Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveZ
Her qualifications - academically and experientially - to do the job are fine. It seems that most of the complaint about her is that people don't "like" her.
One of the best management instructors I know used to describe organizations as having two types of people - the popular and the competent, and only very rarely do you find someone who is both. And she described that the most awkward point came when she asked students to honestlly categorize themselves as popular or competent.
As we examine the curent SCOTUS team, every one of them is indeed competent, yet each one ticks off some group of people big-time due to personal traits, heritage, attitude and opinions.
Judge Sotomayor rubs many people the wrong way, for a variety of reasons. However, she has shown herself as a highly competent jurist whose appellate rulings mirror the law. So, is the preference for an Associate Justice who is popular or would you rather one who is [I]competent[/I?
|
Very clearly, she seems to be competent but in her own words, out of her own mouth it is very clear that she will try to make policy and law whether than just interpret it. She speaks clearly as not being a proponent of equal rights. She favors the poor and minorities.
It has nothing to do with her being "unpopular" other than the unpopularity of her qualifications. Demeanor and temperament are also qualifications for the job. When any candidate is clear about their actions in a given case and these actions are anti-constitutional, she is not qualified.
Yoda
A member of the loyal opposition