Perhaps the term is used because the arbitrary physical trait is viewed as a "qualification" for the job by some people as a matter of whether or not said person is a legitimate candidate.

"It's always amazing when diversity is discussed that people feel the need to use the qualifier "qualified."

Actually this is the first time I can remember it being used.

Maybe it's because, oh I don't know, I don't care.

After Harriet Miers, I don't have a problem stating right up front that we'd like the nominee to be qualified, as that seemed a pretty easy detail to overlook if one isn't being careful.

And it my experience, those that make the most noise about 'qualifications' tend to have very few themselves.

The author is correct. Whomever the President picks is going to be 'qualified' -- that's how they get considered for the job in the first place.

But the question if they are qualified will only be raised if they're not some old white dude.

I like how CNN got their black guy to write/sign this piece so there are no accusations of racism.

If you think about it, there never seems to be an assumption when white men are being discussed that they are unqualified. Their qualification is simply assumed and is inherent in their whiteness and maleness.

*FACEPALM*

its not that "whiteness" leads us to believe that they are qualified, its that whites make up 60% of the population. No one takes affirmitive action to hire some random white guy when there is a massive pool of candidates to draw from. When minorities are discussed for a job it seems almost like they were looked for just because they were a minority. This does actually require a justifier anecdotal in my opinion.

Side note: I think it is a good idea to hire a minority justice. The supreme court should look like america, not a country club.

Their qualification is simply assumed and is inherent in their whiteness and maleness.

Please don't take this away from me. It's all I've got.

peachpicker: After Harriet Miers, I don't have a problem stating right up front that we'd like the nominee to be qualified, as that seemed a pretty easy detail to overlook if one isn't being careful.

I'd say November 7, 2000 was the date to be careful.

dragonaut: Side note: I think it is a good idea to hire a minority justice. The supreme court should look like america, not a country club.

I am consistently amused by how many people freak right the fark out over this simple notion.

dragonaut: If you think about it, there never seems to be an assumption when white men are being discussed that they are unqualified. Their qualification is simply assumed and is inherent in their whiteness and maleness.

*FACEPALM*

its not that "whiteness" leads us to believe that they are qualified, its that whites make up 60% of the population. No one takes affirmitive action to hire some random white guy when there is a massive pool of candidates to draw from. When minorities are discussed for a job it seems almost like they were looked for just because they were a minority. This does actually require a justifier anecdotal in my opinion.

Side note: I think it is a good idea to hire a minority justice. The supreme court should look like america, not a country club.

White Men do not make up 60% of the population. Which is why he used that qualifier. You addressed the point you wished, not the one he raised.

Women get the same 'qualification' treatment as minorities -- yet are over 50% of the population.

DarnoKonrad: peachpicker: After Harriet Miers, I don't have a problem stating right up front that we'd like the nominee to be qualified, as that seemed a pretty easy detail to overlook if one isn't being careful.

I'd say November 7, 2000 was the date to be careful.

I agree. An abundance of caution should be exhibited in both votin' and nominatorin'...

dragonaut: Side note: I think it is a good idea to hire a minority justice. The supreme court should look like america, not a country club.

Because appearances ARE ALL THAT MATTER.

Perhaps they should be busy looking for a handicapped black woman with a Hispanic surname.

He has an excellent point. Part of it is due to the fact that the conservative freak-out over "QUOTAS!" and "AFFIRMATIVE ACTION!" has been more successful than they could possibly dream. Any time a woman or minority gets hired for a nationally prominent position, you hear dark mutterings about how they stole that job from a white man, or how they didn't really deserve it. By exaggerating the impact of affirmative action programs, they've succeeded in creating a long-term, pervasive meme that gets us to think that woman and minority candidates deserve extra scrutiny, because they couldn't possibly have gotten there on our own.

It's masterful work, really. It's terrifically, intelligently evil, and I kind of have to admire it.

Position: Supreme Court Justice. Requirement: Being white, or failing that, at least qualified

Hey, that's me!

The least qualified white male.

Before Harriet Miers, this wouldn't have been an issue.

Kyosuke: dragonaut: Side note: I think it is a good idea to hire a minority justice. The supreme court should look like america, not a country club.

Because appearances ARE ALL THAT MATTER.

Perhaps they should be busy looking for a handicapped black woman with a Hispanic surname.



Come on you can't be that dense. Obviously a person of a different background/ethnicity/walk of life will offer a different perspective on issues the court faces. It is clearly not just about appearences.

The guy makes some good points...

I've always though adding the word "qualified" before "woman" or "minority" was a bit condescending to the person or group being referred to... kind of like they're the exception to the rule or something like that.

It's like telling a black guy, "Wow! You speak so well..."

