Someone commented on the lack of educational background diversity on the Supreme Court

With regard to choosing nominees that are not from Ivy League backgrounds...

It appears that Obama's goal right now is to diversify the court by adding more women and non-whites to the court. If a gender or ethnic minority is introduced to the court without the Ivy League credentials, it will automatically raise questions about that person's qualifications. Now is not the right time to start choosing non Ivy Leaguers. When the court is fully representative of America, then they can start seeking out people from other types of schools. Does that make sense?

Supreme Court justices to be chosen by the Harvard and Yale admissions offices.

get the best education, competing with top students.

They picked George W. Bush because he was one of the best students in the nation?

dumbest and laziest, but he had the connections to go to the top.

"connections," then you can't count on Ivy league graduates being "the best."

They had to get there on their own merit.

But it's not a strawman to point out that Ivy League schools don't always pick or graduate "the best," as suggested by the post I responded to.

And since Kagan and Sotomayor don't have those same connections, clearly talent, intelligence and hard work made them successful.

how many others who are just as qualified are rejected? For that matter, are Harvard and Yale so much better than other schools that we shouldn't even consider graduates of other institutions? Does learning stop upon graduation? Maybe there are graduates from state universities who have become far better judges than any Ivy League graduate. I am of the belief that the Ivy League is how the shakers and movers of one generation insure their children make the proper contacts to gain entry into the higher echelons. Just enough of the best and brightest from the unwashed masses are admitted to maintain the facade that these are educational institutions.

On edit - check out the info out there on legacy admissions.

I don't think the initial complaint makes sense.

Ivy League schools don't have the reputation they have because they're chopping liver. Certainly other schools exist that have equally excellent programs that could lead people into the judiciary, but I have trouble countenancing an argument that too many people have been appointed to judicial positions who have Ivy League backgrounds.

Now, if there was a football team made up of all Ivy League athletes, that might be really weird. Having an Ivy League SCOTUS really isn't.

"When the court is fully representative of America, then they can start seeking out people from other types of schools."

Excuse me, but Ivy league graduates, no matter their race, gender, religion, ethnicity, etc. aren't "fully representative of America." They are part of the elite class class, the elite, wealthy and powerful class. That is what Ivy League schools are for, to educate the elite and wealthy.

Tell you what, let's find a great legal mind from, oh say, one of the land grant colleges, that would be truly representative of America.

part of the elite class. Just one example-Justice Sonia Sotomayor had very humble beginnings.

I think the argument is that "humble now" would be preferred.

He had more humble beginnings than most.

I think your point cuts opposite of the way you intended.

Which is doubly hilarious, since the question wasn't even addressed to you.

Thank goodness for small mercies, eh? :hi:

:eyes:

Wonderful stuff!

:rofl:

:rofl: backatcha!

Thanks for your answer.

Parents lived in Stuyvesant Town, home (along with the adjacent Peter Cooper Village) to many blue-collar NYers back then.

Moved in late 60s to a very early co-op conversion on the Upper West Side, which back in those days was dicer than the general StuyTown area (ref. "Panic In Needle Park" for lurid Upper West Side detail).

Went to the same public high school that I (decidedly lower middle class than the Kagans) attended.

Not "elite" by any means.

not likely to be the ones who do exceptionally well like the Obama, Kagan, Sotomayor.

Of course we want the top minds on it.

He got there on scholarships.

He didn't come from the "elite" class. His mom WAS PTA president when the boys were in elementary school. His family WAS middle class enough to own their modest 3 bedroom ranch house. He WAS a bit more privileged than my son, coming from a middle class background.

But he earned his way to Berkley, and then to Yale.

Of course, he'll be paying off the student loans for the fees the scholarships didn't cover for the rest of his working career.

It has struck me over and over that Obama, who is very well educated, started from fairly humble beginnings, and all that - has never attended a public school. Neither have his kids.

I think that creates a disconnect. There are plenty of public schools like Michigan that have very fine law schools. It wouldn't exactly compromise the Supreme Court to have a few people from those schools.

How can only some differences "count", and the one that arguable most impacts our lives (socio-economics) must never be discussed? :shrug:

Arrogant for believing that they can be, and are, objective.

Funny how all these "arrogant personalities" come and go, but the influence of corporate players only entrenches, never recedes.

Any odds that Ms. Kagan will lead the charge to the Left, particularly on matters economic?

:rofl:

I do not care if someone did or did not go to an ivy league. It is irrelevant to me.

Kagan being in bed with Monsanto scares me terribly. The only hope we have of stopping the monopolistic powers of this Death and famine producing company is in the courts. And if the judges are already chosen to support Monsanto, our food sources are doomed.