Sen. Harry Reid, "We have too many judges on the Supreme Court."

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Pretty much, yeah. I mean a compelling state interest is the basis for the restriction of any right in the Constitution. Despite that fact, the Constitution still means plenty... as compelling interests are usually fairly hard to come by.

And that's the strict constructionist view, which is why I generally lean that way (more or less). See this summary: Wikipedia on strict constructionism
which states:

Strict construction requires a judge to apply the text only as it is written. Once the court has a clear meaning of the text, no further investigation is required. Judges should avoid drawing inferences from a statute or constitution and focus only on the text itself. Justice Hugo Black argued that the First Amendment's injunction that "Congress shall make no law," should be construed strictly: the term "no law," Black thought, admitted virtually no exceptions, even though he is thought of as a judicial activist in today's era.

If the text doesn't establish exceptions, then the courts probably shouldn't either.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Pretty much, yeah. I mean a compelling state interest is the basis for the restriction of any right in the Constitution. Despite that fact, the Constitution still means plenty... as compelling interests are usually fairly hard to come by.

And that's the strict constructionist view, which is why I generally lean that way (more or less). See this summary: Wikipedia on strict constructionism
which states:

Strict construction requires a judge to apply the text only as it is written. Once the court has a clear meaning of the text, no further investigation is required. Judges should avoid drawing inferences from a statute or constitution and focus only on the text itself. Justice Hugo Black argued that the First Amendment's injunction that "Congress shall make no law," should be construed strictly: the term "no law," Black thought, admitted virtually no exceptions, even though he is thought of as a judicial activist in today's era.

If the text doesn't establish exceptions, then the courts probably shouldn't either.

I don't really think we're disagreeing here, other than by what label we would place on what we're talking about.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: PokerGuy
Scary... people like Craig (and, it seems, Harry Reid) want the judges to create policy or law instead of interpreting the law as it is written. In other words, judicial activism. They clearly don't understand that the legislative branch makes the laws, the judicial branch is there strictly to interpret the existing law. Not create new law, not create some sort of justice by reading more things into or out of the consitution. It's funny that such people love "wiggle room" for the justices, until they run into a justice that has a different ideology that uses that "wiggle room", then they get mad.

did we suddenly turn our back on 1000 years of common law history and become a civil law system?






anyway, there are only two judge positions in the country that you don't have to be a lawyer for, JP in texas and justice of the supreme court

 

[Thump553]

I'm sure there are lots of judge positions that you don't have to be a lawyer for, especially elected judges. Here in CT you don't have to be a lawyer to be a probate judge.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Mursilis
No, judicial activism is a court failing to apply or uphold the law in favor of some social trend or idea of 'social justice'. That's the problem many strict constructionists have with things like affirmative action - while we can debate AA as social policy all day, how is it legal if the Constitution is supposed to provide equal protection?

Here's how.

The tax system has a special credit for the blind. Isn't that *unequal* and therefore unconstitutional? Why should a blind person get it, but not you?

In fact, some 'strict constructionists' might try to make that argument.

If you were blind, you could get the credit. Hence, it's equal at the level of 'everyone has the right to the credit if the ygo blind'. That's an alternative form of equality.

It'd be another matter if, say, blacks or women or gays were ineligible for the credit if blind. Then those people are denied 'equal protection'.

Similarly, handicapped parking spots treat one group differently than another. The casualty'theft tax decustion treats people differently (only people who had those losses get the credit). Only people who get broken legs get the government spending for doctors to provide them care - no broken leg, no care. Again, if that were 'only white people with a broken leg', we'd have a problem with equal protection.

The people of one town get great benefit when the federal government builds a highway through their town, but the people of another town don't. If the reason they chose the first town was rational and fair, that's ok, they don't have to build highways in every town. But if the reason was that the second town is mostly black people, it's not ok. They're denied equal protection.

