Arpig
Posts: 9930
Joined: 1/3/2006
From: Increasingly further from reality
Status: offline
|
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#31952924
Before I begin, let me say the only thing I like about Pat Buchannen is he is often entertaining, his positions are generally way out in right field, and not to my liking.
I watched it and I didn't see anything all that outrageous. His main point was that Sotomayor isn't SCOTUS material, and that she is being nominated mostly because she is a Latina. Now I have no idea about her qualifications, and I won't venture to pass judgement on them, but her being a Latina is a big part of the publicity surrounding her nomination. How big a part did it play in Obama chosing her, I don't know, nobody but Obama knows, but I willing to hazard a guess that it played a significant part in it.
As to Buchannen's claim that affirmative action is legalised discrimination against white males, well he's basically correct, it is. Now I am not against affirmative action in principle, I agree that there should be programs in place to assist historically disadvantaged segments of the population (in Canada, the aboriginals stand out particularly, not so much the black community, but there isn't the history in Canada between blacks and whites that there is in the US), but quotas, etc are a step to far.
Madow's constant reiteration of the 108 of 110 Supreme Court Justices have been white is a statistic that is irrelevant, For a very long time, white men were the only people allowed to vote in the US, and were the only people eligable to sit on the Supreme Court, so of course the majority of the Justices would be white men. Buchannen's reply to this factoid was lame as hell, but Madow immediatly discredited herself by trying to twist Buchannen's words into saying he believed that white men were somehow especially qualified for the SCOTUS, which is not what he said at all.
For positions such as Supreme Court Justice, Buchannen is right, that the race or gender of the nominees should not be a factor in their selection. What may or may not be right, is his assertion that race and gender were the main factors in Sotomayor's selection. Just as I feel it was wrong of people to vote for (or against) Obama on the basis of his being black (or half black if you want to be picky about it), It would be wrong to appoint (or to deny) somebody to the SCOTUS on the basis of race or gender. Madow, at the end of the segment, asked if Buchannen thought it was a positive thing for America that a Latina was about to be appointed to the SCOTUS. I think the question itself somewhat reinforces what Buchannen was saying, that her being a Latina is a major part of her nomination. Why on earth would it matter to any great degree that she is a Latina, what should matter primarily is that she is qualified for the position, and her being a Latina should be a footnote.
< Message edited by Arpig -- 7/16/2009 9:07:32 PM >
_____________________________
Big man! Pig Man!
Ha Ha...Charade you are!
Why do they leave out the letter b on "Garage Sale" signs?
CM's #1 All-Time Also-Ran
|
Jurassic Park V: Bleatings From the Tar Pit! - 
Profile
.gif){kind=avatar}
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread