Why no debate on white guys qualifications??

[Tmy]

Im talking about GW's supreme court nominee John Roberts. Now I vaugely remeber Clarence Thomas' nomination. There was great debate of his lack of qualifications and how he was some sort of affirmative action case.

Fast forward to now. Is Roberts the most "qualified" person to be a supreme ct judge? Really, hes a rookie appleas court judge. Oh hold on, hes not in line to be just a SC justice, BUT CHIEF JUSTICE!!! They want to skip him to the head of the class, cause apparently the other seasoned justices are a bunch of idiots. Who cares about all the time and experience they have in the Sup Ct.

The old anti affirmative action mantra is 'the job should go to the best qualified". Thats bullflop. The truth is who you know matters far more than a persons qualifications.

[The idea]

Originally posted by Tmy
They want to skip him to the head of the class, cause apparently the other seasoned justices are a bunch of idiots. Who cares about all the time and experience they have in the Sup Ct.

Would you say that anyone who retains a job in a particular field for a long time should automatically be considered to be "highly qualified" in that field?

[Tmy]

Originally posted by The idea
Would you say that anyone who retains a job in a particular field for a long time should automatically be considered to be "highly qualified" in that field?

Yes. Especially when Supreme Court Justice is the pinniacle of the legal field.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Tmy
Oh hold on, hes not in line to be just a SC justice, BUT CHIEF JUSTICE!!! They want to skip him to the head of the class, cause apparently the other seasoned justices are a bunch of idiots. Who cares about all the time and experience they have in the Sup Ct.

I think you're rather missing the point. First off, the chief justice has little more power than any of the other judges. His vote never counts for more than other judges, and about the only decision he ever gets to make unilaterally is who writes the opinion, and even then only if he's part of the majority opinion. Beyond that, it's largely symbolic, which means that he'll actually have to merit special attention in order to get any.

As to not bumping up other judges, well, that's hardly new. It's pretty typical. And frankly, Bush earned the right to nominate whoever he wants to whatever position he wants. That's called winning the election. If the democrats want to fight the nomination, they're certainly entitled to do so, but I wouldn't recommend it.

[The idea]

Soon Roberts will have experience as a Chief Justice, making him more qualified for that role than the Supreme Court Judges who don't have experience in the role of Chief Justice?

[Tmy]

So its like taking some cop whos 2 years into the force and making him chief of police. Sounds good.

Now lets go back to complaining about some hispanic kid who gets into Yale with less than perfect SAT scores.;)

[NoZed Avenger]

Originally posted by Tmy
Im talking about GW's supreme court nominee John Roberts. Now I vaugely remeber Clarence Thomas' nomination. There was great debate of his lack of qualifications and how he was some sort of affirmative action case.

Fast forward to now. Is Roberts the most "qualified" person to be a supreme ct judge? Really, hes a rookie appleas court judge. Oh hold on, hes not in line to be just a SC justice, BUT CHIEF JUSTICE!!! They want to skip him to the head of the class, cause apparently the other seasoned justices are a bunch of idiots. Who cares about all the time and experience they have in the Sup Ct.

The old anti affirmative action mantra is 'the job should go to the best qualified". Thats bullflop. The truth is who you know matters far more than a persons qualifications.

Are you contending that the same people who were claiming Thomas was unqualified are now saying that Roberts is qualified?

Cite?

[crimresearch]

Originally posted by Tmy
So its like taking some cop whos 2 years into the force and making him chief of police. Sounds good.

Now lets go back to complaining about some hispanic kid who gets into Yale with less than perfect SAT scores.;)

Always amazing to see how little the real world conforms to people's notions about how it should work.

Does being head umpire mean that you have to be the best player in the sport?

Does being CEO of Ford mean that you have to be the best mechanic in the country?

Chief Justices are often selected from outside.

[varwoche]

Originally posted by Tmy
Im talking about GW's supreme court nominee John Roberts. Now I vaugely remeber Clarence Thomas' nomination. There was great debate of his lack of qualifications and how he was some sort of affirmative action case.