Why are all these drawing the line at that point? It's the line of there being some rational, defensible reason for the different treatment. The equal protection is *not* a guarantee everyone gets the same benefits, as shown above. Rather, it's that no one is denied the benefits *for inappropriate reasons*.

When one group is seen to be significantly disadvantaged, and there's reason to suspect discrimination as a cause - current or past with lingering effects - the government has decided and the courts have agreed that there can be a legitimate cause for providing assistance to the affected group.

This is not the same as individual cases of discrimnation, where specific acts are proven, this is the government looking at a community and saying "blacks are 50% of the population but only 20% of the workforce at the big employer; to get things back onto track, some measures will be taken to counter the effects of the past policies that have led to this situation'. There is equal protection in that people who are in the group that is underrperesented.

If there's a group of whites in a black-run racist town who are so affected, they'd have the same rights. But there isn't such a group.

You and Bill, a black man, are both after a position. Bill, as a black man, is part of a group that is very underrepresented because of discrimination. Perhaps Bill's father, grandfather, great-grandfather and great-great grandfather were limited by not being allowed to live in black neighborhoods for decades, not being allowed education, not being allowed higher paying positions, while your family line had those options. The bottom line effect is that there is a widespread inequity today, ahd the government takes action to improve that.

It might mean that Bill gets an advantage so that the 50% of the people who are black have closer to 50% of the positions, if Bill is qualified.

The courts have reviewed this issue in depth and there are guidelines, and they've said it's not a violation of equal protection unless it exceeds the guidelines.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: PokerGuy
Scary... people like Craig (and, it seems, Harry Reid) want the judges to create policy or law instead of interpreting the law as it is written. In other words, judicial activism. They clearly don't understand that the legislative branch makes the laws, the judicial branch is there strictly to interpret the existing law. Not create new law, not create some sort of justice by reading more things into or out of the consitution. It's funny that such people love "wiggle room" for the justices, until they run into a justice that has a different ideology that uses that "wiggle room", then they get mad.

You're wrong. I've explained it, and you have not paid attention to what I said.

It's not about making up wiggle room, it's about understanding broader issues, and following the wiggle room when it's there.

Your position is that the court who took the 'strict' or 'narrow' or 'literal' view and approved of policies such as the decision alloiwng 'separate but equal' and calling it a states' rights issue are correct. Why is the 'strict' view always correct - even when the constitution says not to take the narrow view? You would have to defend 'separate but equal' under your ideology. But why is it wrong for a judge to follow the intention of the constitution and say separate but equal is unacceptable, instead of violating the intent of the constitution and defending a doctrine that's against that intent of the constitution by being overly literal in reading the constitution?

Why is it wrong for the court to say that criminal suspects have to be read their rieghts, because the intent of the constitution is for suspects to have those rights and their knowing them is necessary for them to have them, instead of the literal approach that says the defendants have no such right to be told of their other rights - even if it consistently causes violations of those rights?

You created a straw man about 'wiggle room', as if it's simply license to 'legislate from the bench' however the Justice likes, rather than following the real intent of the constitution instead of a literal readind that is in contradiction to the constiution. When the founding fathers protected 'free speech', do you think they meant only speech and not the written word? How about cartoons that contain no words? How about movies that weren't invented at the time of the constitution?

You can either try to do what the constitution intended in protecting free speech - or you can say "sorry, your cartoon can be banned because it's not 'speech' - and follow the very literal interpreation but violate the protection that was intended. And other parts of the constitution were intentionally more vague, not to let judges do whatever they want, but because they were meant to be broad and flxeible, and it's the *literal*, *limited* interpretation of those sections that is not following the intent of the constitution.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: PokerGuy

Originally posted by: n yusef

Originally posted by: PokerGuy
Scary... people like Craig (and, it seems, Harry Reid) want the judges to create policy or law instead of interpreting the law as it is written. In other words, judicial activism. They clearly don't understand that the legislative branch makes the laws, the judicial branch is there strictly to interpret the existing law. Not create new law, not create some sort of justice by reading more things into or out of the consitution. It's funny that such people love "wiggle room" for the justices, until they run into a justice that has a different ideology that uses that "wiggle room", then they get mad.

