A small victory for social progress. Obama nominates female Latino for supreme court seat. - HotUKDeals
We use cookie files to improve site functionality and personalisation. By continuing to use HUKD, you accept our cookie and privacy policy.
Get the HUKD app free at Google Play

Search Error

An error occurred when searching, please try again!

Login / Sign UpSubmit

A small victory for social progress. Obama nominates female Latino for supreme court seat.

Liddle ol' me Avatar
7y, 7m agoPosted 7 years, 7 months ago
Sonia Sotomayor, the first Latino to be selected for America's highest court. She will bring the number of women on the bench to two, and become only the third woman in its history.

A FEW ROUGH FACTS
Of 111 supreme court justices in US history, 107 have been white men.
Latinos account for one in every six residents of the United States.
Minorities account for one in three residents of the United States.
Women account for one in two residents of the United States.

Hopefully it won't be too long before democracies like the US and the UK reflect these racial and gendered realities in their elected chambers and other institutions of power.
Other Links From Seat:
Liddle ol' me Avatar
7y, 7m agoPosted 7 years, 7 months ago
Options

All Comments

(14) Jump to unreadPost a comment
Comments/page:
#1
I listened to the speeches by Pres.Obama and by her, live on the TV. I was impressed with both. I noticed the little jibe from Obama that she was more experienced than anyone else appointed by the last administartion - I paraphrase - a reference to the relatively youthful Bush appointees. The posts are for life and it'll be a good long while those Republican conservatives will be sitting.

Interesting facts.
banned#2
Personally, I'm happy as long as the best person for the job gets the post. Positive discrimination as just as bad as negative imho.
#3
guv
Personally, I'm happy as long as the best person for the job gets the post. Positive discrimination as just as bad as negative imho.


aye that.

but the figures suggest a serious amount of negative discrimination in this case.
banned#4
ClarityofMind
aye that.

but the figures suggest a serious amount of negative discrimination in this case.


By that logic, the white population of the US has been discriminated against by having a Black President!:w00t:
#5
guv
By that logic, the white population of the US has been discriminated against by having a Black President!:w00t:


no it doesnt nutcase lol:-D
#6
The best person for the job - an ideal situation, except when you consider all the
variables and parameters that are likely to be involved.
age
skin colour
sex ( I would like to slap all those people who decided that gender applied to humans and not just to German nouns and so gender has been substituted)
vocational qualifications
awarding institutions
academic ability
physical ability
ethnic background
language spoken
accent
social class
family structure
religion
and on and on.
Which of these are likely to be totally ignored in electing the best person?
When you consider how dreadfully hard it was for men and then women and then blacks to even be able to vote in elections, there is little doubt that it will be a very long time before all jobs are filled by the best persons who apply for them and even longer before all persons will be educated equally and have the same opportunities to be able to apply for them.


guv
By that logic, the white population of the US has been discriminated against by having a Black President!:w00t:

Groan.
banned#7
chesso


Groan.


You missed the :w00t: !!!:p
#8
guv
You missed the :w00t: !!!

I SAW the :w00t: ;-).
If I'd missed it, there would have been :viking: and :prop:
banned#9
chesso
I SAW the :w00t: ;-).
If I'd missed it, there would have been :viking: and :prop:


Hehe... Serious point though regarding positive discrimination. Always bugged me when the Police (and similar) have a campaign to recruit from an ethnic minority. Recruits should ALWAYS be given the same values and chance. If they don't want to apply, that's their choice. The Police of all people should be transparent in their selection processes. Targeting specific audiences is not the way to achieve this.
#10
Tricky though especially for jobs like the police because that way you don't end up with a representative force and people start feeling like they're being 'ruled' and not identified with and being regarded as second class citizens. Very hard cheddar on the white guy who's always wanted to be a cop and rise through the ranks.
banned#11
chesso
Tricky though especially for jobs like the police because that way you don't end up with a representative force and people start feeling like they're being 'ruled' and not identified with and being regarded as second class citizens.


I wouldn't take any less notice of an ethnic office than I would a white one. The simple solution if that's how things are felt is apply for the job. Being Ethnic is not a reason to be given a job. Being the right person is.


Very hard cheddar on the white guy who's always wanted to be a cop and rise through the ranks.


Its called discrimination!!!!:p
banned#12
guv
Personally, I'm happy as long as the best person for the job gets the post. Positive discrimination as just as bad as negative imho.


In the case of the supreme court I think a balanced viewpoint, representative of the constituency in it's entirety is best.

I'd extend that beyond race lines to ideological lines. The supreme court is at it's best when all views are represented.

It's a blunt tool to rectify the inherent prejudices in society.
#13
guv
I wouldn't take any less notice of an ethnic office than I would a white one. The simple solution if that's how things are felt is apply for the job. Being Ethnic is not a reason to be given a job. Being the right person is.

I know you wouldn't.
I guess what I was feeling for in this case is that part of the job is working for and being representative of the people so that the make up of the whole force ( and here we can think of any state organisations e.g. the supreme court) sits comfortably with the whole population. In which case, it's not so much positive discrimination as one of the attributes being sought in the officers to be appointed.
TBH it's much easier for me to say that it's a good step forwards for social justice than to actually describe why it is and to explain my view on exactly how to achieve that.
I think it's truly politically correct to have real representation. I would hope that F+F is corect is saying
The supreme court is at it's best when all views are represented.
whilst bearing in mind that the supreme court is not there to make law but to interpret and apply law.
#14
There is evidence that affirmative action, managed carefully, can help bridge gaps in areas where minority communities have suffered systematic exclusion / lack of access to power and goods for long periods. And it is still implemented by progressives in positions to do so.

Northern Ireland is one example where affirmative action helped produce positive results. The modern troubles there began as a result of public anger in the Catholic community about their lack of access to public-sector jobs and housing (and higher education). Although many of the gains made by that community since 1969 may have been augmented by armed struggle, affirmative action played an important role in addressing grievances. Importantly, it also helped take away opportunities for the IRA and other militant groups to exploit those grievances.

Implementing affirmative action in less extreme contexts might not be as easy or politically expedient, but it's still one of the only ways we have of fast-tracking change towards a more equitable society. And whether stake-holders like it or not, and whether or not it is recognised for what it is or called by another name, it is still being implemented by progressives in positions to do so. Even David Cameron has recognised the need to fast-track equality with his reforms regarding candidate selections of women and ethnic minorities.

Whichever way we look at it, social progress has to be managed, since power-holders rarely give away privileged positions voluntarily.

Post a Comment

You don't need an account to leave a comment. Just enter your email address. We'll keep it private.

...OR log in with your social account

...OR comment using your social account

Thanks for your comment! Keep it up!
We just need to have a quick look and it will be live soon.
The community is happy to hear your opinion! Keep contributing!