Fast forward to now. Is Roberts the most "qualified" person to be a supreme ct judge? Really, hes a rookie appleas court judge. By every account I've heard, Roberts' has outstanding qualifications. That was not the case with Thomas.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by varwoche
By every account I've heard, Roberts' has outstanding qualifications. That was not the case with Thomas.

Thats my point. If you look at their bios, they really arent that far apart.

As for the mechanic vs CEO thing. id expect the top mechanic to have a history of being a mechanic. Not be 2 years into fixing cars. Unless he was some phenome. Which Roberts is not.

[peptoabysmal]

As noted, the office of Chief Justice requires that its occupant be able to perform
in many demanding roles — as presiding officer of the Court, judge, constitutional
scholar, statesman, consensus-builder, advocate, and administrator. Nevertheless,
there is no formal list of qualifications for the job — not even a requirement that a
nominee be a lawyer, although every Justice to date has been a lawyer.


There are no constitutional provisions setting forth professional qualifications for federal
judges in general, nor do any statutes set forth professional qualifications for federal judges
with lifetime appointments. (Judges with lifetime appointments include the Supreme
Court’s Justices and judges on the U.S. district courts, the U.S. courts of appeals, and the
U.S. Court of International Trade). “The very few statutory professional prerequisites apply
only to nominees to federal courts whose judges are not constitutionally entitled to ‘good
Behaviour’ [i.e., lifetime] tenure.� CRS Report 95-404A, Professional Qualifications for
Appointment to the Federal Judiciary, by P. L. Morgan (archived; available from D. Steven
Rutkus).

http://leahy.senate.gov/issues/SupremeCourt/PDFs/ChiefJusticeResponsibilities.pdf

[varwoche]

Originally posted by Tmy
Thats my point. If you look at their bios, they really arent that far apart. Fair enough, now you have me wondering. Care to post the resumes?

[crimresearch]

Originally posted by Tmy
Thats my point. If you look at their bios, they really arent that far apart.

As for the mechanic vs CEO thing. id expect the top mechanic to have a history of being a mechanic. Not be 2 years into fixing cars. Unless he was some phenome. Which Roberts is not.

Moving of goalposts noted.

Chief Justice is not a promotion from regular justice...

Any more than being CEO of Ford is a promotion from mechanic, or being Chief of police is a promotion from patrolman.

And in all 3 cases, bring people in at the top, from the outside, is not that unusual.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by varwoche
Fair enough, now you have me wondering. Care to post the resumes?

Associate Justice Clarence Thomas was born in the Pin Point community of Georgia.

• Attended Conception Seminary. Received an A.B., cum laude, from Holy Cross College and a J.D. from Yale Law School in 1974.
• Was admitted to law practice in Missouri in 1974 and served as an assistant attorney general of Missouri from 1974–1977.
• He was an attorney with the Monsanto Company from 1977–1979
• Served as a legislative assistant to Senator John Danforth from 1979–1981.
• From 1981–1982, he served as assistant secretary for civil rights in the U.S. Department of Education
• Was chairman of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission from 1982–1990.
• He became a judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in 1990.
• President Bush nominated him as an associate justice of the Supreme Court, and he took his seat October 23, 1991.




NAME -- John Glover Roberts Jr.

AGE-BIRTH DATE -- 50; Jan. 27, 1955, in Buffalo, N.Y.

EDUCATION -- B.A., Harvard University, 1976; J.D., Harvard Law School, 1979.

CAREER -- Nominated Monday to be chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court; nominated in July to be associate justice of the Supreme Court; confirmed to U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on May 8, 2003; principal deputy solicitor general, U.S. Justice Department, 1989-93; lawyer, Hogan & Hartson, Washington, D.C., 1986-89, 1993-2003; associate counsel to President Reagan, White House Counsel's Office, 1982-86; special assistant to attorney general, U.S. Justice Department, 1981-82; law clerk for U.S. Supreme Court Justice William H. Rehnquist when he was an associate justice, 1980-81; law clerk for Judge Henry Friendly, 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, 1979-80

[Tmy]

Originally posted by crimresearch

And in all 3 cases, bring people in at the top, from the outside, is not that unusual.