DarnoKonrad: But the question if they are qualified will only be raised if they're not some old white dude.

There are some racists who believe that affirmative action may result in hiring or appointing unqualified people. That is why "Qualified" is used.

"Qualified" is not used with white males, because they are not benefited by Affirmative Action.

They are, however benefited greatly by other mechanisms, so maybe we should make sure to let people know that a candidate is qualified regardless of color, race or gender.

FYI

The last two Justices nominated by Democrats have been Jews: Breyer, Ginsburg

Jews are still minorities, right?

dragonaut: Obviously a person of a different background/ethnicity/walk of life will offer a different perspective on issues the court faces. It is clearly not just about appearences.

Because all white people are the same, and all black people are the same (etc., etc.), right?

Skin color/gender does not absolutely determine a person's cultural experiences.

Pro Zack: DarnoKonrad: But the question if they are qualified will only be raised if they're not some old white dude.

There are some racists who believe that affirmative action may result in hiring or appointing unqualified people. That is why "Qualified" is used.

"Qualified" is not used with white males, because they are not benefited by Affirmative Action.

They are, however benefited greatly by other mechanisms, so maybe we should make sure to let people know that a candidate is qualified regardless of color, race or gender.

I think that was the author's point.

I'd say you're going to get a person as qualified as the person the electorate chose to make the nomination for the position. i.e. the POTUS. It becomes a little redundant after the fact.

I always place at the bottom of my resume - "I have all the required qualifications to be Pope or Supreme Court Justice." Yet, they never call me for either job when there is an opening.

Go figure.

peachpicker: I am consistently amused by how many people freak right the fark out over this simple notion.

Are you saying that Supreme Court nominees should be (among other qualifications) considered for superficial traits like race and gender? What bearing does the physical characteristics of the justices have on their ability to properly interpret the Constitution?

Kyosuke: Skin color/gender does not absolutely determine a person's cultural experiences.

Who is saying that it "absolutely determines" anything? I'm pretty sure that you're the only one.

peachpicker: After Harriet Miers, I don't have a problem stating right up front that we'd like the nominee to be qualified, as that seemed a pretty easy detail to overlook if one isn't being careful.

Harriet Miers was more qualified for the Supreme Court than Obama was for the presidency. Don't tell me the left is suddenly getting conscientious about qualifications

dragonaut: Side note: I think it is a good idea to hire a minority justice. The supreme court should look like america, not a country club.

I don't. That would then limit the court to 1 _______ justice if you want to go by proportions. I don't care whether there are 5 black justices or it looks like a goddamn rainbow. The court should represent the demands of the law of this country, not the demands of the people.

Saying that a justice NEEDS to be _________ is as stupid as saying they need to be left handed.

Granted, left handed people are the superior race, but I can't expect any of you right handed plebes to understand that statement.

GoldSpider: Are you saying that Supreme Court nominees should be (among other qualifications) considered for superficial traits like race and gender? What bearing does the physical characteristics of the justices have on their ability to properly interpret the Constitution?

I'm saying that America is a diverse place, and it's reasonable to expect that our governing institutions reflect our shared cultural and experiential diversity. If you want to reduce if to superficialities, that's your own personal issue.

peachpicker: dragonaut: Side note: I think it is a good idea to hire a minority justice. The supreme court should look like america, not a country club.

I am consistently amused by how many people freak right the fark out over this simple notion.

My favorite are the people on the right who go on and on about wanting a justice that rules strictly on the letter of the law. Here's a tip: If your case makes it all the way up to the US Supreme Court, what the law says to do about it just might have been a little complicated and unclear.

GoldSpider: peachpicker: I am consistently amused by how many people freak right the fark out over this simple notion.

Are you saying that Supreme Court nominees should be (among other qualifications) considered for superficial traits like race and gender? What bearing does the physical characteristics of the justices have on their ability to properly interpret the Constitution?

This is an attempt by the libs to get two black midgets on the court, under the 3/5ths compromise.

"If you think about it, there never seems to be an assumption when white men are being discussed that they are unqualified. Their qualification is simply assumed and is inherent in their whiteness and maleness measured relative to the political pressure to hire a woman or minority."

FTFY.

On the one hand, I underdstand why this guy is frustrated about this turn of phrase. On the other hand, I think he has missed why many of us resort to phrases like this. Some of us use it to remind people that, when we are advocating choosing a person of a specific race, we are not arguing that their race should be the only, or often even the primary qualification for the job. We want a candidate who is otherwise qualified and also of a minority group.

