« About That Georgia Nullification Resolution ... | Main | The Power of Poop »

May 09, 2009

Comments

Every single one of the justices is Jewish or Christian. Why is nobody talking about the need to nominate some one that is not religious? I agree that a woman should be nominated. But atheists have no chance of winning an election. Christians will vote for a Muslim, but being an atheist is pretty much an electoral kiss of death. It's worse than being gay. So how about an atheist on the Court? One person that sees establishment clause issues from my perspective, who can empathize with how atheists and agnostics are marginalized, is really not asking all that much. I'd at least like to see this discussed alongside other identity-based considerations.

Seb: yow.

-- As I said, I don't see empathy as somehow not a real qualification, of the sort that would reliably lead to better jurisprudence -- at least, in combination with other things. I mean: granted that any reasonable candidate will have to meet a pretty high baseline of intelligence, familiarity with the law, etc., and that these qualifications will normally not narrow the field to one candidate, is it obvious that one should choose among this pool of candidates without any regard to empathy? Not to me.

"I oppose using a person's sexual orientation as a job qualification"

He obviously doesn't mean in the military where one is required to be heterosexual to retain his/her job.

seem to be hetero is the thing. What you actually are is irrelevant.

lets see that leaves: a multi-racial, handicapped, lesbian, non-religious female

"lets see that leaves: a multi-racial, handicapped, lesbian, non-religious female"

Devastating. The originality of this witty insight is teh awesome.

Dahlia Lithwick on empathy and justices.

Sigh: one more time, which is to say, here: http://www.slate.com/id/2218103/pagenum/all/#p2

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad