’t care if Bush nominates a purple 1 legged hermaphrodite as long as that person bases their decision on the text and original intent of the people who wrote that text.
Looking for the word “diversity” in the constitution. Can’t find it. Hmmm
Joe Blow,
No, but in Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 of the Constitution, you CAN find this:
“Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.”
That ‘3/5ths’ (namely, African-descended slaves) is why we need diversity on the Court.
As for the Heckler’s legal fantasy of ‘original intent,’ please. I think the passage above shows that always holding ourselves to the ‘original intent’ would be unworkable and unjust.
I believe in a living Constitution, not a dead one.
CF
There is a process for changing the constitution. Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 was changed, the process worked, eventually. As agregious as that portion of the constitution was, the alternative to it would be that we would all speak with a British accent, or possibly the German language.
For all of the casual observers of politics who may show up here, the phrase “living constitution” is Marxist/Progressive/Social Democrat for “make it up as you go”.
does melissa cooley have problem with catholics?
why the hell would she make the ‘catholic’ distinction?
this is stupid.
oh no! another catholic!!!!!!
if only they had the courage to respond to their posts would my post matter. instead we just talk to ourselves.
the editorial board is full of cowards.
There is no equal opportunity employer, racial quotas, or any other non-professional qualifications that the seats on the Supreme Court are subjected to.
Ah Melissa,
Diversity! Diversity for a liberal is:
A liberal black man, a liberal woman, a liberal jew, a liberal catholic, a liberal hispanic……..
Heckler,
I think what CF means is that the founding fathers could not have anticipated every historical,social and political development since 1786.
It would be hard to know the “original intent”, if there even was one, with regard to issues like: corporations having legal status as “individuals”, the commerce clause allowing the federal government to impose wide ranging restrictions on states based on interstate commerce arguments, whether women should have the vote.
A very interesting book is “Active Liberty : Interpreting Our Democratic Constitution” by justice Stephen Breyer. In it, he lays out a strong case for a “living constitution” ala CF…and he contrasts this with the “original intent” arguments of legal minds like Scalia.
In essence, he argues for what the founding fathers were attempting to do: to establish a state where the rule of law is paramount, where the dignity and freedom of the individual is preserved, a state where one is free to speak his/her mind, a state where all stakeholders have a right to decide who their representatives should be.
Heckler,
And for the causal observers of politics who may show up here, the meaning of ‘Judicial Restraint’ is the selective excising of whatever provisions of the law happen to offend my sensibilites, on the grounds that they aren’t consistent with whatever I want to claim were the framers’ ‘original intentions.’
Brian,
Our posts crossed in the mail. Yours makes the case much than does mine.
Interezting that esod uses Ms. Cooley’s email address as her/his own. When people like esod speak or write social discourse is set back a decade or two…I think that explains why they have no need of email addresses of their own.
CF,
I understood you perfectly :-))
I am not racist, but in any job or appointment I say, MAY THE BEST PERSON WIN!Any reasonable person, minority or not, should agree.Screw diversity if it sacrifices good government!
Brian CF
In many cases “original intent” is very clear, the second amendment being a perfect example. Many of the founders gave speaches and wrote articles making it perfectly clear what they meant.
The religion clause in the first amentment is very clear, look how it’s been bastardized.
The takings clause in the Fifth amendment. Look at the Kelo decision. The original intent is very clear, look what happened.
As for the commerce clause, it is probably the most bastardized clause of all. And Stephen Breyer is an intlectual idiot who has forgotten his oath. He cited a foreign death penalty case as justification for a decision he came to, and that foreign death penalty case cited ended up being reversed. He has no business being on the court after pulling crap like that.
I listened to a speach Breyer gave regarding how he came to differing opinions on seemingly similar “ten commandments” cases. His reasoning was utterly bizzare, he gave the impression of a person living in a reality of his own making. It would have been laughable if he were not in a position of such influence.
There is a long thoughtfull process for changing the constitution. “living constitution” is the phrase used by people who cannot muster the votes to change the things they despise about our constitution.
Man….some people can hardly wait to jump on the ‘diversity is dead’ bandwagon..after the President appointed a highly experienced person to the Supreme Court.
“Quality without diversity is nonetheless a vice”?? So, should we demand quotas and forget any qualifications at all, as long as we have a ‘proper’ race/gender/ and ethnic mix?
Sheeeesh.
Man, some people just wake up in the morning expecting to be offended thoughout the day.Why not say something good about the highly experienced person, instead of finding something bad about everything else?Sheeeesh.
