Souter to retire: Obama gets his first Supreme Court nom op
 

Well it seems that a lat 100 day gift is dropped on President Obama's lap.

Who do you think he's going to pick? Do you think that the confirmation process will be as divisive and contentious as it has in the past?

I'm not sure what he's going to do. I believe that he'll pick a more center more moderate liberal, but I'm not sure who that will be that this time. I've got some reading to do.

Wait.... could we replace a jurist that happens to make decisions that appear to average out to moderate on the whole with a jurist that happens to make decisions that appear to average out to liberal on the whole? We've got a Democratic president and a Democratic congress.

Let's go find a new Warren, Brennen or Marshall!!

Justice Souter has been waiting a long time to retire. Tough old bastard didn't wanna give Bushy-poo any more muscle in the SC. When the Obaminator was elected, he took a deep breathe and let out a sigh that had been held for eight years. SC is totally gonna swing back to the Due Process model, IMO.

Hell, can't we just reanimate them?

Apparently he will pick a poor, disabled, gay, African-American to fill the post.

That should be fun!

I predict Sonia Sotomayor. We could do worse. She's a real judge.

I know she is the choice of conventional wisdom, but that's not a bad thing.

interesting loquitur...

I just was trying to find out what the past choices could have been... here's what slate listed:

Cyn, BHO won't pick Deval Patrick because it looks like cronyism; he and Patrick are old buddies. Koh would ignite a firestorm because of his views of international law, and the political fallout is a distraction BHO doesn't need now. Sunstein and Kagan are basically academics; they are both first-class minds and, again, we can do worse. I hadn't heard anyting about Granholm being in the running; is she really Supreme Court justice material? The others I don't really know.

I really think his best choice is Sotomayor. But hey, he isn't listening to me.

I should get the nomination.

I think Kagan is likely to get /a/ nomination at some point during Obama's presidency, but I think this is too early for her to be a serious candidate. Obama is going to wait until she's had a few arguments before the court as solicitor general before he nominates her. I hope that he'll go outside the box, and pick someone with actual litigation experience. I would think it'd be hilarious if he nominated John Edwards... ;)

..

so no black person is qualified for the supreme court? You aren't racist or anything are ya?

Or maybe he could be saying that with all the African American people holding high office the argument that they need preferential treatment could cease.

An instance of the entire supreme court consisting of blacks wouldn't change what's going on in the life of the average black person. I don't see the connection. There aren't that many people who sit on the supreme court overall.

I just hope he chooses someone who isn't bat-shit crazy.

Unfortunately, most don't appear to see the connection.

Obama's choice will be fairly moderate, I imagine.

And it won't matter, the GOP will scream bloody murder no matter who he chooses.

His statement says if a black person not if an unqualified black person. What if a black person is the most qualified?

..

saying that a black person can only become a supreme court justice via affirmative action is indeed racist.

Nice threadjack though.

Saying that black people uniformly love fried chicken and watermelon is also racist. But nobody said that, either.

He is certainly implying that if a black person gets appointed it is because of affirmative action.

No, he isn't. Try Seaver's #12.

That's what I thought he was saying (Seaver's clarification). Though I agreed with Baraka_Guru's rejoinder in #13.

If that is what he meant then he wasn't being racist but I'd disagree that the appointment of a black man means we don't need AA anymore. But currently the only other response we have from him doesn't seem to support your interpretation.



---------- Post added at 10:50 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:38 PM ----------

Current make up of the supreme court:

Male: 8
Female: 1

White: 8
Black: 1


It seems clear to me that the court needs more diversity.

So long as they publish well reasoned opinions and not the crap the put out in Massachusetts v. EPA.

Actually, according to figures from the US census, African Americans are represented fairly well on the Supreme Court as a reflection of their percentage of the population (~12%). Women, however, are woefully under-represented.

Regardless, the most qualified person should be the appointee. Things rarely work out that way, however.

Me too. It's not a very good argument against AA, at least not on its own.

I think when it comes to the supreme court part of the qualification process is gender/race. A court as powerful as the supreme court needs a diversity of opinions and world views. One way to get this diversity is to be both diverse in race and gender.

I do agree that percentage wise blacks are well represented but the one black judge is also a judge that a large majority of black people do not relate with nor agree with.

It is my hope that Obama appoints a minority female who is also qualified. Which minority it is not as important to me as I feel any minority would diversify the pool of opinions. The court definitely does not need any more privileged white males (disclaimer: I am a privileged white male).

That's cool and all, Rekna, but right now I'm really only interested in minority female opinions about the importance of Supreme Court diversity. Many thanks for the disclaimer. :D

race/gender in no way guarantee a differing world view. If a black man and a white woman grow up next door to each other on the same street their entire lives, how different is their world view?

