Yes, it was. And I’ve written more since then in an attempt to elaborate, clarify and explain. But don’t let that stop you from moving past your very first thought. I know how having two thoughts a day can be a strain.

In any case, given that each individual is unique then we all have a minority view.

Absolutely! Why, rich white people of privileged make up such a small percentage of the total population that we should make sure they get a voice in things.

Yes, “Jay”, you said slavery was “immoral” and you also said there was nothing that the Supreme Court could do about it.

No, YOU’RE the one that doesn’t understand the difference. Because I said slavery was not un-constitutional, you equated that with me being “okay” with slavery and I never said any such thing. I also didn’t say there wasn’t anything the Supreme Court could do about it. They had a constitutional issue to decide. Their role was not to “do something about it.” You need to take a civics class pal.

when the Constitution grants them broad power and authority over the Laws of the United States.

No, the constitution does not grant them “broad power and authority over the laws of the United States.” You are wrong. They are merely a check against the other two arms of our government and have no more or no less power than the executive or legislative branches of our government.

Arguing with something I never said. Having fun with that? I bet you win all such arguments.

Hey, did you ever get to South Carolina (or Alabama)? Did you learn anything? Get back to me when you get a chance! Stay free! Cheers!

Actually I have lived in both Alabama and South Carolina. I also live in a majority-black city. I have no idea what your point is. Then again, I suspect you don’t either.

…And tiresome adolescent Ayn Rand bulljive tropes.

It’s instructive that you believe individual liberty is a “bulljive trope.” Such is the state of the modern left.

Yet again, this is what you wrote:

A strong argument could be made for someone who has a minority view (black, Latino, Asian, gay, female, what have you) and could bring a perspective shared by a significant amount of the country but lacking in the current court over someone who has “better” judicial credentials.

Now you can keep spinning away, but the fact remains that you are in favor of incorporating race into the selection criteria. If you don’t believe this then why on earth did you cite inclusion in various racial groups?

You can defend this as merely trying to incorporate “minority views” but by definition such an approach will lead to the incorporation of race, among other factors. You are saying something and then refusing to follow it to its logical conclusion.

In any case, given that each individual is unique then we all have a minority view.

An investigation that was explicitly told NOT to look up the chain of command?

An Army investigation that was censored by the Pentagon?

An investigation that prosecuted low level thugs while protecting the chain of command at the highest levels, a chain of evidence that led directly to the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States and his Principals?

The primary Army investigator of the Abu Ghraib scandal called for an investigation of the Republican Bush administration just a few weeks ago.

Read that very slowly, the primary Army investigator of the Abu Ghraib torture prison called for an investigation of the Republican President Bush administration for war crimes.

“Major General Antonio Taguba called for an independent commission to investigate war crimes committed by senior members of the Bush Administration”

Major General Taguba explicitly stated that, “”there is no longer any doubt as to whether the [Bush] administration has committed war crimes. The only question that remains to be answered is whether those who ordered the use of torture will be held to account.”

“Jay Tea,” right wingers like yourself have been consistent apologists for WAR CRIMES.

Where is your conscience, “Jay Tea”?

Clearly I need a better class of stalker.

Abu Ghraib? You mean the abuse committed by a small group of assholes? Abuse that was reported by another soldier to the Army, broken by the Army, resulted in an internal investigation that convicted all the involved parties and resulted in the discipline of the prison’s commanding officer? That incident?

The system worked there, Zython. A wrong was committed, and it was handled responsibly. By the Army.

J.

By the way, Colin, I posted a link as to why the experience of a non-white male can be important in rendering decisions. People just have a natural tendancy to be myopic about issues that don’t affect them.

And I guess I won’t have to wait for you to keep pretending you didn’t imply that you don’t see race. (At least Colbert says it outright, but then again he’s parodying Bill O’Reilly type blowhard wingnuts, you’re merely self-parody).

Hey, did you ever get to South Carolina (or Alabama)? Did you learn anything? Get back to me when you get a chance! Stay free! Cheers!