Damn those activists judges mandating desegregation and Miranda rights. :roll:

My point exactly: you like it when they do something you agree with, no matter if it's actually in the constitution or law or not.

Except that you're wrong, because, as I said, you made a straw man.

I'm in favor of single-payer health care. I'm *opposed* to the Supreme Court mandating it on some invented legal grounds that equal protection requires equal healthcare.

I'm against child labor. I'm *opposed* to the Supreme Court banning it on the basis of some invented right not actually in the constitution.

I'm in favor of the constitution being interpreted correctly not too broadly or narrowly.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Craig234
The equal protection is *not* a guarantee everyone gets the same benefits, as shown above. Rather, it's that no one is denied the benefits *for inappropriate reasons*.

Being denied a benefit based on race is always an inappropriate reason.

 

[n yusef]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: Craig234
The equal protection is *not* a guarantee everyone gets the same benefits, as shown above. Rather, it's that no one is denied the benefits *for inappropriate reasons*.

Being denied a benefit based on race is always an inappropriate reason.

Did you read my post? Without getting into other arguments for AA, it is possible to support it as a correction for the systemic discrimination against women and people of color. In this way, it upholds Equal Protection rather than defying it.

 

[MotF Bane]

Originally posted by: n yusef

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: Craig234
The equal protection is *not* a guarantee everyone gets the same benefits, as shown above. Rather, it's that no one is denied the benefits *for inappropriate reasons*.

Being denied a benefit based on race is always an inappropriate reason.

Did you read my post? Without getting into other arguments for AA, it is possible to support it as a correction for the systemic discrimination against women and people of color. In this way, it upholds Equal Protection rather than defying it.

No, it's not. Affirmative Action is racism, it just happens to be pointed in a direction you like, so you think it's all well and good.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: Craig234
The equal protection is *not* a guarantee everyone gets the same benefits, as shown above. Rather, it's that no one is denied the benefits *for inappropriate reasons*.

Being denied a benefit based on race is always an inappropriate reason.

So, if it was proven that a government agency had denied all blacks promotions only because of their race because a bigot was in charge, then following that, it would be an 'inappropriate reason' to take action to then give those blacks additional access to promotions to right the wrong, access not available to whites who had not been the victim of discrimnation - right? You just said that the whites being denied that same benefit based on their race not being the one discriminated against is always inappropriate.

Well, there's a case where it is just. That's the first step, finding an exception to your broad generalization.

Now, for affirmative action, while it's not as clear cut a connection, the impacts of a century of racist policies are far more severe an insidious than one promotion. And unlike your characterization, it's not as if all blacks always get an advantage, or that it's just because of their race. As in my analogy, it's *only* when established guidelines showing race-bassed inequity - not very unlike my analogy - are met that it's used.

So, your post misrepresents both what affirmative action is - and the right and wrong of the issue.

The simple fact is that when you have no real appreciation for the effects of the racism, pst and present, you are not going to much understand why it's just to make corrections.

If racism caused massive inequities - as in my 'blacks are 50% of the population but have only 20% of the jobs' example previously - the simple fact is that you are perfectly fine with that continuing forever in terms of policy, as long as the law is 'color blind' today, and the unequal places on the starting field cause the inequities to continue indefinitely, as blacks having so few of the positions disadvantage their children, and a color blind standard makes *their* children get 20% or hey, maybe 25% - of the positions.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: MotF Bane

Originally posted by: n yusef

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: Craig234
The equal protection is *not* a guarantee everyone gets the same benefits, as shown above. Rather, it's that no one is denied the benefits *for inappropriate reasons*.

Being denied a benefit based on race is always an inappropriate reason.

Did you read my post? Without getting into other arguments for AA, it is possible to support it as a correction for the systemic discrimination against women and people of color. In this way, it upholds Equal Protection rather than defying it.