It can vary from very different to just slightly different. It also depends on which country/community/economic class/etc. they are living in.

There will be differences because the culture at large views them as different, regardless of where they grew up and what circumstances.

Who cares about diversity in the Supreme Court? Obama picking (What will most likely be) a woman to fill Souter's vacant seat just because she is a women is reverse sexism.

It's a good thing he won't pick a woman just because she's a woman then, isn't it?

And personally, I'd rather diversity over uniformity.

If Sonia Sotomayor, it is sad that someone will get picked probably since they are Puerto Rico, and a woman. It will sadly in my mind make some think that the pick was not fully qualified, or it may mean that there are other candidates that are more qualified.

I think the best person, even if it is a caucasion male,or whatever should get picked, but even supreme court is all about politics at least until you get the job.

The problem is there is no single best person. In the end it comes down to there are likely lots of very good candidates to choose from that have comparable credentials. In this case I think it is best to diversify the bench. The court is not supposed to be a bunch of yes men but instead a bunch of free thinkers who debate and decide on tough issues. It is vital that such a body contain a diverse group of people to ensure that all angles are taken into consideration.

Yes, he will. Who are you kidding? His entire stance so far is that SCOTUS needs to be more "diversified" and that women are "underrepresented" on the bench. It would be a shock if he didn't pick a woman.

Anywho, this isn't about "conformity". The court isn't supposed to be a bunch of "free thinkers", whatever the hell that means. They're supposed to be a panel of judges who know the law and make sure that the law is in-line with the Constitution absent their own personal biases. If Obama wants to pick a woman with extensive knowledge of the law, fine. But Obama is talking about picking persons with little to no real experience with the law and based on their race and/or gender and some people actually think that's a good idea? I mean, really?

I weep for the future.

Except no one thinks this. As Rekna pointed out, every single candidate that's being considered for this position is very qualified. The issue isn't picking an unqualified woman over a qualified man -- it's picking a qualified woman rather than a qualified man. There are hundred, if not thousands, of people in the United States who are perfectly qualified to be Supreme Court Justices. So it's perfectly legitimate to pick someone based on some factors other than their pure knowledge of law, the Constitution, and precedent. Lots of people are so close on that as to be virtually indistinguishable. It's the intangibles that matter.

Wasted tears are what? The tears of a clown.

Do you really think the vetting process that a nominee has to go through is going to allow someone who isn't qualified into the Supreme Court? (that's a rhetorical question by the way -- the answer, as we all know it, is no).

Can you name a single example of a person that Obama has talked about that has little to no real experience?

The thing that is frustrating sometimes around here is that so often we have to spend so much time setting the record straight, that we don't get to discuss the real issue.

Of all the names being floated around, there is not a single "Harriet Miers" in the bunch.

Extremes such as "no one" and "every(one)" are rarely, if ever, true. Indeed, many times they're not and I'd be wary of those persons who use them.

But, beyond that, no matter what way you try to slice it, gender and race are not "intangibles". They never have been and they never will be. It's utterly ridiculous to assert as much. Do you know what it's called when you make gender and race the deciding factors? Discrimination (In this case, it would be reverse discrimination), plain and simple. See, if a man were ever to be picked over a woman on the basis that he's a man, the person decided would be labeled sexist. Conversely, if a person who was white was picked over a minority on the basis that he's white, the person who decided would be labeled a racist. And if those two cases aren't cool, then neither is the reverse. And, unfortunately for some of you guys and gals, Obama has already come out and stated that certain groups are "underrepresented" on the bench and pretty much everyone and their grandparents know Obama is more than likely going to appoint a woman because of it. It's funny how in the midst of cries for equality you get demographic qualifiers like race, gender, orientation, etc. being thrown out under the guise of "intangibles".

There's a stark difference between choosing a woman or whomever because she's the best for the job, and choosing a woman because she is, in essence, not a man. But I suppose people will go to any lengths to defend Obama, even if it doesn't make much sense at all and would be denounced if the situations reversed.

:shakehead:

And in a perfect world, no. But we don't live in a perfect world, do we? Political ideology is the game in Washington. Qualifications aren't nearly as important as electing/apointing someone with the similar views to your own.

Since Obama himself has been hush-hush about it, no. I'll admit that my last post was written a little hastily, since Obama himself hasn't said much of anything about his appointee(s). I will say, however, that there has been a lot of clamor to appoint a non-judge/lawyer/something like a governor to the Supreme Court, which is just stupid.

...Plus, I have absolutely zero faith in any pick Obama makes, anyway, as he's a poor judge of character/ability.