Im not saying the prez doesnt have that ability or that its uncommon. He could nominate J-lo if he wanted too.

My point has more to do with the reaction towards a minority candidate vs the white male candidate.

Looking at the bios its not so obvious a difference on qualifications. Yet Roberts is considered to have "outstanding qualifications" while Thomas was an affirmative action political appointee. I wonder what the talk would be if Roberts was a minority?

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by crimresearch
Moving of goalposts noted.

Chief Justice is not a promotion from regular justice...
How so? The difference between a CEO of Ford and a mechanic is obvious as is the difference between a street cop and a police chief (though perhaps not quite as much), but what is the fundemental diference between a regular judge and a SC judge?

[Skeptic]

The reason he gets grilled a lot more is that when you have official or, in the case of the SC, unofficial affirmative action, naturaly every black candidate is seen, unless proven otherwise, as not being the best guy for the job, but merely the best guy with dark skin for the job. Naturally, this means that whenever a black guy is nominated, people will look much harder to see if he really is the best, since there is a good cause to think that he might not be.

You can thank affirmative action for that: designed to ease the white suspicion that blacks are less intelligent and qualified for professional jobs than whites, it makes sure that a large numbers of those blacks who now become professionals ARE less intelligent and qualified for their professional jobs than whites, having been given preferntial treatment.

Those who suffer the most from this, of course, are qualified blacks. For all I know Thomas IS the best man for the job; but because he is black, this needs to be proven with far greater rigor than for a non-white candidate. In the "old days", less blacks made it to college or graduate school, but if they DID, you knew they were, on average, as good as--if anything, better--than the whites who did it. Now, due to affirmative action, it is the other way around.

ETA: When you eliminate affirmative action, things will impove. Consider Dr. Rice and Gen. Powell. Virtually nobody suspected they are unqualified for their high-level jobs. Why? Not only because of their record, but also because it is clear that Bush appoints those he likes best, or thinks are best, without concern to skin color. Had Bush been searching high and low for a black woman in particular, many more would have suspected Rice might not be the best choice.

[Thumper]

There is a different problem here. The problem with Bush nominating Roberts to CJ is the same as Bush pushing to get Frist as majority leader... neither Frist nor Roberts has been in the institution long enough to understand it.

With Frist, this was shown by his threat to eliminate the fillibuster on judicial nominees... a treasured Senate institution in itself.

With Roberts, what will he try to overturn in the USSC?

To say the CJ is only first among equals is wrong. While thier votes count the same, the CJ is responsible for directing the entire federal court system in the US. The CJ is also the poster boy for the USSC. Who are the greatest justices of the USSC? Marshall and Taft. The first formed the USSC out of nothingness, whereas the second made it usable for the modern world. They were both CJs.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by Skeptic


Those who suffer the most from this, of course, are qualified blacks. .

But qualifications have little to do with who gets the job. Roberts is an example.

AA was put in place at many businessess and organization to directly combat the hiring preferences for whites. Because its the "who ya know" that drives many of those decisions. Not qualification.

[Skeptic]

Your defense of affirmative action seems to be based on the rather odd "It doesn't matter if unqualified blacks get jobs instead of qualified whites, since qualifications don't matter much anyway". That's very "realistic" and all, but merely proves the obvious--namely, that blacks who benefited from affirmative action are not as qualified as whites who didn't.

[The idea]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Those who suffer the most from this, of course, are qualified blacks. For all I know Thomas IS the best man for the job; but because he is black, this needs to be proven with far greater rigor than for a non-white candidate. In the "old days", [fewer] blacks made it to college or graduate school, but if they DID, you knew they were, on average, as good as--if anything, better--than the whites who did it. Now, due to affirmative action, it is the other way around.

How often does someone get hired by saying "I was admitted to such and such college or graduate school"? Isn't it important to actually pass some courses?

If you're in a position to hire, then aren't you in a position to require applicants to submit academic transcripts so that you can see their grades?

[Tmy]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Your defense of affirmative action seems to be based on the rather odd "It doesn't matter if unqualified blacks get jobs instead of qualified whites, since qualifications don't matter much anyway". That's very "realistic" and all, but merely proves the obvious--namely, that blacks who benefited from affirmative action are not as qualified as whites who didn't.