So Heckler,
What is the original intent of the Constitution? Where is it to be found except in the second hand interpretations of those reading what the framers said? We know from Biblical interpretation the the “original intent” is in the mind of the reader. For example, when Jesus exhorts us to be ready to give up that which is most dear to us, some early Protestant groups used this as a sanction for young girls to give up their virginity to a man ASAP. I doubt this is what Jesus had in mind, but you can’t really throw it out as a possible alternative without speaking directly to the speaker..i.e. Jesus.
The original intention or meaning of particular constitutional provisions can be understood at different levels of generality and the choice among such levels is arbitrary. For example, the US Constitution states “Representatives… shall be apportioned among the several States.” Clearly at the time the document was written and ratified, the “several States” referred to were thirteen in number. If any new states in addition to these do not by definition comprise the “several States,” why can’t phrases like “cruel and unusual punishment” be changed deliberately?
Originalists of all stripes often argue that where the Constitution is silent, judges should not “read rights into” it. Rights implicating abortion, sex and sexual orientation equality, and capital punishment are often thus described as issues that the Constitution does not speak to, and hence should not be recognized by the judiciary. Yet, the Ninth Amendment, provides that “[t]he enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” Original intent thus calls for just the opposite of what the text of the Constitution and “original intent” of the founders arguably affirm, creating an inconsistency in the practice of at least one branch of Originalism
cf,
“That ‘3/5ths’ (namely, African-descended slaves) is why we need diversity on the Court.”
I’m interested in why you seem to think this part of the constitution cries out for diversity? How would diversity effect this clause?
In the first hundred years of this nation the Supreme Court did nothing to relieve slavery. The War between the States and the thirteenth amendment was the end of slavery. We did not need an activist court for that!
Our founding fathers were smart enough to give us the means to ammend and adjust our constitution for the times. If necessary and if the people approved.
I’m always amused when left-wing nitwits use that 3/5ths clause to imply that the men that gave us this country were somehow racists. It shows a complete misundersatnding for the reason of that clause or a disengeuousness bordering on intellectual dishonesty.
In your case I assume yuou are just stupid, your posts do not reveal much honest thought. You mainly just parrot the DNC talking points. You remind me of the WE editors.
Brian,
Now you, on the other hand, seem to come up with an original thought every now and then. Unfortunately it usually gets lost in your inabillity to stick to the point.
As you pick and choose the passages and ammendments that you need to ramble on you seem to miss the big picture. There was great debate and disagreement concerning the Bill of Rights. It is relative easy to determine “Original Intent”. If the 9th ammendment was the last ammendment then you might be able to somehow rationalize that it was OK for the Supreme Court to make up new rights for the queers and abortionists. However, there is another ammendment that seem to clarify this discrepancy. The 10th ammendment.
Eessentially the 10th amendment states that any power not granted to the federal government belongs to the states or to the people. Now this seems to be plain enough, it gives the states the right to make laws concerning topics not covered by the Constition. This pretty much negates all of the pointless ramblings of your last post.
The first ten ammendments were given to us as a package. You must study and understand them all to to determine the original intent of any one of them.
Esod,
Thanks SO much for the left handed compliments. I’m sorry that I can’t reciprocate. I’m always reminded of what Ellen Glasgow once remarked when I read your posts: “He knows so little and knows it so fluently.”
As with the Biblical literalists you make a bold statement unsupported by the facts. In the case of the biblical literalists the statement is something like “it’s easy to discern the true meaning of the text of the Bible” – obviously fallacious since there are literally thousands of sects interpreting the texts in completely different ways. In the case of original intent constitutionalists the idea is the same..”the original intent of the founding fathers is easy to discern from the Constitution itself”..again countered by the fact that we are even on this site having a discussion about the subject at all.
Now let’s turn more specifically to your misinterpretation of amendments 9 and 10. Note that amendment 10 deals with non-enumerated powers granted to the states. Amendment 9 however deals with the rights of the individual, whether enumerated or not. How you make the connection from one to the other is beyond me. Further, the Supremacy clause says, in essence, that if a state measure conflicts with a federal requirement, the state provision must give way. And who is to decide when these conflicts arise and how they are to be settled? The Supreme Court, of course.
I agree with you, however, when you say that this conversation has gotten off track. The “original intent” of the blog was to discuss whether Alito’s nomination represents a disservice to diversity. As I stated, diversity doesn’t come from the accidents of one’s birth – color, sex, religion, height, weight, national origin. Diversity exists when there are honest and profound differencezs of opinion on important matters and there is an attempt to persuade through discussion. You have proved that, while you differ in opinion with some who’ve posted, your intent has never been to persuade.
Brian,
Again you ramble. I made a point summarized by my last paragraph:
“The first ten amendments were given to us as a package. You must study and understand them all to determine the original intent of any one of them.”