No, it's not. Affirmative Action is racism, it just happens to be pointed in a direction you like, so you think it's all well and good.

As has been explained repeatedly, but you can't understand, AA is *not* racism. It is racial discrimination, applicable only in situations for disadvantaged groups, to *counter* the effects of past racism. You're like the grandson of a thief who gets sued to get the money back, which you inherited, and you call the victim suing you a thief, because if you just look at how things are today, it's him trying to get your money. Forget the history. You say YOU never stole from him, so it's wrong for him to get anything from you.

 

[MotF Bane]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: MotF Bane

Originally posted by: n yusef

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: Craig234
The equal protection is *not* a guarantee everyone gets the same benefits, as shown above. Rather, it's that no one is denied the benefits *for inappropriate reasons*.

Being denied a benefit based on race is always an inappropriate reason.

Did you read my post? Without getting into other arguments for AA, it is possible to support it as a correction for the systemic discrimination against women and people of color. In this way, it upholds Equal Protection rather than defying it.

No, it's not. Affirmative Action is racism, it just happens to be pointed in a direction you like, so you think it's all well and good.

As has been explained repeatedly, but you can't understand, AA is *not* racism. It is racial discrimination, applicable only in situations for disadvantaged groups, to *counter* the effects of past racism. You're like the grandson of a thief who gets sued to get the money back, which you inherited, and you call the victim suing you a thief, because if you just look at how things are today, it's him trying to get your money. Forget the history. You say YOU never stole from him, so it's wrong for him to get anything from you.

LOL. Yeah, I'm clearly the one who doesn't understand. Your determination to justify AA is astonishing.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: MotF Bane
[LOL. Yeah, I'm clearly the one who doesn't understand.

So, we agreen you don't understand.

I know, it's my fault for using any subtley when you are not going to understand it.

I used the word 'discrimination' in the sense that is not pejorative - we 'discriminate against' murderers by putting them in jail. The sense that it can be justified.

You of course ignored the clarifying points I made that it's not just their race, but other factors with clear guidelines to justify the corrective action.

 

[n yusef]

Originally posted by: MotF Bane

Originally posted by: n yusef

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: Craig234
The equal protection is *not* a guarantee everyone gets the same benefits, as shown above. Rather, it's that no one is denied the benefits *for inappropriate reasons*.

Being denied a benefit based on race is always an inappropriate reason.

Did you read my post? Without getting into other arguments for AA, it is possible to support it as a correction for the systemic discrimination against women and people of color. In this way, it upholds Equal Protection rather than defying it.

No, it's not. Affirmative Action is racism, it just happens to be pointed in a direction you like, so you think it's all well and good.

Women are the greatest beneficiaries of Affirmative Action, yet we rarely hear this mentioned. It is obvious that there is still a great deal of sexism and gender-based discrimination in the American workplace. Just look at the number of female Presidents. I have posted studies in previous threads which prove widespread discrimination against blacks when applying for jobs. I am sure that non-black people of color face similar difficulties.

Affirmative Action is a tool to correct for discrimination, a universally supported goal. It's methods are discriminatory, and therefore controversial. How one views Affirmative Action can be a product of their personal philosophy. Does one value the process or the result?

Furthermore, there are other arguments in support of Affirmative Action. The strongest of which is based on the premise that identity--ability, age, class, gender, gender identity, race, religion, and sexuality--informs our thoughts and beliefs. Since women have been integrated into the Courts, studies have shown that women judges are ten percent more likely to side with the accuser in sexual harassment cases. In judicial bodies that contain female jurists, the men in the group are more likely to side in the plaintiff's favor than in Courts containing no female jurists. Read this study for more: Text

In sum, two otherwise identical candidates with different genders may not be so identical at all. Diversity in identity is accompanied by diversity in thought; if diverse thought is a value, possession of an identity different from the other employees with whom one is working would be an intellectual asset.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Craig234
The simple fact is that when you have no real appreciation for the effects of the racism, pst and present, you are not going to much understand why it's just to make corrections.

