Obama gets his first shot at the Supreme Court

[Pangloss]

Thankfully in a good way -- Justice Souter is stepping down at the end of the current session (June). Souter is generally considered part of the liberal side of the court's current socio-political balance (though he was actually placed there by Bush 41), so his Obama replacement would be unlikely to change the balance.

 

With a 60-seat majority in the Senate any confirmation will likely be pro-forma, so it could be someone much farther to the left. On the other hand the president runs the risk of angering moderate conservatives with an extreme candidate. So this could be an interesting decision for that reason.

 

IMO Obama will pick someone considered liberal but also fair and impartial, and with a record of counter-indicative decisions (supporting the conservative direction, indicating impartiality).

 

Here's an article at the New York Times with some info:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/01/us/01souter.html?global-home

[SH3RL0CK]

OTOH, Obama's pick might surprise people; Obama isn't afraid to do unconventional things. Likewise, the new justice could well be a surprise once they are confirmed as was Souter.

[Sisyphus]

 

IMO Obama will pick someone considered liberal but also fair and impartial, and with a record of counter-indicative decisions (supporting the conservative direction, indicating impartiality).

 

 

I would expect the same. His only judicial appointment to date, David Hamilton to the Seventh Circuit, apparently is known as liberal but moderate, with the support of both Democratic and Republican leaders. Conservative watchdog groups don't like him for stuff like ruling against school prayer, but he's about about the best Republicans could realistically hope for.

[iNow]

NPR reporting seems to be suggesting that he'll appoint a woman, since women are a majority now of our population, yet the court is loaded with old dudes.

 

 

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=103694463

Given his first appointment to the high court, most observers expect Obama will appoint a woman, since the court currently has only one female justice and Obama was elected with strong support from women. But an Obama pick would be unlikely to change the ideological makeup of the court.

 

<...>

 

Possible nominees who have been mentioned as being on a theoretical short list include Elena Kagan, the current solicitor general who represents the government before the Supreme Court; Sonia Sotomayor, a Hispanic judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit; and Diane Wood, a federal judge in Chicago who taught at the University of Chicago at the same time future President Barack Obama was teaching constitutional law there.

 

President Obama's choice has an excellent chance of being confirmed by the U.S. Senate, where Democrats now have an advantage of 59 seats to the Republicans' 40. By the time a vote on a successor is taken, the Senate is anticipated to have a 60th Democrat

[Sisyphus]

NPR reporting seems to be suggesting that he'll appoint a woman, since women are a majority now of our population, yet the court is loaded with old dudes.

 

I hope he doesn't take gender into account.

[Lan(r)12]

Yes, a judge should be appointed based on their merits and control of personal ideology. Their superficial qualities should hold no bearing in their nomination.

[iNow]

Yes, a judge should be appointed based on their merits and control of personal ideology. Their superficial qualities should hold no bearing in their nomination.

 

As I'm abundantly confident will be the case... You guys seem to be reading WAY too much into the news story...

[Sisyphus]

As I'm abundantly confident will be the case... You guys seem to be reading WAY too much into the news story...

 

What are we reading into it that we shouldn't be? You posted an article suggesting that people think he'll be specifically looking to appoint a woman, and Lan®12 and I said we hope those people are wrong.

[john5746]

Yes, a judge should be appointed based on their merits and control of personal ideology. Their superficial qualities should hold no bearing in their nomination.

 

Can't be another white guy - anything but that. When he does select a woman or other minority, I am sure they will be more qualified than GW's first pick. Hopefully, it will be easier to find someone without tax or babysitting problems than his other picks.

[Lan(r)12]

Can't be another white guy - anything but that. When he does select a woman or other minority, I am sure they will be more qualified than GW's first pick. Hopefully, it will be easier to find someone without tax or babysitting problems than his other picks.

 

If the white guy is more qualified than the other candidates, then he should absolutely be picked. It is about their ability to serve in one of the most powerful entities in all of the US. Just because they are a minority or something does not entitle them to extra points.

It is about their MERITS.

[Mokele]

Why shouldn't he put in extra effort to appoint a woman? The SC is supposed to represent the interests of the people including, among other things, defending the rights of the minority against 'tyranny by majority'.

 

As far as I'm concerned "having direct knowledge of life for the largest oppressed minority in the world" is a positive *boon*.

 

How is the SC supposed to defend the rights of the minority when only 2 of them *are* minorities? That's putting the fox in charge of the chicken coop.

[Lan(r)12]

One need not be a minority to understand what equality is. I know its wrong to have a slave, but I'm a white male, a supposed "majority".

Gender should not be an issue, nor should race, in the nomination of a SC justice.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

How is the SC supposed to defend the rights of the minority when only 2 of them *are* minorities? That's putting the fox in charge of the chicken coop.

 

It truly saddens me to think that you have this little faith in humanity. To think that we must be personally affected by something to understand or have feelings for that something, is an inherently flawed perception.