I’m not sure why you try to frequently bring religion into the discussion to make a point. Perhaps you are relying on a previously perceived victory in a debate on religion. However, I disagree with your analogy.
It is very hard to “discern the true meaning of the text of the Bible”. Great and pious men have spent their life trying and in the end disagree.
Diversity has no place on the Supreme Court. I would be happy to see a scholar nominated that has dedicated his life to the law. One that will set his personal prejudices aside and tries to determine the ‘original intent’ of the constitution.
Alito seems to be such a man.
Esod,
Exactly what I would have said. I’d suggest you now take that advice and study them. You might start by asking yourself what the unenumerated rights guaranteed to us are.
…and also which branch of government is there to protect the citizen from infringement of these rights..rights which are ours by birth – not rights “given” to us by the Constitution.
Oh, and I use the Biblical stuff a lot as an illustration of yet another example of the great travesty of trying to find the “original intent” in a bunch of words on a page.
So, for example, Jesus never spoke one word in opposition to slavery. But his intent, as so eloquently spoken by Lincoln, was this (paraphrased)..’as I would not want to be a slave, so I should not want to be a master.’
Brian
Three short posts instead of one long rambling one! I’m not sure that is an improvement.
I am not sure that Jesus cared one whit about slavery. He was concerned with saving our souls. Your status as slave or master has little to do with your salvation.
Esod,
Yes..three posts..rambling perhaps but not devoid of meaningful content. Can you say the same?
So, what are some of the inalienable and unenumerated rights guaranteed to us from birth NOT specified in the Bill of Rights? After all, these guys were children of the Enlightenment..and Rousseau said “man is BORN FREE but everywhere he is in chains…”I’m afraid you’re going to have to step out on a limb and actually commit yourself to things not explicitly found in the Constitution but which are nonetheless there.
As far as Jesus is concerned, once again you perceive your truth to be THE TRUTH. There is a large movement in Christianity which rejects the Pauline blood atonement view. Jesus was VERY concerned about the life and comfort of the individual..he was a party animal. He is depicted eating, drinking, lounging, and enjoying life quite often. He speaks in the Good Samaritan of easing the pain of even your enemies. Could have just left the Samaritan there to die if his only concern was the afterlife.
esodHE WHO WOULD BE FIRST WILL BE LAST.NUFF SAID.
ESOD’S FABLES?
:-} Tracy !
Focus Brian. Diversity.
You’re rambling again.
Esod–
In the words of the immortal Bard: I do earnestly desire that we may be better strangers.
To save your soul you would free any slaves, sell your possesions and follow Christ. Ownership.Focus esod, focus.Try reading only the red letters for a while, maybe you’ll catch on.
Tracy,
The discussion is about diversity on the Supreme Court. It has drifted to a discusion about the Constitution and the original intent of the founding fathers.
Ms Cooley is usually a little fuzzy in her BLOGs, but I think she is mourning the fact that O’Conner is being replaced with a white, Catholic male.
I haven’t found any ‘red letters’ in the constitution.
You seem to have gone to the ‘Brian School of Public Discourse’. Rambling with no discernible point.
You’re just not quick enough to stay with the rambling conversation?I know what the original post said.Duh.Which book features red letters where the main character speaks?You mentioned his name, sparking this “rambling” debate. Remember?
Esod,
If you had bothered to read the thread, you’d have seen that it wasn’t I who brought up the constitution versus diversity. I merely went with the flow..something you’re either unwilling or unable to do, so you hid under the cover of “rambling”. Now since we don’t want any MORE rambling, ANSWER my question about the unenumerable rights.
BTW, diversity and constitutional interpretation ARE tied together. Sorry you can’t see that without diversity of opinion you have a puppet court for a dictatorial regime.
I’m with you on this one Brian, if you want to stay on point, then point it is!
“I am not sure that Jesus cared one whit about slavery. He was concerned with saving our souls. Your status as slave or master has little to do with your salvation.”
On point?Maybe not, but that’s OK.I was at least willing to follow your conversation without trying to correct you like it’s my business to do so. If you insist on being moderator let us know so we can ignore you if we want to have a little side conversation.
Thank you, Tracy.
And, please, esod, quit being a sod and stop mis-using Ms. Cooley’s e-mail address, unless you REALLY ARE her—which I highly doubt.
Dearest Tracy,
I’ve actually tried to go a little easy on you. I assume you are a girl (I may be wrong Tracy could be your last name). Other than being a little cheerleader for Brian you don’t add much to the discussions.
Brian was the first to bring the name of our Blessed Savior into the thread. I imagine he took a Western Religion 101 course in his liberal arts studies; his understanding of the scriptures goes no deeper than that.
