Originally Posted by Pointguard
They definitely are picked because of their slant and experience along with the slant and experience of the President selecting them. Women are on the supreme court because they are women. Different experiences do make it a bit richer in its interpretation of the law.
You mean he should have been dependent and parrot Scalia? This guy went ten years without asking a question from the bench. He's 1 of 8 people deciding the legal guide of the nation. And you think he should should be more dependent? He lacks confidence, obviously since he doesn't draw from his experiences. I dislike that.
Do you think he gets picked by Republicans if he's more like Huey Newton? Its a known fact that the right loves and adopts Blacks like Herman Cain and Clarence Thomas. They will get leverage from Republicans. Are you still not understanding this.
"He was the first to use a very scientific approach to studying social phenomenon. He is often called the father of Social Science."
You shouldn't draw from your experiences. You should be drawing from the constitution. What you're suggesting would corrupt the purpose of the supreme court.
He gets picked by Republicans because he's conservative and respects the constitution. He performs the job how you're meant to not willy nilly based on your experience. Why have the law if you're going to judge purely based on your experience?
Herman Cain and Clarence Thomas became republicans/conservatives based on their own free will. That's pretty much evidenced by how heavily the black population votes democrat. To differ from that local neighborhood and peer pressure would take some personal research, self reflection and self awareness instead of just doing what you're supposed to do based on your skin color.
Social science is such a broad term dude...the ideas America was founded on could be branded under the umbrella of social science. Natural philosophy, age of enlightment, pretty much all philosophy. What Karl Marx wrote about is filed under social sciences.