![]() |
Souter to retire: Obama gets his first Supreme Court nom op
Quote:
Quote:
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.
Quote:
|
Quote:
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: Quote:
|
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... ;)
|
..
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
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. |
Quote:
|
..
|
saying that a black person can only become a supreme court justice via affirmative action is indeed racist.
|
Nice threadjack though.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
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.
Quote:
---------- 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. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Regardless, the most qualified person should be the appointee. Things rarely work out that way, however. |
Quote:
|
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?
|
Quote:
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.
|
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
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). |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
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: Quote:
Quote:
...Plus, I have absolutely zero faith in any pick Obama makes, anyway, as he's a poor judge of character/ability. |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
---------- Post added at 03:12 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:09 PM ---------- It seems to me some of you are saying the only way Obama can avoid discriminating someone is by picking a white male..... If he picks anything other than a white male he discriminated white males. You try to say that if all things are equal and race or gender is used as a tie breaker then there is discrimination. Then I trust you believe the current white male appointments were appointed through discrimination where women and blacks were not even chosen because of there race and/or gender. |
Quote:
But again, where is this clamor? |
Back up a minute - our president is a law school grad (in Constitutinal Law), who went on to the Harvard Law Review - and he will NOT select a judge to defend our Constitution? Are you kiding me? Do you think he does not know what the justice's job are? Sure, politics will play a role. The bottom line is the Constitution and the laws of our Country.
Female, Hispanic, gay, whatever? Who really cares, except extremists? We chose him to do the job - let him do it. |
Quote:
I really hope you're not a Bush supporter, because the irony of that statement might make my head explode |
why is everyone making such a huge deal out of race or gender? shouldn't we really be focusing on who judges and rules according to the constitution over anything?
|
Quote:
That's the point: Everyone is making race and gender such a huge deal because Obama himself makes it such a huge deal. He wants diversity on the court, and what better way to achieve diversity than to appoint somebody who isn't a white male? All white males are the same and could never contribute to diversity. Didn't you get the memo? |
Quote:
I suspect that the reason folks like you are making it such a big deal is that the people who tell people like you how to think are making it a big deal. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
..
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
As such, when multiple people post the same factually wrong information, I think it is entirely natural that others are skeptical of where these people get their info. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
seems a bit hard to believe. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
I know that dk isn't conservative like timalkin is, and that grouping them together thusly would be ignant. Timalkin was the one who brought up the word conservative into my corner of the conversation, I merely followed his lead. Perhaps you should ask him why he assumed I was speaking only of conservatives. What I find hard to believe is that you're focusing on chasing phantom dichotomies instead of questioning the enthusiasm with which certain folk in this thread have with respect to making themselves sound like mindless parrots. I mean, you do know that they are 100% factually incorrect, right? That timalkin has publicly spoken more about black people since Obama was elected than Obama has? |
I think asaris takes this conversation in a particularly interesting direction. So, say you're responsible for filling an important job. There are several equally qualified applicants, some of which are left-handed, some of which are right-handed. Now, you happen to know that, due to anti-lefthander discrimination among your predecessors, almost everyone who has held this job in the past has been a rightie.
Question: Do you take handedness into account when you make your decision? Or do you try to ignore it? |
that's a pretty terrible analogy
|
Personally, I do not like that he wants a "person to represent the people". This is a U.S. Supreme Court Justice. I would prefer thar he sits someone that understands the U.S. Constitution.
|
|
I like how in his nomination speech Obama was all like "The only reason I am nominating Sonia Sotomayor is because she isn't a white male."
Oh. Wait. |
All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:34 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project