We saw lots of this during the election last year. When someone would say they were excited to vote for a black man for the office of POTUS, we would be attacked for ignoring whether the candidate was qualified. We weren't ignoring his qualifications. On the contrary, we were excited to have a candidate who was black and who we felt was qualified. As for the HR director he mentions who was lamenting the lack of qualified minority candidates, I can't really defend her.

The author of the article really has hit upon one of the subtle forms racism takes in our society here. Chris Rock makes a similar point in HBO's The Black List. He uses baseball as an example. His argument is that baseball isn't equal after Jackie Robinson. It's not even equal when the number of blacks increases. Baseball becomes equal in the 1970's, because it isn't until then that you see shiatty black players. Our society will not be equal until all minority groups have the same freedom to suck and recover from it that is currently enjoyed by white men.

peachpicker: I'm saying that America is a diverse place, and it's reasonable to expect that our governing institutions reflect our shared cultural and experiential diversity.

So you think you can determine an individual's cultural background and experiences based solely on their physical traits? I'm pretty sure there's a word for people who make such assumptions.

El Chode: The court should represent the demands of the law of this country, not the demands of the people.

We operate under common law. Our collective biases and history are a part of the law.

The Right tends to make a point of the notion there is 'correct' way to interpret the constitution.

Which is a ridiculous notion. At no point in America history has there been a consensus about all tenants of constitutional law.

Or to put it another way, our legal system does not operate as an abstraction. It's made up of people.

And the best way to moderate the biases everyone has is to make the perspectives as representative of our society as reasonably feasible to ensure one bias doesn't contort our common law system.

Once again Roland Martin makes the wrong argument. No one should be talking about the sex or race of a person. "Qualified" minority is only used because there is some overshadowing public belief that the next nominee of any department should be black, hispanic, a woman, gay, or all of the above.

He's an idiot and never says anything original.

GoldSpider: peachpicker: I'm saying that America is a diverse place, and it's reasonable to expect that our governing institutions reflect our shared cultural and experiential diversity.

So you think you can determine an individual's cultural background and experiences based solely on their physical traits? I'm pretty sure there's a word for people who make such assumptions.

If only there was some way to possibly look into the backgrounds and experiences of nominees, instead of our current system of throwing the names of random black women into a hat and picking one out.

pkellmey: I always place at the bottom of my resume - "I have all the required qualifications to be Pope or Supreme Court Justice." Yet, they never call me for either job when there is an opening.

Go figure.

Maybe you should change your coversheet to read 'I'm just a white guy lookin' for a job.' I hear that will make them think you're automatically qualified.

mcwebe0: As for the HR director he mentions who was lamenting the lack of qualified minority candidates

The population is 2/3 green, 1/3 purple.

There are 100 green people who are qualified, and 50 purple people who are qualified. you hire 50 green people and 50 purple people. suddenly there are no qualified purple candidates.

simple.

apistat: If only there was some way to possibly look into the backgrounds and experiences of nominees, instead of our current system of throwing the names of random black women into a hat and picking one out.

Nice strawman.

He sounds butthurt.

kleppe: peachpicker: After Harriet Miers, I don't have a problem stating right up front that we'd like the nominee to be qualified, as that seemed a pretty easy detail to overlook if one isn't being careful.

Harriet Miers was more qualified for the Supreme Court than Obama was for the presidency. Don't tell me the left is suddenly getting conscientious about qualifications

It's not just a case of being under-qualified. Miers was too heavily involved in Bush/republican corruption to seriously be considered for such an important position.

And Obama's qualifications (or any lack of) might have made a difference in the outcome of the last election if not for the fact that everything republicans touched those prior eight years+ went to total shiat.

apistat: My favorite are the people on the right who go on and on about wanting a justice that rules strictly on the letter of the law. Here's a tip: If your case makes it all the way up to the US Supreme Court, what the law says to do about it just might have been a little complicated and unclear.

Actually, that is not the usual case. Every level of the justice system can interpret the intention of laws. No law is ever water tight for interpretations. When that interpretation or the court procedures at some level seems out of bounds to someone, it gets kicked up the ladder until no one is happy and they go to the folks - the SC. The SC usually just makes sure that the last ruling was judged according to normal rules, but once in a very great while they will actually decide on interpretation. Those cases are usually the history breaking decisions.

DarnoKonrad: El Chode: The court should represent the demands of the law of this country, not the demands of the people.

We operate under common law. Our collective biases and history are a part of the law.

The Right tends to make a point of the notion there is 'correct' way to interpret the constitution.

Which is a ridiculous notion. At no point in America history has there been a consensus about all tenants of constitutional law.

Or to put it another way, our legal system does not operate as an abstraction. It's made up of people.

And the best way to moderate the biases everyone has is to make the perspectives as representative of our society as reasonably feasible to ensure one bias doesn't contort our common law system.