What is "qualified"? SUre jobs have min qualifications, which the candidates have.

My point is more this falacy that the "most qualified" gets the job. I think we can all say that Roberts is not the greatest legal mind available for the Sup Ct job. Why doesnt that bother anyone??? When we talk AA its always about this suppsoed best candidate who gets left in the cold. But thats bullflop since that candidiate never really exists. Theres no exact math equasion. there are so many intangible factors that go into who gets picked for what.

[NoZed Avenger]

Originally posted by Tmy
My point is more this falacy that the "most qualified" gets the job. I think we can all say that Roberts is not the greatest legal mind available for the Sup Ct job.


Even assuming that the "greatest legal mind" also makes the best justice, how do we all know this?

Do you have a list of ten people better, for example, with concrete reasons why you feel that way? Do you find the legal reasoning in his briefs or opinions to be second rate? If so, which ones do you disagree with?

[Tmy]

Well I would think that theres some well known law profs out there who could make some good justices

Anyway thats not really my intent of this thread. I just wanted to point the difft treatment of the black v white candidates and the hypocracy of the anti-AA crowd. (ie GW Bush and his cronies)

[The idea]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Those who suffer the most from this, of course, are qualified blacks. For all I know Thomas IS the best man for the job; but because he is black, this needs to be proven with far greater rigor than for a non-white candidate. In the "old days", [fewer] blacks made it to college or graduate school, but if they DID, you knew they were, on average, as good as--if anything, better--than the whites who did it. Now, due to affirmative action, it is the other way around.

Is there anyone who agrees with the above quote and who can answer the following questions?

How often does someone get hired by saying "I was admitted to such and such college or graduate school"? Isn't it important to actually pass some courses?

If you're in a position to hire, then aren't you in a position to require applicants to submit academic transcripts so that you can see their grades?

[specious_reasons]

Originally posted by Tmy
Thats my point. If you look at their bios, they really arent that far apart.


The distinction may be in quality of work, not in their respective resumes.

http://www.brainyencyclopedia.com/encyclopedia/c/cl/clarence_thomas.html
He was the first nominee since 1970 (Harrold Carswell) to not receive a "well qualified" rating from the American Bar Association judicial evaluation committee, although he did receive a rating of "qualified".

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050817/D8C1PTN80.html
Supreme Court nominee John Roberts on Wednesday received a "well qualified" rating from the American Bar Association, clearing another hurdle in his path to the nation's highest court.

I don't know what the criteria for giving Thomas a "qualified" vs. Robert's "well qualified," but I hope it wasn't the color of Thomas' skin.

[NoZed Avenger]

Originally posted by Tmy
Well I would think that theres some well known law profs out there who could make some good justices

Anyway thats not really my intent of this thread. I just wanted to point the difft treatment of the black v white candidates and the hypocracy of the anti-AA crowd. (ie GW Bush and his cronies)


I am not sure "some law profs" would make a good justice at all. I know a number of professors who are great as teachers and whjo are very knowledgable, but I would hesitate to recommend them as litigators or judges of asny type.

I still have no idea of your criteria for how to pick a justice -- you don't give a yardstick. By almost any measure you'd pick, though, you'd exclude some heavy-hitters. Oliver Wendell Holmes would be unlikely to pass any list of credentials you named. By avoiding giving any tests, of course, you leave yourself free to offer all kinds of criticism without having toi back any of it up. Handy for venting, I guess, but not helpful if you want to convince people you are right.

I also am missing the hypocrisy or different treatment: I think we have to assume that "Bush and his cronies" supported both Thomas and Roberts. I asked earlier in the thread for an example of someone in the Bush crony crowd slamming Thomas while praising Roberts, but haven't seen a citation. You went off on how there are "clearly" more qualified candidates, but do not seem to have anyone (or any clear criteria) in mind.

/shrug

[Tmy]

Originally posted by NoZed Avenger
I am not sure "some law profs" would make a good justice at all. I know a number of professors who are great as teachers and whjo are very knowledgable, but I would hesitate to recommend them as litigators or judges of asny type.