My point was merely to illustrate the inappropriateness of his obsession to share his liberal interpretations of the scriptures in this particular thread on the Supreme Court.
Now help me here, please. Brian writes:
“Jesus was VERY concerned about the life and comfort of the individual..he was a party animal. He is depicted eating, drinking, lounging, and enjoying life quite often.”
In his liberal interpretation of the Holy Scriptures he summarizes the ministry of Christ as no more than a traveling party. And you in your condescending attitude have the balls to tell me, “Try reading only the red letters for a while, maybe you’ll catch on.” Please dear help me out. Are you sitting on Brian’s lap when you write these words or do you merely worship him from afar?
Esod,
You’re such a condescending snob that I’ll now pull al Kingsfield on you (from THE PAPER CHASE – the movie about the law..ever watch it???) You’re now shrouded.
You have nothing to contribute but a smug and condescending contempt to every thread I’ve seen you post on. You have just proved the theory that there is no limit to human stupidity or arrogance.
“They never open their mouths without subtracting from the sum of human knowledge.”
Esod,
I’d invite you to look at:
Matthew 26:20, Luke 7:36, Luke 11:37, Luke 14:15, Luke 22:14, John 12:2, Matthew 9:10, Luke 2:43, John 5:1, Luke 5:29, Luke 14:16, John 2:1…
then again, I’m sure my interpretation (and that of several hundred thousand Christians) misses the original intent. ROFL
Wow Brian,
That was a little snitty!
Now you’re using Hollywood instead of the Bible to make your point!
I guess that is an improvement.
Somebody is a dumb-ass.I’ll let the other bloggers vote on who it is.
Dear Brian,
Please do not use the scriptures to make your points with me. It is obvious that you do not understand their intent or meaning.
I had a friend that admonished me once to be very wary of people that would use single lines of scripture to make a point. They go around with them ready like arrows in a quiver to pull out and use on you.
The very fact that you use these very scriptures to make the point that Jesus was a ‘party animal’ shows an arrogance and ignorance that borders on heresy!
Matthew 26:20:
This particular scripture appears during a passage describing the last supper and Jesus is predicting the betrayal of Judas. It was a time of sorrow and shame for Twelve Apostles. A time of disappointment for the Saviour. YOU USE IT TO ILLUSTATE THAT JESUS WAS A “PARTY ANIMAL”!
Luke 7:36:
This is in a passage describing his supper at the house of a Pharisee. This occasion was used to admonish the Pharisee for his inhospitality. This is where the woman washed the Saviour’s feet with her tears. YOU USE IT TO ILLUSTATE THAT JESUS WAS A “PARTY ANIMAL”!
Luke 11:37:
At this particular dinner, Jesus admonishes the Pharisee for his hypocrisy. YOU USE IT TO ILLUSTATE THAT JESUS WAS A “PARTY ANIMAL”!
Luke 14:15:
This scripture sets the scene for the Parable of the Great Supper. We are unstructed to feed the poor and to not neglect our salvation. YOU USE IT TO ILLUSTATE THAT JESUS WAS A “PARTY ANIMAL”!
Luke 22:14:
During this particular passage Christ is preparing the Twelve Apostles for his pending sacrifice on the cross. He explains the New Covenant. This is the foundation for the Eucharist! YOU USE IT TO ILLUSTATE THAT JESUS WAS A “PARTY ANIMAL”!
John 12:2:
This is the Supper at Bethany! I invite you to read this whole chapter! Then come back to me and try to USE IT TO ILLUSTATE THAT JESUS WAS A “PARTY ANIMAL”!
Matthew 9:10:
He uses this supper to set the foundation for his ministry to the heathens. Here he told the parable of the New Cloth and New Bottles. YOU USE IT TO ILLUSTATE THAT JESUS WAS A “PARTY ANIMAL”!
Luke 2:43:
Jesus and his family were celebrating the Feast of the Passover! This is the time when he was twelve years old and while participating in this religious celebration he informs his mother of his upcoming ministry. YOU USE IT TO ILLUSTATE THAT JESUS WAS A “PARTY ANIMAL”!
No my friend, please don’t use scriptures to make your inane points with me. You diminish yourself.
I invite you to read these scriptures. But read the whole chapter! Merely doing a GOOGLE search for ‘Jesus’ and ’supper’ is not enough to understand the scriptures.
Be careful Tracy, your name is on the ballot!
Thanks, let me know who wins!
Dear Tracy
If it is any consolation, I didn’t vote for you.
I hear a gnat.
My shroud is leaking
yup, a gnat.
WWJD?
I think that the Founding Fathers were too generous with the 3/5ths thing.