is our supreme court racist? should they serve for life? and should appointments be made only by the president

Question

http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/06/28/scotus.race/index.html

why was this bill "bitterly divided" among the court?

Answer 1

Racist? Depends on your definition.

Conservatives (especially younger ones) argue that we no longer need affirmative action, and that to give preferential treatment to minorities is just as wrong as giving preferential treatment to whites a generation ago.

Old liberals (Jesse Jackson, etc.) have been scarred for life from the battles of the Civil Rights movement, see racism everywhere, and see reverse discrimination as the only cure for it.

-----------------------

Serve for life - I agree, as long as there are provisions for throwing out a corrput justice (which we have, Congress can impeach a justice the same as they can impeach a President). The alternative is to have Justices get re-elected every few years, which transforms them from judges to politicians.

------------------

Presidential appointment - Someone has to decide. And in this case, the President and Senate have to come to some agreement.

Answer 2

For the first part, it has been racist in the past far worse than today. Racism will, as with anything, be portrayed by the people currently on the bench.

Serving for life is a divided issue, I personally disagree with the life time appointment simply because if we get a corrupt judge on the bench, Sandra Day O'conner for one, who like to base her decissions on laws and constitutions of other nations, then we are stuck with the corruption until they die, or resign.

Appointments are not made soley by the President, he makes the nomination, and then they go before the House Judicial committee, and then the full Senate for final approval. The new law allowing the President to appoint Federal Judges without Senate approval during time of recess and need does not affect the appointment process for the Supreme Court. But I do disagree with the law, any judge that has that much authority should go through the formal review.

Answer 3

Danielsss429 (whatever)- Sandra day oconner doesn't even serve anymore. She's retired and was replaced. Interesting you didn't mention Ruth Ginsberg, who has never argued case before the supreme court, was only a ACLU leftist liberal attorney defending crap like NAMBLA and Clinton appointed her.

But Notice it was a republican who appointed the first woman to the bench O'Conner by Reagan. It was also a republican that appointed the first black Clearence Thomas and the first black female and Hispanic but the Dem's wouldn't take it to a vote and it just stalled. I say the republicans have done more for minorities than the democRATS, hands down.

Now, are they racists? for what? Saying people should be judged by their merit instead of the color of their skin? Martin Luther wanted this as stated in his "I have a dream" speech. Is he a racist?
Should they serve for life? Yeap, until the Constitution is changed. And yes they should be appointed by the president, however, it could be tied up by the Senate like they did to Gabriel Estrada (the Hispanic appointee I mentioned earlier) if they don't like the appointee. Who did the dems apppoint, oh thats right, an old white lady with no experience, my bad.

Answer 4

The supreme court is not racist. They should serve for life. First of all, they can change parties once appointed, so they dont always have to agree with their party. Also they are not allowed to listen to any political media so they do not know what their parties views are on issues, therefore no need to side with it. Also and finally they can be removed for bad behavior, so if they do anything wrong, they would not be able to serve any longer.

Answer 5

No.
Yes.
Yes.

It probably is in part a generational thing. The older members of the court may well feel that forced integration by racial quota is still a necesary evil to fight lingering racism, while the newer ownes, seeing society today as better able to deal with 'color blind' laws, see it as an unnecesary one.

Answer 6

Not racist, serve for life sure, are and should be appointed by the President.
Did someone get a ruling they didn't like and want to change the rules to fit their wrong point of view
That's how it is deal with it
Mama is not here to help you
Want it changed start a movement other wise STFU

Answer 7

I would have loved to see all the drama on the networks if it had been a school that stated "your child can't attend school here, because we have enough black children". But because they were white, it was ok. Wrong.

Using race (to decide if someone can or can't do something) is wrong. Period.

I'm glad they shot it down. Applause.

Answer 8

Why is it when you liberals don't get your way you try to blame someone else. We want Our children to go to the schools closest to them. The Supreme Court was right in their decision!

Answer 9

"Bitterly Divided", consider the source for such a comment.

Answer 10

The Supreme court is completely out of touch with reality. Most of them are so old they still think women should not wear pants. Dresses only.