I still have no idea of your criteria for how to pick a justice -- you don't give a yardstick. By almost any measure you'd pick, though, you'd exclude some heavy-hitters. Oliver Wendell Holmes would be unlikely to pass any list of credentials you named. By avoiding giving any tests, of course, you leave yourself free to offer all kinds of criticism without having toi back any of it up. Handy for venting, I guess, but not helpful if you want to convince people you are right.

I also am missing the hypocrisy or different treatment: I think we have to assume that "Bush and his cronies" supported both Thomas and Roberts. I asked earlier in the thread for an example of someone in the Bush crony crowd slamming Thomas while praising Roberts, but haven't seen a citation. You went off on how there are "clearly" more qualified candidates, but do not seem to have anyone (or any clear criteria) in mind.

/shrug

My Criteria? Well I think Id start with a fed judge whos had a bunch of experience. Thats typical for most jobs. You see whos below on the ladder and bring them up.

The hypocracy I speak of is that Bush is against AA but their are many examples of him getting special treatment thru life. His own personal AA if you will.

And the media is the same. Minorities and women seem to garner more scrutiny.

[NoZed Avenger]

Originally posted by Tmy
My Criteria? Well I think Id start with a fed judge whos had a bunch of experience. Thats typical for most jobs. You see whos below on the ladder and bring them up.

That would have excluded Renquist (head of Office of Legal Council when tapped, previously private practice).

It probably cuts out Stevens (4.5 years as Circuit Court Justice, more than the 2 years from Roberts but far from a "bunch of experience").

O'Connor is definitely out -- 2 years as state appellate court judge and 5 years previously as state district court judge.

Scalia only had 4 years as a Circuit Court justice, but was confirmed 98-0. Odd -- but he's out.

Kennedy stays in -- 12 years at the Circuit Court level. So far, 1 for 5.

Souter is a borderline case. Almost no time at all as a Circuit Court Justice (nominated for it and then the SC position in the same year). He had experience at the New Hampshire Supreme Court level, but would be leaping over candidates with far more ("bunches," even) of Federal Circuit Court experience.

Thomas is excluded by your test, as he was only a Circuit Court Justice for a year and a half or so before nomination. I recall a lot more about the allegations while he was at EEOC than any complaints about his resume, though.

Ginsburg stays, with 13 years on the Circuit Court. 2 for 8.

Breyer, as well. 14 years or so. 3 for 9.

Pure personal opinion, but I don't see the 3 that remain standing as intellectually superior or more impressive than the 6 that would be forced out.

A number of past justices would certainly be excluded, as well:

Thurgood Marshall. Only 4 years as a Justice.

Charles Hughs. No experience at all.

Louis Brandeis. Zip.

Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. State supreme court experience, only.

_______

I have not looked deeply into Roberts' qualifications, but he certainly has a number of colleagues (from both parties) talking up his intelligence and ability. 39 cases argued before the Supreme Court as a private attorney and while acting as Deputy Solicitor General of the US. If memory serves, that is even more cases than Marshall argued before the Supremes -- and he worked almost exclusively on civil rights/equal protection challenges for years.

In short, I don't see a legitimate case for calling Roberts unqualified, and still don't recall a big push by anyone -- much less Bush cronies -- to denigrate Thomas' qualifications at the time. the criticism against him seemed to stem fro other areas entirely.

The hypocracy I speak of is that Bush is against AA but their are many examples of him getting special treatment thru life. His own personal AA if you will.

And the media is the same. Minorities and women seem to garner more scrutiny.


I don't believe that Affirmative Action is necessarily a good policy -- and I would submit that one reason that I question its usefulness presently is because it risks causing the kind of extra scrutiny that you are talking about. Does the press or part of the populace raise issues on minority candidates -- to the extent that they may or do -- simply because they suspect someone (rightly or wrongly) has gotten some type of pass through AA? Is the program therefore hurting the qualified by giving them a stigma, conscious or unconscious?

The argument against Bush is a personal one, and doesn't necessarily invalidate any and all questions about the efficacy or wisdom of affirmative action.