Clive Crook writes about the Sotomayor nomination, but more interestingly about the nature and extent of affirmative action and whether the issue needs to be revisited.
Given the recent comment by for example Pita Sharples, perhaps it is time that we ‘ revisited’ this issue in NZ. In that regard some of the questions posed by Crook could well apply in a NZ context.
Comments are closed.
 | pdm on More prejudice re the Chi… |
 | adamsmith1922 on More prejudice re the Chi… |
 | robertguyton on More prejudice re the Chi… |
 | Quintin Hogg on A comment on the Crafar d… |
| adamsmith1922 on A comment on the Crafar d… |
| robertguyton on A comment on the Crafar d… |
| pdm on On Mallard’s hypocr… |
| adamsmith1922 on On Mallard’s hypocr… |
| adamsmith1922 on ACT opts for oblivion |
| adamsmith1922 on Has National lost the plo… |
 | smttc on Has National lost the plo… |
| robertguyton on Has National lost the plo… |
| adamsmith1922 on Has National lost the plo… |
| robertguyton on ACT opts for oblivion |
| robertguyton on On Mallard’s hypocr… |
Frog Blog Homepaddock Keeping Stock Kiwiblog No Minister The Standard The Visible Hand in Economics BBC News | News Front Page | World Edition CNN Top Stories New York Times Salon.com – Original, independent news coverage and investigative reporting, and insightful commentary on politics and culture Wired News Top Stories
Crooks verdict that she has an outstanding record suggests to me that he has never actually read any of her decisions. She has experience, I thought after reading of a few of them that she has rather wasted that experience. For example, I believe that her decisions are overturned significantly more than comparable judges. She may be an activist judge, but not one who seems to have a particular regard for the law.
I have a suspicion that Crook may have been pandering a bit to a viewpoint in order to make his other point.
I think his key point is that all the Supremes are activists.
I have a feeling that if confirmed Obama may regret appointing Sotomayor.