| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Octavius Hite
Joined: 28 Jan 2004
Location: Househunting, looking for a new bunker from which to convert the world to homosexuality.
|
 Posted: Tue Oct 04, 2005 10:22 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Your stats are nice but that has no bearing on the amount of woman on the court because I'm sure that out of that small % you could still find 4 or 5 qualified female jurists.
As for right wingers, since you already make up 80% of he court I would say you are well represented. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 04, 2005 10:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Octavius Hite wrote: |
Your stats are nice but that has no bearing on the amount of woman on the court because I'm sure that out of that small % you could still find 4 or 5 qualified female jurists.
As for right wingers, since you already make up 80% of he court I would say you are well represented. |
Except I'm not a right winger  , at least not by American standards. I agree with you that you could find 4 or 5 qualified female jurists, but you'd find 100 other males just as qualified. We got a great female in there, Sandra Day, and perhaps maybe we should've had another female in there instead of Clarence Thomas. But, should we really be evaluating possible court candidates based on racial and gender quotas? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Octavius Hite
Joined: 28 Jan 2004
Location: Househunting, looking for a new bunker from which to convert the world to homosexuality.
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 04, 2005 10:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ah the classic quota/affirmative action trap, what to do or say. Personally I think that all the judges should be women. I think that as a country Canada would be in very good hands if the whole court was female. I think that would be a good thing for America as well.
As for quotas per se I don't think its needed but I do think that 1 black guy and 1 woman is in no way even close to representative of the Americian Population. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 04, 2005 11:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dude: it's really time to change the title of this thread to "Canadian Supreme Court Nomination Offers Wedge to Attack U.S. Politics from Our Canadian Position of Moral Superiority (Again)." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 05, 2005 12:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| I do think that 1 black guy and 1 woman is in no way even close to representative of the Americian Population. |
You don't seem to be counting Ruth Bader Ginsburg as a woman. What do you categorize her as, pray tell? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 05, 2005 1:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
Except this thread isn't about Ginsburg or Thomas or O'Connor or Bush or Michael Moore or Affirmative Action or the U.S. population or even the "Radical Islamists" our host brings up.
This thread is supposed to be about the Canadian Supreme Court.
I'd expect to at least hear the name of the retiring judge or who the potential replacement nominees are, etc., rather than the usual anti-U.S. diatribe.
So tell us again: why did you start this thread? And why aren't Canadians capable of talking about Canada? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Bobster
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 05, 2005 6:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| Quote: |
| I do think that 1 black guy and 1 woman is in no way even close to representative of the Americian Population. |
You don't seem to be counting Ruth Bader Ginsburg as a woman. What do you categorize her as, pray tell? |
Um, it seems we have discovered that the thread is not about Canadians and thier Supreme Court - onoy a little has been presented to educate us about that - nor is it about the American Supreme Court.
It seems to be about how misinformed the opinions of some Canadians are about the makeup of the American Supreme Court.
The Bobster thinks it is really very funny.
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 05, 2005 6:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| The Bobster wrote: |
Um, it seems we have discovered that the thread is not about Canadians and thier Supreme Court - onoy a little has been presented to educate us about that - nor is it about the American Supreme Court.
It seems to be about how misinformed the opinions of some Canadians are about the makeup of the American Supreme Court.
The Bobster thinks it is really very funny.
|
If you keep posting like this, I'll have to call you "a gentleman" in public again...
In any case, well said. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Bobster
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 05, 2005 6:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| If you keep posting like this, I'll have to call you "a gentleman" in public again... |
Oh, God, please don't. I hate when that happens ...
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 05, 2005 7:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
How about this, I will do that when the US stops telling the rest of the world how we should act while it does whatever it wants with impunity. How bout that?
|
Ummm PS: NO I am not capable of talking about Canada as an entity in its own right, with virtues and flaws of its own. I am only capable of defining myself and my country in terms of what we are not. And we are proud, PROUD I say, of being NotAmericans. I'll say it again. We are NotAmericans! Hurray for us! And gosh-darn that world media for shoving American news down our throats. There isn't anything else happening in the world except what happens between the Rio Grande and the 49th parallel.
Is that close?
Sonny, you are an embarrassment to the continent. The Brits, the Irish, the Australians, the South Africans and the Kiwis have a view of their own country independent of their relationship with the US. If you can't do it, go back to your uni profs and complain that you were short-changed on your tuition.
You ain't sittin' on a bar stool in Edmonton talking to the local drunks anymore. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 05, 2005 8:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| We are NotAmericans! |
I'll have to let my Chilean friends know that they can rest easy.
Most Chileans dislike Americans calling themselves "Americans." They say that everyone who lives in the Americas is "American." They make it a point to specifically call us norteamericanos.
Some, but not too many, however, ask themselves: but what about Canada?
I think we have the answer to that now. There are two different countries, and two clearly different peoples: the norteamericanos and the noamericanos.
So it's not all fruitless, Ya-ta Boy. And this is the real virtue of this thread, designed to talk about Canadian Supreme Court politics... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 05, 2005 8:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
You ain't sittin' on a bar stool in Edmonton talking to the local drunks anymore.
|
Man, those were the days. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 05, 2005 9:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| As for quotas per se I don't think its needed but I do think that 1 black guy and 1 woman is in no way even close to representative of the Americian Population. |
Uhh, Octavius.
Here is an article about the current Canadian Supreme Court. Please scroll down and look at the picture, then tell us how many non-white faces you see.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Supreme_Court
Octavius, no one outside of Canada, not Americans, not Brits, or anybody else, is impressed by the self-righteous propagnada that our soft liberal elites serve up for public consumption. And mouthing that propagnada ad nauseum while travelling abroad is a surefire way to lose friends and alienate people. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Moldy Rutabaga
Joined: 01 Jul 2003
Location: Ansan, Korea
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 05, 2005 5:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| MY point was that like most of the REST of the WORLD the US appoints mostly older, white, men. Canada in its last 3 picks has made some innovative choices. |
My point again is that these people may be innovative, but Canada didn't pick them-- a small clique of lawyers and the PM picked them. Voters had zero say and there were no public or parliamentary hearings. I realize I made fun of the latest US appointee for being unattractive, but at least there's a procedure for determining her suitability.
| Quote: |
| I'm sure that out of that small % you could still find 4 or 5 qualified female jurists. |
And this is the central problem. Affirmative action can be a good way of redressing imbalances, but the supreme court, at the very least, should be a place where gravitas and judicial experience counts for way more than being part of a trendy demographic. It's unfortunate that women and minorities and left-handed lesbian vegan Eskimos were underrepresented in law school in the 60s, but until things even out, I'd rather have the best people deliberating rather than someone who's 'good enough'.
Ken:> |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Man known as The Man
Joined: 29 Mar 2003
Location: 3 cheers for Ted Haggard oh yeah!
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 06, 2005 1:31 pm Post subject: Re: Canada prepares to choose a new supreme court justice. |
|
|
no |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