The simple fact is that, as usual, you just jump to conclusions with no evidence, such as:

"You have no real appreciation for the effects of racism"
Hah. I was a sociology major in college. I've probably read and studied racism and other social issues at least as much as you have, maybe more.

"You are not going to much understand why it's just to make corrections."
You just presuppose AA is the only 'just correction' available, and if someone opposes that, or questions its legality, they're opposed to all 'just corrections.' BS.

 

[daishi5]

Originally posted by: n yusef

Originally posted by: MotF Bane

Originally posted by: n yusef

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: Craig234
The equal protection is *not* a guarantee everyone gets the same benefits, as shown above. Rather, it's that no one is denied the benefits *for inappropriate reasons*.

Being denied a benefit based on race is always an inappropriate reason.

Did you read my post? Without getting into other arguments for AA, it is possible to support it as a correction for the systemic discrimination against women and people of color. In this way, it upholds Equal Protection rather than defying it.

No, it's not. Affirmative Action is racism, it just happens to be pointed in a direction you like, so you think it's all well and good.

Women are the greatest beneficiaries of Affirmative Action, yet we rarely hear this mentioned. It is obvious that there is still a great deal of sexism and gender-based discrimination in the American workplace. Just look at the number of female Presidents. I have posted studies in previous threads which prove widespread discrimination against blacks when applying for jobs. I am sure that non-black people of color face similar difficulties.

Affirmative Action is a tool to correct for discrimination, a universally supported goal. It's methods are discriminatory, and therefore controversial. How one views Affirmative Action can be a product of their personal philosophy. Does one value the process or the result?

Furthermore, there are other arguments in support of Affirmative Action. The strongest of which is based on the premise that identity--ability, age, class, gender, gender identity, race, religion, and sexuality--informs our thoughts and beliefs. Since women have been integrated into the Courts, studies have shown that women judges are ten percent more likely to side with the accuser in sexual harassment cases. In judicial bodies that contain female jurists, the men in the group are more likely to side in the plaintiff's favor than in Courts containing no female jurists. Read this study for more: Text

In sum, two otherwise identical candidates with different genders may not be so identical at all. Diversity in identity is accompanied by diversity in thought; if diverse thought is a value, possession of an identity different from the other employees with whom one is working would be an intellectual asset.

I have a hypothetical question, and I would be interested in your view. There is at least one study that I am aware of that when you lower test standards in order to meet AA goals in police forces, that the effectiveness of the police force suffers. Let us assume this study is correct, and also, let us assume that the women who are joining the police force are suffering from previous discrimination. What kind does not matter, we just want to assume that through no fault of their own, and only because of systemic long term discrimination they are not as qualified.

These women have been wronged, if not for the discrimination, they would qualify, and that discrimination has robbed them of this opportunity. If AA lowers the standards, this wrong can be righted, at least partially. On the other hand, if we right this wrong, the police forces effectiveness will suffer. Some rapists and murderers will not be caught, leading to some innocent people being raped and murdered because the police made some mistakes.

To answer the question myself, I hate both options, and I don't see a good third one. This hypothetical situation is not going to be very representative of every AA case, but there are some such as the recent fireman's test that indicate to me that this situation is really happening in our nation.

 

[n yusef]

Originally posted by: daishi5

Originally posted by: n yusef
Women are the greatest beneficiaries of Affirmative Action, yet we rarely hear this mentioned. It is obvious that there is still a great deal of sexism and gender-based discrimination in the American workplace. Just look at the number of female Presidents. I have posted studies in previous threads which prove widespread discrimination against blacks when applying for jobs. I am sure that non-black people of color face similar difficulties.

Affirmative Action is a tool to correct for discrimination, a universally supported goal. It's methods are discriminatory, and therefore controversial. How one views Affirmative Action can be a product of their personal philosophy. Does one value the process or the result?