Edited May 1, 2009 by Lan(r)12
Consecutive posts merged.

[Sisyphus]

Why shouldn't he put in extra effort to appoint a woman? The SC is supposed to represent the interests of the people including, among other things, defending the rights of the minority against 'tyranny by majority'.

 

As far as I'm concerned "having direct knowledge of life for the largest oppressed minority in the world" is a positive *boon*.

 

How is the SC supposed to defend the rights of the minority when only 2 of them *are* minorities? That's putting the fox in charge of the chicken coop.

 

That's not a very good description of the court's job, though. Their job is to interpret the law. They serve the people, yes, but "representing their interests" is the job of legislators. The court can't throw out a law because it is unfair to a minority, only because it violates the Constitution. (Much of the Constitution is indeed designed to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority.)

 

Anyway, I resent the implication that my Y chromosome makes me inherently less qualified to do that job. That's sexist, by definition. Furthermore, everyone is a "minority" in some qualities, and I certainly don't believe we should be encouraging distinctions by gender and ethnic background over other differences - that's what we as a society should be trying to get past. And finally, women are in fact not a minority: there are more of them!

[Lan(r)12]

...since women are a majority now of our population, yet the court is loaded with old dudes.

 

See Mokele, as iNow pointed out, women are NOT a minority, and thus, your basic premise is incorrect.

 

 

 

Edit: Dang, Sisyphus beat me to it.

Edited May 1, 2009 by Lan(r)12

[iNow]

What are we reading into it that we shouldn't be?

 

I'm just trying to draw attention to how worked up everyone has become about something which hasn't even happened, resulting from the speculations of a news reporter alone. Never mind.

[Sisyphus]

I'm just trying to draw attention to how worked up everyone has become about something which hasn't even happened, resulting from the speculations of a news reporter alone. Never mind.

 

I'm not saying it's going to happen, I'm not criticizing Obama, and I certainly wouldn't complain if he did pick a woman, since there would be no way to tell if her ovary-having was a factor unless he explicitly said so. And if he did explicitly say so, I wouldn't hold it against her, only him. She could easily be the best pick anyway, after all.

 

What I am doing is arguing against those who want him to do that, which I think is valid, especially inasmuch as at the very least our resident giant atomic reptile is one of them, and I'm guessing he's not alone. I don't think I'm really getting "worked up," though. When you're imagining my voice saying these things, just think Barry White.

[Lan(r)12]

I'm not saying it's going to happen, I'm not criticizing Obama, and I certainly wouldn't complain if he did pick a woman, since there would be no way to tell if her ovary-having was a factor unless he explicitly said so. And if he did explicitly say so, I wouldn't hold it against her, only him. She could easily be the best pick anyway, after all.

 

What I am doing is arguing against those who want him to do that, which I think is valid, especially inasmuch as at the very least our resident giant atomic reptile is one of them, and I'm guessing he's not alone. I don't think I'm really getting "worked up," though. When you're imagining my voice saying these things, just think Barry White.

 

A perfect articulation of my sentiments.

And I'd prefer Trace Adkins' voice, but oh well.

[Mokele]

One need not be a minority to understand what equality is. I know its wrong to have a slave, but I'm a white male, a supposed "majority".

Gender should not be an issue, nor should race, in the nomination of a SC justice.

 

You can understand only at the most general, academic level. That's very different from having been faced with an experience yourself. Consider abortion - there's a massive gender divide in support, with most supporters being the sex which is actually affected. Or gay rights - it's a lot easier to see the myriad of subtle ways in which society discriminates when you've had the experience yourself.

 

It truly saddens me to think that you have this little faith in humanity. To think that we must be personally affected by something to understand or have feelings for that something, is an inherently flawed perception.

 

It's called reality. I can cite sources, too - see "All Of Human History, Ever". There are a few exceptions here and there, but 99.9999% of human interactions can be broadly summarized as 'F*** over anyone who's different in order to benefit those in my perceived ingroup'.

 

Humans are corrupt, selfish, xenophobic, and nepotistic. A rare few can see past this, but these tendencies are hard-wired into all of our brains.

 

That's not a very good description of the court's job, though. Their job is to interpret the law. They serve the people, yes, but "representing their interests" is the job of legislators. The court can't throw out a law because it is unfair to a minority, only because it violates the Constitution. (Much of the Constitution is indeed designed to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority.)

 

However, the fact that it is the only non-elected branch of government is specifically an aspect of protection against mob rule. The point is that it is, and always has been, a large part of the SC's job.

 

Anyway, I resent the implication that my Y chromosome makes me inherently less qualified to do that job. That's sexist, by definition.

 

But it's not just about *you*, at the individual level. It's about constructing a group which represents more than a narrow set of interests. If that's the over-arching goal, that imposes an additional criterion beyond the level of the individual.

 

urthermore, everyone is a "minority" in some qualities, and I certainly don't believe we should be encouraging distinctions by gender and ethnic background over other differences - that's what we as a society should be trying to get past.

