<p>All I can say is, for most people IQ doesn’t matter at all simply because the difference is too minor. For the very end of the spectrum though (either way), it does.</p>
<p>I think the main topic has been digressed to somewhere… What is the reason that all of you are discussing about “meritocracy?” (I’m just inquisitive)…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In the first place, you have not one iota of evidence to support such disparaging remarks about Judge Sotomayor’s IQ. That’s nothing but slander, and I’m inclined to think it racially motivated slander. It’s the stuff that appears on right-wing blogs without source or substantiation. It’s trash, pure and simple, and you ought to be ashamed for repeating it.</p>
<p>In the second place, if IQ (whatever that measures) were the quality we were looking for in judges, including Supreme Court justices, then we wouldn’t go through such an elaborate vetting process as we do. We’d simply test everyone in the country and award the Supreme Court seats to the highest scorers. But we don’t, do we? Why? Well, because we think substantive knowledge of the law matters, for one thing. And because we think judgment matters at least as much as intelligence, and judgment rests heavily on experience. Now I have no doubt the people you name—Diane Wood, Elena Kagan, Cass Sunstein, and Richard Posner—all know a lot of law. They’re all law professors, after all. Two of them have been federal appellate judges. All four have been lawyers for the federal government. But just to describe their qualifications is to identify their limitations. They have EXACTLY the same qualifications as the other 8 people who currently serve on the Supreme Court. The law is so vast and broad and deep that no one can possibly know it all. People specialize. That’s fine, as long as a balance of specialties are represented in our court system. But it is truly a matter for concern, and terribly dangerous, when the ultimate judicial power is vested in 9 persons who all share essentially the same narrow background in the law, as government lawyers/law professors/appellate judges. When the Supreme Court is comprised entirely of individuals who collectively are utterly ignorant of what it actually means to prosecute or to defend an ordinary criminal case, or to defend the rights and interests of a business client, or to be a trial court judge on the front lines of dispensing justice under strictures laid down by a High Court composed entirely of people who have never been there, never done that, never appeared in a trial courtroom either as as advocate or as judge—in short, who really don’t understand how our justice system works at its most basic and elemental levels—then I think we’ve got a really serious breakdown in our judicial system. I think that sort of experience is valuable. Presidents from the founding of the republic up until very recent times have thought likewise. If we were getting really outstanding jurisprudence from the pack of mediocrities who currently occupy the Court I might possibly be persuaded otherwise. But given the results we’re getting, appointing more of the same kinds of people is likely only to produce more of the same kinds of decisions—ideological, not thoughtful, and in important respects deeply divorced from the real lives that real people lead. I think we can do better than that.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>whoa. bclintonk lays down the verbal ownage. </p>
<p>Don’t expect Killbilly to respond though. He pretty much dodged my question and when challenged on his views by your earlier post, ignored your analysis.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>His post history is filled with garbage like “blacks and latinos are inferior races because they score worse on IQ tests, etc . . .” although phrased slightly more politely. I’m sure that it is racially motivated and I’m sure that he isn’t ashamed for repeating it.</p>
<p>Just add Killbilly to your ignore list; the rest of the thread is great.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>How ironic. How is attacking rightists like that any better than racism? </p>
<p>I’m too lazy to read through the rest of that post, but even if killbilly was completely wrong, you haven’t done any better.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>lol killbilly called sotomayor a dumb bossy latina. he assumed that because she isn’t white that she has a low IQ. i don’t think bclintonk is tilting at windmills here.</p>
<p>
I am basing it off her own admission that she had low test scores and was an AA admit and off of her oral argument tapes and decisions. Accusing me of racism is unfair and I take exception to it. I would expect better from someone who claims to be an academic.</p>
<p>
Strawman…I am not arguing it is the only factor that should be taken into account, I am arguing it is one of the things we should consider.</p>
<p>
The qualifications they do have just happen to be the ones which serve people on the SCOTUS best. All doctors went to medical school. Do you see a problem with that?</p>
<p>
Very silly argument- in any SC case both sides present long arguments citing cases that are relevant to the topic and each justice also looks into each case . They do not need to have experience with an issue to judge on it.</p>
<p>
I understand how to fix a car even though I have never done so. To argue that they must have personally done these things to understand them is silly. But beyond that, it is also irrelevant since judges judge based on what the law says not on their own personal judgment. Is that not the case? For this to matter a judge would have to be making whatever sorts of decisions they want, and arguing Sotomayor is going to do that does not help your cause.</p>
<p>Frequently there are ambiguities and even contradictions in “the law”. All too often, “laws” are political things passed by political creatures for political reasons. Statutes forbad mixed race marriage, business transactions on Sunday, consumption of alcohol, etc.</p>
<p>The founding fathers meant the jury system to be a check on the idiocy of legislatures. Google jury nullification. If laymen can nullify laws, why shouldn’t a judge, probably a better legal mind than anyone in the legislature, have a similiar priviledge? Subject, of course, to appeal and review.</p>