When undergrad2 said that the nominations in the US are not based on Party lines i.e. whether they are Republicans or Democrats, I disagree. This is because potential Supreme Court justices are usually nominated because of their alignment to the President’s party. As you know, the sitting president will get to nominate the vacancies in the Supreme Court. When Clinton was president, many Republicans and those who shared their view were so worried that some Supreme Court judges would while die while Clinton was still in office (you must understand many judges were very old). So, after Clinton, when Bush assumed office, these old judges “can die now” because Bush now get to nominate the potential judges. All these go to show that the nomination of US Supreme Court justices are very much governed by party line, contrary to what undergrad2 had said.

And with regard to Justice Marshall and Justice Thomas, both are black, one nominated and appointed to replace the other. Justice Thomas was nominated and confirmed under lots of acrimonies and protest. Many feel that there are better white, Latino and even other black better than him, but he was appointed anyway. This is my point. Although they may not have mentioned it explicitly, the reality is they want one black to replace another black. By the way, justice Marshall made many landmark cases on the civil rights in the US.

I cannot understand what this poster is saying! Why should anybody die when President Bush leaves office??

“The kind of diversity we should seek is diversity in values not ethnic diversity. For example, we may have one who sees the Constitution as being secular and one who sees the Constitution as being less than secular. We may have one who is a strict constructionist and one is more liberal in his or her interpretation of the Constitution”.

Let’s examine what you said:

“Although, in the abstract, diversity in values is not necessarily ethnic diversity, however, in practical reality, they intersect especially when one considers ethnicity for some is inextricably tied up with religion and values. It will be better…”

Nominations to the U.S. Supreme Court are based on the values they hold and not whether they are black, white or Latino. Nominations too are not based on Party lines i.e. whether they are Republicans or Democrats. If a nominee happens to be black because of his views that does not mean he is nominated because he is black. I’m not a student of U.S. constitutional history but there must have been periods in its history when there is no black on the U.S. Supreme Court justice. I believe there is one right now. But Latino?

So in the case of Malaysia if they “intersect” like you say, it should only be because of their values they hold. In the case of the U.S., some Justices on the U.S. Supreme Court have values closer to that of the Republicans but that is merely coincidental.

The issue is should nominations to our Federal Court be based on race at all. The short answer to that is ideally it shouldn’t. The extent to which we allow it to interfere with our choices is a betrayal of our commitment to principles.

The process too is transparent. The President’s nominee Harriet Miers has had to withdraw in the face of fierce opposition days before Senate confirmation hearings. Yes, they go through hearings before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee when they were examined as to the views they hold and not their party affiliations. Nominations are never based on whether they are white, black or Latino etc. Nominations are based on the views they hold such as whether they were pro-life, strong in gun control, favors a small government, less taxes and strong national defense etc which are no doubt values which tend to coincide along party lines – but only coincidentally. For the most part they tend to be bipartisan.

Still many Democrats opposed Samuel A. Alito, Jr’s nomination. But that is because of his views on the environment and gun-control and not because he is a Republican.

But of course, Malaysia is not United States. Malaysia is a developing country still struggling with its identity, a country ravaged by the politics of race and religion

Sorry you have to ask your friend, darkhorse. This was what he said earlier: “This goes to show how far we have politicized the Judiciary. DAP and UMNO are equally guilty”.

You have just insulted everybody with your stupidity, not me. You have nothing.

Please go read Jeffrey posting above. I am not sucking up to him. He was able to convey so succinctly and aptly what I was trying to say.

It is meant soley for u and some of your friends. From now, if civility prevails, I will not do again. Much depends on both sides. As I said earlier, I will not be bullied.

On the other hand with so much being revealed in Royal Commission I think one dread to receive a Tan Sri for a moment. Wonder who is phoning who for one? ;)

“Judges from one particular racial or religion group would most probably have very little sympathy for others even if they have the “best brains”.

So what you’re saying is that with a Chinese and a Buddhist as a judge, he or she will not be sympathetic towards issues involving other religion and race – most probably??

LOL. You not only insulted all the judges but you just insulted Kit!

Although Zaki broke the record, he is disqualified because he stepped on the line.

YB Kit said “The last Federal Court Judge vacancy should have been filled by a qualified Malaysian Chinese …”

He did not say a qualified Malaysian Chinese from the DAP. So what do you mean by “politicizing judiciary appointment”?

Yes. He should have disclosed his relationship. As to whether he should recuse himself that is a matter that has to be dealt with separately. It does not necessarily mean that he must recuse himself or that he is under a duty to do so.

Haidar is already a polarizing figure to begin with and a controversial one.

The kind of diversity we should seek is diversity in values not ethnic diversity. For example, we may have one who sees the Constitution as being secular and one who sees the Constitution as being less than secular. We may have one who is a strict constructionist and one is more liberal in his or her interpretation of the Constitution.

“To quickly conclude that DAP is politicizing judiciary appointment may just go to show one’s false sense of righteousness.” limkamput

This is the kind of judgmental attitude you have been exhibiting that has irked many a commentator on this blog. I suggest you stick to the issues.

We can have the best legal brains to concoct and to do evil things too. What Sdr Lim advocated was diversity and with that a more moderating and encompassing influence on the judiciary. Malaysia is a multi-religious and multiracial country. Judges from one particular racial or religion group would most probably have very little sympathy for others even if they have the “best brains”. One just has to read the decision on cases pertaining to religion to come to this conclusion. Yes, best brain only shows a person is clever. But we also need judges with different values, religions and cultural backgrounds. Besides, what is wrong with fighting for a Chinese to be a Federal Court judge? It is perfectly legitimate from whatever angles one may look at – merit, fair representation, diversity, and checks and balance. To quickly conclude that DAP is politicizing judiciary appointment may just go to show one’s false sense of righteousness.

The nature of Karpal’s challenge is based on the appearance of justice point : why didn’t he disclose the relationship at the beginning to avoid suspicions ?

According to Malaysiakini, “Malaysian Bar counsel Robert Lazar said the legal profession body’s position was that Haidar should have disclosed the relationship, especially after lawyers representing NGOs Suaram and Hakam raised the matter in chambers with the commissioners. On that occasion, such claims of conflict of interest against Haidar were dismissed in chambers. “We wish to emphasise that it would have been far more prudent if this was disclosed at the outset of the proceedings,” said Lazar, although he added that the Bar was not sure on how close the duo were as a result of that relationship through marriage.

God, I wish I had the power to hypnotize these guys, at least I could make them to speak out the truth.