The following applies to Kagan, just as it did to Sotomajor.

This editorial was created by 160 Associated Press readers under a Creative Commons Share-Alike Attribution License 3.0 using MixedInk’s collaborative writing tool. For more about how it was created, see here. It can be republished only if accompanied by this note.

Obamas Appointment of Sotomayor Fails to Offer Educational Diversity to Court.

Sotomayor does not offer true diversity to our Supreme Court. The potential power of Sotomayor’s diversity as a Latina Woman, from a disadvantaged background, loses its strength because her Yale Law degree does not offer educational diversity to the current mix of sitting Judges. Once she walked through the Gates of Princeton and then Yale Law School she became educated by the same Professors that have educated the majority of our current Supreme Court Justices, and our Presidents.

Diversity in education is extremely important. We need to look for diversity in our ideas, and if our leaders are from the same educational background, they lose the original power of their ethnic and gender diversity. The ethnic and gender diversity many of our current leaders possess no longer brings a plethora of new ideas, only the same perspective they learned from their common Ivy League education. One example of the common education problem is that Yale has been heavily influenced by a former lecturer at Yale, Judge Frank, who developed the philosophy of Legal Realism. Frank argued that Judges should not only look at the original intent of the Constitution, but they should also bring in outside influences, including their own experiences in order to determine the law. This negative interpretation has influenced both Conservatives and Liberals graduating from Yale. It has been said that Legal Realism has infested Yale Law School and turned lawyers into political activists.

A generation of appointees with either a Harvard or Yale background, has the potential to distort the proper interpretation of our Constitution. America needs to decentralize the power structure away from the Ivy League educated individual and gain from the knowledgeable and diverse perspectives that people from other institutions can provide. We should appoint Supreme Court Justices educated from amongst a wider group of Americas Universities.

Harvard -

Chief Justice John Roberts
Anthony Kennedy
Antonin Scalia
Stephen Breyer
Ruth Bader Ginsburg (Harvard, Columbia)

Yale

Samuel Alito – Yale JD 1975
David Souter
Clarence Thomas – Yale JD 1974
Sonia Sotomayor – Yale JD 1979

Northwestern Law School.

Justice John Paul Stevens

The Presidents we have elected for the last twenty years, have themselves been Harvard or Yale educated. This has the potential to create an even more closed minded interpretation of our laws.

Yale – Bush Sr. – 4 years
Yale Law – Clinton – 8 years
Yale – Bush, Jr. – 8 Years
Harvard Law – Obama – 4 – 8 years

When we consider that our Nation has potentially twenty – eight years of Presidential influece from these two Universities, as Americans, we should look long and hard at the influence Yale and Harvard have exerted on our nation’s policies. Barack Obama promised America Change, but he has continued the same discriminatory policy by appointing a Yale graduate over many qualified candidates that graduated from other top Colleges and Universities in America.

That is one of the reason why I never believe a single word coming from a politicians. All they are after is the seat that they are running for and power. Once elected, they can do whatever they want within their “territory” and people have take it or ELSE (LOL)

The idea that “Politicians win elections when they offer better alternatives than their opponents” is only partially true. The “better alternatives” are ALWAYS generalities. Obama won on “Change you can believe in” (God help us!)

The only way voters can know what they are voting for is by looking at the candidate’s record- both personal and professional.

I’ll tell you exactly why Americans love this channel. It lies at the other end of the spectrum where THE DAILY SHOW and THE COLBERT REPORT live. It’s pure entertainment. It’s a conservative Comedy Central. I’m not saying I disagree with what is said on FOX NEWS; I’m just pointing out that it is not objective journalism. Objective journalism – trust me – would not be getting ratings like FOX does.

But this doesn’t mean Americans are simply entertainment junkies. It means they want to be educated. And sometimes, listening to an objective news report isn’t enough. Americans want to go beyond what’s happening in the world. They want to know why it’s happening, and what it means. Only a pundit can accomplish this task. Hence, FOX educates, and the people watch.

While I would certainly not advocate literacy tests as a means to qualify voters (probably unconstitutional), there is strong social relevance to educating responsible and knowledgeable voters. It is to our national discredit that we have allowed public education to fail in such blatant disregard for the basics.

During Bush’s last election, there was much talk about the Christian and Evangelical vote. Ministers like T.D. Jakes and Dr. James Dobson were seen on FOX and CNN for not just their religious views and beliefs, but for their political views as well. The world was able to see these men for more than just their convictions and moral values, they were also looked upon and sought after for their political stance and influential power -all of shich are rooted in Christianly. Talk about being the salt light of the world!

After elections like these in Germany, I can see that the Christian vote isn’t just making a difference in the States, but also around the world! How can I possibly go to the polls next time and assume that my Christian Values don’t matter? -that my Christian voice is too small to make a difference? The results of last elections in Germany are proof that my Christian values and faith –the very morals that influence how I vote- can make a tremendous impact here in the States as they do around the world.

The questions “When does murder become a crime?” and “When is the Time to Kill?” might be great questions in the circles of philosophical discourse, but not when babies –female babies necessary to the propagation and survival of an entire world culture and county, in this case- are the victims of the result of philosophical (so called) reasoning.

These girls, daughters of our Earth, sisters of our human collective, mothers of our future, have the right to live -and haunt those who stike against them.