 

I disagree on both counts. There are plenty of people who are *not* minorities in any way, and you can probably name dozens, because they're the ones who get hired, get elected, etc.

 

Furthermore, an equal society is NOT about erasing differences or burying them, but about accepting them and not discriminating on that basis. A diversity of opinion can be a good thing.

 

And finally, women are in fact not a minority: there are more of them

 

Yet they are the most perscuated. Seriously, go look up the number of hate crimes in the US, then compare that to the number of rapes, domestic violence, and all the incidents of some misogynistic, possessive asshole shooting his ex-wife.

 

Eye-opening, isn't it?

 

Mokele

Edited May 1, 2009 by Mokele
deleting doublepost

[Pangloss]

Well I for one welcome our new female overlords.

 

With open arms.

[The Bear's Key]

Well I for one welcome our new female overlords.

 

With open arms.

And if I were a lesbian, with open legs... \:-p/

[ParanoiA]

But it's not just about *you*, at the individual level. It's about constructing a group which represents more than a narrow set of interests. If that's the over-arching goal, that imposes an additional criterion beyond the level of the individual.

 

How can you construct a group of 9 people that somehow represents every form of minority we have in the country? No matter what you do you'll be left with a "narrow set of interests".

 

And who says your particular minority groupings are the ones we should pay attention to? Who says race or gender is the minority type we should have representation for? What about rich people, or libertarians, or statists, or ex-cons, or any other minority group one can dream up? I could see far more benefit in other forms of group-representation than mankind's silly superficial obsessions with skin color and sexual orientation.

 

Sisyphus was exactly right. We have 435 representatives with the job of representation - a far cry from 9 slots of distinction. And that's why we have so many of them, because there are so many kinds of minorities and groupings, which effect specific interests and desires and that takes a large quantity of reps to do the job any justice. Some of us, myself included, believe there should be far more of them, like in the thousands. (There are some fascinating threads on the subject here, whatever your opinion it's interesting).

 

I disagree on both counts. There are plenty of people who are *not* minorities in any way, and you can probably name dozens, because they're the ones who get hired, get elected, etc.

 

Wrong. Every one of us is a minority in one category or another. You may dismiss my particular minority group...but then, that is the problem isn't it?

 

What I see is folks choosing to hold some minorities in higher esteem than others. I'd like to know how that's good for the country and how that serves the good of all.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

And finally, women are in fact not a minority: there are more of them!

 

And I love it. Wouldn't it be awesome if they outnumbered us like 3 or 4 to 1? The only thing that would make it better is if male homosexuality took off like a fad so I wouldn't even have to work for a hottie. Oh wait...I'm married. Never mind. (Although she is a hottie).

[iNow]

Had to throw that last bit in there just in case she ever reads your post, eh?

 

 

I have no doubt that Obama is going to choose on the merits. This whacky path I somehow managed to start by posting an NPR article indicating that it's likely Obama will choose a female is fun and all... but is a topic completely separate from the one the OP intended to discuss.

[ParanoiA]

Had to throw that last bit in there just in case she ever reads your post, eh?

 

Was it that obvious?

 

You have any idea what kind of brownie points I'd get? She'd probably mow the lawn for a month.

 

I have no doubt that Obama is going to choose on the merits. This whacky path I somehow managed to start by posting an NPR article indicating that it's likely Obama will choose a female is fun and all... but is a topic completely separate from the one the OP intended to discuss.

 

True. And to that end, I'll say I'm actually quite confident he'll make a good appointment.

[iNow]

Obama has chosen Sotomayor for the SCOTUS seat.

 

 

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/26/supreme.court/index.html

Sotomayor, a 54-year-old judge on the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, was named a U.S. District Court judge by President George H.W. Bush in 1992, and was elevated to her current seat by President Clinton.

 

Sotomayor, who is of Puerto Rican descent, rose from humble beginnings at a housing project in the South Bronx and went on to attend Princeton University and Yale Law School.

 

<...>

 

A senior White House official said that Sotomayor was "nominated by George Bush -- then Bill Clinton -- [and has] more judicial experience than anyone sitting on the court had at the time they were nominated."

 

 

I expect some friction regarding her recent ruling in the firefighters test, which could actually be repealed at the time of her hearings, but otherwise she's a solid candidate.

 

 

Conservatives point to, among other things, her authoring of a 2008 opinion supporting the city of New Haven, Connecticut's decision to throw out the results of a firefighter promotion exam because almost no minorities qualified for promotions.

 

The Supreme Court heard an appeal of the case in April; a final opinion is pending.

 

 

The long and short of it, though, is that the conservatives are going to fiercely attack anybody Obama nominates, so I suggest we take their views with take it with a grain of salt.

Edited May 26, 2009 by iNow

[ecoli]

so he went for a woman and racial minority.

 

Does anybody else see this problem with appointed minorities to office: you can never appoint a white dude to a position previously help by a minority woman, or your going to be seen as racist.