Even The Wolf likely can't clean up Harvey Weinstein's pending troubles

We have no idea because our justice system was created by and for men over a period of centuries. I’d love to hear a group of women jurists discuss the topic with an eye toward the future, but I’m the fundamental changes that would rise from genuine gender equality won’t occur in a year or a decade or in our lifetimes.

 

How about you give it a shot?

 

Nothing "needs to be argued[.]" I asked you your opinion because I was earnestly curious, for the reasoning I have laid out ad nauseum and because, as you point out, you are pretty intellectually consistent. We get it. You're too good to participate.

 

He does. As we cannot go back in time and recreate this perfect society (and its attendant institutions), our only viable option is to defer entirely to the judgement and essential goodness of those who most earnestly wish we could. Only insofar as we have the right people running the show can this society's flaws be mitigated.

Further, since these flaws are, shall we say, "baked in," we can never fully overcome them. Therefore, it is incumbent on us to ensure that the right people running the show are always running the show.

 

I don't know why, but that guy has built an entire business around it.

This company has been advertising on the radio around here. Kinda creepy ads. Thought they were local til I looked them up; they have no presence here but are nationwide. Maybe trying to break into the market. This thread brought the ads to mind, so I posted it.

 

I think we've had quite enough of white men explaining how things can or should be, so I'll pass.

Trump choosing white men as judges, highest rate in decades

 

It's interesting that the board is unanimous that a long-standing individual civil liberty wins out over the good of greater society.

I've seen it come out differently on that.

 

The whole problem with this thinking is that we get people talking about judges who will be compassionate enough to side with the "little guy" in court proceedings.

We all love the "little guy", but sometimes the law isn't on his side -- even when he is a sympathetic figure.

I'm with Chief Roberts, as he stated: "If the Constitution says that the little guy should win, then the little guy's going to win in the court before me. But if the Constitution says that the big guy should win, well then the big guy's going to win, because my obligation is to the Constitution."

Commentary: Sotomayor pick not based on merit - CNN.com

I think that is better than what Justice Sotomayor expressed:

Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O'Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.

Lecture: ‘A Latina Judge’s Voice’

And to Cran's point about Trump appointing white (males) to the bench, I think we have to just accept that at this point the Democratic Party is more diverse, which will lead to more diverse picks coming from a Democratic President.

I'm not sure why a Republican's numbers should expect to be similar.

I'd rather see qualified white conservative (men) appointed than minority candidates who were either unqualified or who did not hold conservative views, and don't think Trump should be compelled to hit some magic percentage to satisfy critics.

 

Why would any of us presume to know what the "good of greater society" is or how it might be achieved without first going to the trouble of actually achieving gender equality? Women, roughly half of us, have never been full participants in the creation, investigation, prosecution and judicial oversight of laws having to do with crimes in which they are predominantly the victims. I don't believe there are shortcut solutions that bypass addressing the unequal balance of power.

 

It's a shame Devil isn't here for this thread. He could explain to us how much better off we are when we convict bad guys, under questionable circumstances, because it's worth it to get them off the streets, and to prevent them from eventually committing crimes.

 

I thought Devil's argument would be that it was okay that the *victim* got clobbered, because at some point, the victim had done something wrong or bad.

 

Until that day, men are predominantly still in charge, even if it's just the result of a dying vestige.

In the meantime, sex criminals continue to walk free because the crimes are difficult to prosecute, for whatever reason. They continue to commit crimes.

And your position - tell me if I'm wrong - is we need to just wait for the "unequal balance of power" to shift before addressing this problem?