(05-29-2009 06:36 AM)Dirty Ernie Wrote:  The basic diversity arguement is we are not all the same. In that view, people are not monolithic and able to think in lockstep along "strictly constructed constitutional lines" ( a constitution written by white males, dudes!), it is silly to think there is just one viewpoint and one true answer on every question. If that were true, it would be entirely feasible to just write a strictly constructed software logic program and put that up in place of the actual living and breathing people composing the supreme court.

So, the idea of encouraging diversity, obviously, is to find qualified folks from a variety of backgrounds and accept the fact they will see things differently. Then let them thrash things out in a legal setting and at the endpoint you can then say, a variety of backgrounds and entirely human viewpoints were represented in the outcome.

This trend has been started for a while. The most institutionalized parts of society will be the last to accept it, probably. For the most part the establishment is able to funnel establishment people into positions of power. But, hey, we are a "free" country, so now and then by a freak of chance, someone gets elected that has the power to put something in that varies slightly from the strict party line. But I don't think this choice is really that radical, all said and done.

She's cute, a woman, brings the hispanic thing into the mix, and I'm betting she gets along well with others. She knows the drill. Yes, she's a liberal democratic appointment. But then, we call ourselves a democracy, so we should applaud that our system works, right?

It isn't about democracy. Democracy be damned! It is about winning. Ask chipdip, he'll tell you, and tell you, and tell you.