Yes. Among other examples. But you keep ignoring that it was an example among many to illustrate the general idea, not the specific thing that had to be particularly considered. You keep trying to force things into your little, narrow box to discuss something else and I’m not going to follow you there.

I really don’t think I am going out on a limb here to think that you are in favor of incorporating race into the selection criteria.

I love it when people tell me what it is I think (Yea! An other nickel for me!).

Allow me to me more clear: I am not specifically in favor of incorporating race or making a case for including any other specific attribute. I am in favor of taking a broad view of what constitutes someone’s “qualifications”. You apparently seem (see what I just did there?) to see this as my saying race should be part of the selection criteria when actually at most I’m saying it could be incidentally. Not because someone is saying “let’s look specifically at race” but rather “let’s look at the experiences you’ve had (which, BTW, you’ve probably had because of your race”).

I focused on race because I find it particularly odious.

And far easier than, y’know, responding to what I actually said.

I am saying it should come down to one’s strength as a judge and legal scholar. How one decides this is an inexact science, but I would hope that race could be left out.

We seem to absolutely agree that it’s an inexact science. But if it is wrong to specifically consider a particular aspect of a person isn’t it similarly wrong to specifically exclude it? Particularly when assessing someone’s strength as a judge and legal scholar, something informed not just by one’s studies but also by one’s experiences? Wouldn’t it benefit the people the Court is supposedly serving to have people up there who can view the law not only from a legal scholar angle but also from a perspective originating outside the ivory tower?

There is a minimum level of “legal qualifications” a nominee for the SC should have. But I’d say once that threshold is reached, start looking for those who have experience not currently represented in the Court. I don’t need the top graduate, as long as they’re in the top x%. After that I’d say “OK, you’ve got enough legal creds. Now, what else you got?”

…And tiresome adolescent Ayn Rand bulljive tropes.

(Yes, I realize that’s redundant.)

I’m still waiting for you to show me where I said I don’t see race. Get back to me on that when you get a chance.

Glad to hear it. Then I suppose you are outraged over the Obama’s Administration’s position on wiretapping as a violation:

http://www.eff.org/press/archives/2009/04/05

I also imagine you despise McCain-Feingold as a travesty against free speech and campus speech codes.

I am a believer in the primacy of the individual and individual liberty. Big government is incompatible with that, given its attendant regulations and restrictions on behavior.

sanctioned? “gave effective or authoritative approval or consent to”??

Sanctioned, or something like more “didn’t prohibit”? (I.e., “No comment.”)

Still adorable. How old are you, 14?

Did you ever ask any black people about their perspectives? Here’s a thought: maybe you could go to South Carolina. Talk to the South Carolina Republican Party (or Alabama). Pretend you want to join up! I bet they would have some interesting ideas to share with you.

While some Libertarians actually vote their conscience, most fall in line like lemmings behind the Republican Party.

Modern day Libertarianism is seductive to young boys, it appeals to the ME, ME, ME impulse of the two year old in them. Most adults grow out of that and recognize that it’s not all about them.

There is a streak of LIBERTARIANISM that is at the heart of LIBERALISM, though: The Liberty of the Individual, Intellectual Freedom, the Liberty of Worship, the Freedom to Speak Ones Mind, and the tenacious protection of Civil Liberties especially as codified in the Bill of Rights.

That he “works” for the neo-con–artist Commentary Magazine also says a lot about the current caliber of Neoconservatives “intellectuals”.

At this point “Jay Tea” is arguing with himself, both literally and figuratively. Literally in the sense that he’s fighting multiple sides of some of his arguments, and figuratively in the sense that he’s screaming obscenities like an angry old man shaking his fist at those durn kids who keep getting on his lawn.

Clearly I’ve overestimated him as an intellectual sparing partner.

I’m a registered Libertarian, idiot.

and non-ironically claiming not to see race.

Ah, arguing with something I never said. Where did I say that I don’t see race?