Furthermore, there are other arguments in support of Affirmative Action. The strongest of which is based on the premise that identity--ability, age, class, gender, gender identity, race, religion, and sexuality--informs our thoughts and beliefs. Since women have been integrated into the Courts, studies have shown that women judges are ten percent more likely to side with the accuser in sexual harassment cases. In judicial bodies that contain female jurists, the men in the group are more likely to side in the plaintiff's favor than in Courts containing no female jurists. Read this study for more: Text

In sum, two otherwise identical candidates with different genders may not be so identical at all. Diversity in identity is accompanied by diversity in thought; if diverse thought is a value, possession of an identity different from the other employees with whom one is working would be an intellectual asset.

I have a hypothetical question, and I would be interested in your view. There is at least one study that I am aware of that when you lower test standards in order to meet AA goals in police forces, that the effectiveness of the police force suffers. Let us assume this study is correct, and also, let us assume that the women who are joining the police force are suffering from previous discrimination. What kind does not matter, we just want to assume that through no fault of their own, and only because of systemic long term discrimination they are not as qualified.

These women have been wronged, if not for the discrimination, they would qualify, and that discrimination has robbed them of this opportunity. If AA lowers the standards, this wrong can be righted, at least partially. On the other hand, if we right this wrong, the police forces effectiveness will suffer. Some rapists and murderers will not be caught, leading to some innocent people being raped and murdered because the police made some mistakes.

To answer the question myself, I hate both options, and I don't see a good third one. This hypothetical situation is not going to be very representative of every AA case, but there are some such as the recent fireman's test that indicate to me that this situation is really happening in our nation.

This is a tough question, and I would like to see the study. Are standards actually lowered because of AA? I'm not so sure. In most businesses, universities, and in government, those with connections can get in and by with lower performance. An Irish American getting into the Fire Department because his father and bothers are in it, even though he's not a great firefighter is Affirmative Action. Getting a job at my uncle's lab when I was in high school and my co-workers were undergrads was Affirmative Action. Most politicians have the power they do because of Affirmative Action. Their cousin was a Senator, their daddy the President, their frat-brother's father the Attorney General. The only difference is that this AA is off the books.

I do not think that AA lowers any standards; they are already low. I would be interested to see how it is proven that police effectiveness decreases. Maybe that perceived decrease is a good thing, because the pre-integration police force was breaking rules or catching innocent people.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

I find the notion that just about anyone or even any attorney is qualified to be a Supreme Court justice to be very offensive. It's like saying that the years of legal and scholarly experience earned by an appellate judge are meaningless. This ridiculous notion demeans the legal profession. Being on the Supreme Court should be regarded as a very serious and sacred business, and it's a job for a judge from either the U.S. Court of Appeals, a judge from a state supreme court, or perhaps a preeminent and accomplished Constitutional law scholar.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: Craig234
As has been explained repeatedly, but you can't understand, AA is *not* racism. It is racial discrimination, applicable only in situations for disadvantaged groups, to *counter* the effects of past racism. You're like the grandson of a thief who gets sued to get the money back, which you inherited, and you call the victim suing you a thief, because if you just look at how things are today, it's him trying to get your money. Forget the history. You say YOU never stole from him, so it's wrong for him to get anything from you.

Your analogy is severely flawed. If specific beneficiaries of past discrimination were made to return their gains to the specific victims of that discrimination, it would be more reasonable.

However, in this case, Affirmation Action acts to benefit members of a group who may have never suffered at the expense of members of another group who may have never gained from nor participated in previous discrimination.

Any way you slice it, Affirmative Action is outright racism. A much better policy would be a color-blind policy based on socioeconomic status. This way disadvantaged whites from impoverished families where no one has gone to college can receive some benefits along with disadvantaged minorities, and minorities from well-to-do, college-educated families will not receive benefits along with whites from similar families.

