Obama nominates a racist

Here is another sound decision. A woman can be excluded for a jury if the state so chooses.

Yep, really, really sound there.

 

Had enough yet?

No?

Nine smart white men with rich life experience ruled that it is not a violation of the 14th Amendment is Alabama chooses to outlaw interracial relationships.

 

Please provide a link to the opinion. Was the ruling in line with the Constitution at the time? If so, then yes, it was a sound decision.

Same answer to all the other posts that you spammed on the thread.

Keep in mind, it is the Court's job to interpret law, not make law.

 

Dred Scott v. Sandford,[1] 60 U.S. (How. 19) 393 (1857), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court that ruled that people of African descent imported into the United States and held as slaves, or their descendants[2]—whether or not they were slaves—were not legal persons and could never be citizens of the United States. It also held that the United States Congress had no authority to prohibit slavery in federal territories. The Court also ruled that because slaves were not citizens, they could not sue in court. Lastly, the Court ruled that slaves—as chattel or private property—could not be taken away from their owners without due process. The Supreme Court's decision was written by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney.

And about the Constitution, the fact that it was there, even though Jefferson affirmed that "all men....."
just adds fuel to make damn sure that a court, or any legislative body, is properly diversified.

 

“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life,” said Judge Sotomayor

That's why fhl says what he says for fucking God's sake. Do you get it?????

 

So it was consistant with the Constitution at the time. What part don't you understand?

Why do you have to make damn sure a legislative body or court is properly diversified. Can you mandate diversity and who decides what is properly diversified? This sounds like quotas to me. Please explain how this all would work. Why isn't the rule 'The most qualified gets the job'?

 

Have the most qualified always gotten the job?

If not, why not?

Could age, sex, religion, ethnicity, race, etc. have been a factor in the decision making process?

If it was, if someone would hire a less qualified person because they were the "right" color, sex, age, etc. how do you think the system would ever change unless these type of hiring managers were forced to change?

 

Of course, there was the New Haven firefighter who did not get promoted because he was white. Sotomayor ruled on it and said there was no issue. The Supreme Court is set to rule on it, and she will probably be overruled. I figured she ruled against him because, as seen from her past statements, she has issues with white men.

 

Maybe she does have issues with white men, I don't know.

She is not going to control the court which is made up of 7 men, 5 of whom are Catholic...(and she was raised Catholic ). That will make 6 of nine either currently or previously raised Catholic. That is not a factor?

Why did it take so long for black and women to get the right to vote?

Could it have been because of the white man holding them back?

Or were all women and black not qualified to vote?

 

Well the President is a black guy so you are going to have to get over it. You are going to have to find a new excuse to explain why your life lacks satisfication. You can't blame the white man forever.