Unfortunately, common law only constitutes half of the legal system. And unfortunately, Chief Justice John Marshall feels quite differently than you, and I'm inclined to take his word over yours.

"The Government of the United States has been emphatically termed a government of laws, and not of men." Marbury v Madison

GoldSpider: peachpicker: I'm saying that America is a diverse place, and it's reasonable to expect that our governing institutions reflect our shared cultural and experiential diversity.

So you think you can determine an individual's cultural background and experiences based solely on their physical traits? I'm pretty sure there's a word for people who make such assumptions.

Jane, you ignorant slut...

This guy is an idiot.

If people are discussing the merits of having someone in a position based on their race or gender that, to me, draws away from concentrating on their actual qualifications. So if you are going to call out something like race or gender that has nothing to do with the ability to do the job, you should include something that speaks to actual qualifications.

Where'd I put that.. ah, there it is..

Listerine: Once again Roland Martin makes the wrong argument. No one should be talking about the sex or race of a person. "Qualified" minority is only used because there is some overshadowing public belief that the next nominee of any department should be black, hispanic, a woman, gay, or all of the above.

He's an idiot and never says anything original.

There's an overshadowing belief amongst a large chunk of the public that it should be an old white guy. So there's that.

captainktainer: He has an excellent point. Part of it is due to the fact that the conservative freak-out over "QUOTAS!" and "AFFIRMATIVE ACTION!" has been more successful than they could possibly dream. Any time a woman or minority gets hired for a nationally prominent position, you hear dark mutterings about how they stole that job from a white man, or how they didn't really deserve it. By exaggerating the impact of affirmative action programs, they've succeeded in creating a long-term, pervasive meme that gets us to think that woman and minority candidates deserve extra scrutiny, because they couldn't possibly have gotten there on our own.

It's masterful work, really. It's terrifically, intelligently evil, and I kind of have to admire it.

You really believe it is only because of fake conservative "freak outs" that people now always question a female/minority more than a white male? Seems to me it is actually caused by the system aiming to prevent it, namely affirmative action. This is the reason I disagree with affirmative action. Due to its existence I am subconsciously forced to question a minorities legitimacy to a position.

If I know some people are being given a leg up simply based on their gender/skin color how do I know which ones? So I have to question all of them. If I am about to have open heart surgery and I have the choice between 2 doctors and all I know is that they both graduated from Johns Hopkins but one is white while the other is black, I'm probably going to lean towards the white one because I am more sure that he fully earned his spot on merit while I may have some doubts about the other.

Affirmative action has caused more problems than it has solved by making everyone instinctively question the qualifications of any prominent minority/female.

Well, in many jobs with quotas, they will set aside the majority applications to look at minorities (and women, if the job doesn't have a lot), then pick the best of those. That's what people object to-- they want the candidate to be the most qualified, not the most qualified of the minorities/women. That said, yeah, if it's a choice between two reasonably closely qualified choices, and one is a minority or a woman and the other is an old white guy, of course they should go with the minority or the woman.

DarnoKonrad: Women get the same 'qualification' treatment as minorities -- yet are over 50% of the population.

50% of the population and used to be a tiny percentage of the workforce (many industries where women have become well-represented now only look at minorities). The reason women got AA is that there weren't a representative number of women in business/government, same as there isn't a representative number of minorities. No one thinks the SC should be 50% black to be fair, because African Americans aren't 50% of the US population. Women, however, are, so to get it representative we'd want 4-5 members of the SC to be female.

Ideally it would be 6 white people (66% of the population), one Hispanic (15%), one African-American (13%), and one member of any other race besides those three (preferably Asian (4%) but could really be any); of those, five would be female (52%) and four would be male. Eight would be Christian, representing 76% (two Catholic, 25%), and one would not have any religion or would be atheist (15%). But we can't pick based on representativeness alone.

DarnoKonrad: El Chode: The court should represent the demands of the law of this country, not the demands of the people.

We operate under common law. Our collective biases and history are a part of the law.

The Right tends to make a point of the notion there is 'correct' way to interpret the constitution.

Which is a ridiculous notion. At no point in America history has there been a consensus about all tenants of constitutional law.

Or to put it another way, our legal system does not operate as an abstraction. It's made up of people.

And the best way to moderate the biases everyone has is to make the perspectives as representative of our society as reasonably feasible to ensure one bias doesn't contort our common law system.

there not being a consensus among jurists doesn't mean there is not a correct way to interpret.

If there is as you say no correct way to interpret, then the job of jurists seems simply to be to write whatever looks prettiest on a piece of paper when delivering their opinions.

And if there is no intention when laws are passed, what is the purpose of writing and passing laws in the first place?