And please let's not have anyone point to the current economic circumstances of the black community in general and put all of the blame on discrimination and whites. As far as I know, in the past couple decades, very few people or no one has been legally made to drop out of high school, to do drugs and alcohol, have children out of wedlock while impoverished, or to have children they cannot afford to take care of (making it difficult to ever advance and locking one into a life time of poverty).

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

I find the notion that just about anyone or even any attorney is qualified to be a Supreme Court justice to be very offensive. It's like saying that the years of legal and scholarly experience earned by an appellate judge are meaningless.

I never said any attorney is qualified; some are clearly incompetent. As for your second statement, one need not be an appellate judge to acquire "years of legal and scholarly experience". A law professor could have that same experience.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: MursilisA law professor could have that same experience.

That's what I was referring to when I said, "or perhaps a preeminent and accomplished Constitutional law scholar."

(Note that I was responding to the title of the thread in general and not your post nor anyone's post in particular. This has been on my mind ever since Souter announced his retirement and the media started speculating that perhaps someone should be appointed who isn't even a lawyer. Actually, it's been on my mind since the Harriet Meirs nomination.)

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Originally posted by: MursilisA law professor could have that same experience.

That's what I was referring to when I said, "or perhaps a preeminent and accomplished Constitutional law scholar."

Whoops, my oops! I read right over your second part! D'oh!

 

[daishi5]

Originally posted by: n yusef

Originally posted by: daishi5

Originally posted by: n yusef
Women are the greatest beneficiaries of Affirmative Action, yet we rarely hear this mentioned. It is obvious that there is still a great deal of sexism and gender-based discrimination in the American workplace. Just look at the number of female Presidents. I have posted studies in previous threads which prove widespread discrimination against blacks when applying for jobs. I am sure that non-black people of color face similar difficulties.

Affirmative Action is a tool to correct for discrimination, a universally supported goal. It's methods are discriminatory, and therefore controversial. How one views Affirmative Action can be a product of their personal philosophy. Does one value the process or the result?

Furthermore, there are other arguments in support of Affirmative Action. The strongest of which is based on the premise that identity--ability, age, class, gender, gender identity, race, religion, and sexuality--informs our thoughts and beliefs. Since women have been integrated into the Courts, studies have shown that women judges are ten percent more likely to side with the accuser in sexual harassment cases. In judicial bodies that contain female jurists, the men in the group are more likely to side in the plaintiff's favor than in Courts containing no female jurists. Read this study for more: Text

In sum, two otherwise identical candidates with different genders may not be so identical at all. Diversity in identity is accompanied by diversity in thought; if diverse thought is a value, possession of an identity different from the other employees with whom one is working would be an intellectual asset.

I have a hypothetical question, and I would be interested in your view. There is at least one study that I am aware of that when you lower test standards in order to meet AA goals in police forces, that the effectiveness of the police force suffers. Let us assume this study is correct, and also, let us assume that the women who are joining the police force are suffering from previous discrimination. What kind does not matter, we just want to assume that through no fault of their own, and only because of systemic long term discrimination they are not as qualified.

These women have been wronged, if not for the discrimination, they would qualify, and that discrimination has robbed them of this opportunity. If AA lowers the standards, this wrong can be righted, at least partially. On the other hand, if we right this wrong, the police forces effectiveness will suffer. Some rapists and murderers will not be caught, leading to some innocent people being raped and murdered because the police made some mistakes.

To answer the question myself, I hate both options, and I don't see a good third one. This hypothetical situation is not going to be very representative of every AA case, but there are some such as the recent fireman's test that indicate to me that this situation is really happening in our nation.

This is a tough question, and I would like to see the study. Are standards actually lowered because of AA? I'm not so sure. In most businesses, universities, and in government, those with connections can get in and by with lower performance. An Irish American getting into the Fire Department because his father and bothers are in it, even though he's not a great firefighter is Affirmative Action. Getting a job at my uncle's lab when I was in high school and my co-workers were undergrads was Affirmative Action. Most politicians have the power they do because of Affirmative Action. Their cousin was a Senator, their daddy the President, their frat-brother's father the Attorney General. The only difference is that this AA is off the books.

