That is probably one of the most disgusting visuals I could ever imagine. I'm going to have nightmares all night now. :1orglaugh

I wasn't trying to say that CNN was a conservative organization at all. I know they typically attempt to toss up a rep. from each perceived side of whatever issue. Usually night and day difference of opinion. The conservative talking head phrase I used was only meant to apply to those deserving of it. I would consider CNN overall liberal if I had to choose ether or.

The comment about diversity was going to the point that while, as has been pointed out, a judge is there to judge and not be an emotional keyboard warrior, and therefore diversity is meaningless in practice of a justice.. that fact still has no bearing on the type of people we tend to move up in the name of diversity for diversities sake these days. It puts the wise latina as a drawback concept into perspective I thought.

About racism only applying if that race is "in power". I would say that "in power" defines itself in each situation. If one race has the collective power to disciminate based on the races of others, then it is "in power". "reverse racism" term is an excuse that it's ok to disciminate based on race since that race is white. Dr. King would be ashamed of that.

Not many people get that, or won't admit it because of special interest agendas if they do. I hate to think they don't get it, cause that actually means they aren't very intelligent, but when people drag race into places where it has no place, they are either ignorant or manipulatively criminal (if being racist is criminal).

By the way, when you use the terms "latina" and "woman" in the same sentence you are dragging race AND gender into the equation, like it or not.

Or at least ethnic culture depending on definitions

That's absolute bullshit though.
Each side strives to select and promote judges who are biased in their ideological favor.
Almost every judge who has been selected in the past 50 years has been FIRMLY on a partisan side. They've held positions in partisan orgs like Federalist society, NAACP, ACLU, in administrations Reps and Dems etc.

Those who were "surprises" have pissed off their selectors to no end, and been called their "greatest" mistakes.

But, further the constitution doesn't place ANY qualifications on selection to the SCOTUS -- you don't even have to be a fucking lawyer!

So, for people to talk about the judicial history, legal education etc. neccesary for a judge is not "strict adherence to the constitution," -- the kind they claim is necessary in order to be "unbiased" and "impartial."

Yeah, I dont disagree about presidents cherry picking based on that. Thats their deal though in that position. They need to know how to sell the selection and not get crossed up in the hearing. Good process for what it is I guess.

I just dont care for the low blow stuff when they cant find a real objection. They say "hey, you're gonna be confirmed.. BUT lets chat about wise latinas versus white old men, and reverse discrimination" because they are hot buttons. It's trashy when both sides pull that crap.

Do yourself a favor and read this book "Unholy Wars" before you make claims it was the republican congress that stood in the way of clinton taking out bin laden.