I do not think that AA lowers any standards; they are already low. I would be interested to see how it is proven that police effectiveness decreases. Maybe that perceived decrease is a good thing, because the pre-integration police force was breaking rules or catching innocent people.

Sorry for the late reply, but I don't post from work. The paper I was talking about is Lott, John R.,Does a Helping Hand Put Others At Risk?: Affirmative Action, Police Departments, and Crime(2000). Economic Inquiry, April 2000. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=231100 or DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.231100
Does a Helping Hand Put Others At Risk?: Affirmative Action, Police Departments, and Crime .

It is important to point out that the study finds no evidence that hiring women affects the crime rate, only when standards are lowered to bring in more minorities and women does crime increase. I also wanted to discuss the one problem I have with AA. When AA gives preference to a minority who is completely equal in all other respects, no big deal. However, if a less qualified minority is chosen for a position, then other people who are affected by this position are hurt, albeit sometimes in a very minor fashion. If we force a business to hire a black man to help correct the wrongs of racism, and because of that several people who invest in that company make a few dollars less, that is not a big hurt. However, if the consequences of hiring that black man over a better qualified white man are that 3 more women are raped, that makes me really uncomfortable.

I firmly believe that we cannot implement AA, without there being some cost to society. Unfortunately, I have no way of estimating that cost, so I have to remain on the fence, because I do not know if it is a net positive, or a net negative.

 

[n yusef]

Originally posted by: daishi5
Sorry for the late reply, but I don't post from work. The paper I was talking about is Lott, John R.,Does a Helping Hand Put Others At Risk?: Affirmative Action, Police Departments, and Crime(2000). Economic Inquiry, April 2000. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=231100 or DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.231100
Does a Helping Hand Put Others At Risk?: Affirmative Action, Police Departments, and Crime .

It is important to point out that the study finds no evidence that hiring women affects the crime rate, only when standards are lowered to bring in more minorities and women does crime increase. I also wanted to discuss the one problem I have with AA. When AA gives preference to a minority who is completely equal in all other respects, no big deal. However, if a less qualified minority is chosen for a position, then other people who are affected by this position are hurt, albeit sometimes in a very minor fashion. If we force a business to hire a black man to help correct the wrongs of racism, and because of that several people who invest in that company make a few dollars less, that is not a big hurt. However, if the consequences of hiring that black man over a better qualified white man are that 3 more women are raped, that makes me really uncomfortable.

I firmly believe that we cannot implement AA, without there being some cost to society. Unfortunately, I have no way of estimating that cost, so I have to remain on the fence, because I do not know if it is a net positive, or a net negative.

In the study, Lott never made a proved causation between officer performance and crime rate. I do not think this is trivial. I do not think that LEOs deter or prevent crime on any large scale. They report on crimes after they are committed, and find suspects. A better study would have measured the quality of officer's reports and testimonies, things that LEOs can actually control.

I have not researched this, but I assume that crime is committed because of substance abuse, economic circumstances, perceived economic mobility, religion, family life, local culture, and policing policy (created by superior officers). Criminals do not consider the race or gender of the police. Few criminals consider officer performance before committing a crime; in urban communities with high rates of crime, police are assumed to be stupid racists if they're white, and stupid self-hating racists if they're of color. Whether this is true is unimportant.

I highly doubt an officer's ability to deter or prevent crime, and would like to see Lott's statistics compared with other data about urban communities, particularly those involving drug use and local economics.

Lott repeats concerns about female officer's physical abilities; never mind all the overweight male cops. A fit teenager or young adult will outrun and overpower many male officers, so this didn't seem like a fair argument against women officers.

Basically, I disagree with Lott's premise that quality of police officers has a measurable effect on crime.