What are you doing?
I disagree.
I think most Americans care about the *views *of that Justice. The nomination of an Asian-American lesbian who upheld affirmative action laws could get appointed to replace Souter. You swap ‘unheld affirmative action laws’ with ‘sided with Big Business’ and you’d have a no-go appointment.
It’s my belief that Americans are most concerned on whether the nominee is a ‘liberal’ or ‘Republican’. Race and gender are secondary.
- Honesty
And the only way to do that is to nominate a white guy?
I’m not sure why you find that to be in contradiction with what I wrote.
You are an amazingly astute observer and analyst, and one of the best posters on this board.
And since I disagree with so many of your views, that’s a bitter pill. 
With Obama’s background, and if he has a successful term and if he expresses interest, he might have a good shot of being appointed to fill a vacancy during some future Democrat president’s term. Heck, he’ll only be in his mid-fifties eight years from now. He can afford to wait through a Republican replacement or two and still be vital enough for a spot on SCOTUS.
Pointing out that others are looking only at the gender and race of the candidate.
I didn’t say that, or even hint at that. I don’t care about the gender or race of the nominee, but I do care that they are selected for reasons beyond their gender or race.
While your post was rather :rolleyes: both in its substance and posture (“I want to say my piece but am not interested in a debate on the subject”), your wish is granted and I won’t respond.
Granholm should get it. Gov. of Michigan is a career killing position now and it would be nice to see someone from Michigan get a secure job.
But that’s not true at all. People are looking at that, because it’s quite likely that Obama will seek to increase the diversity on the Court, but those aren’t the only criteria under discussion.
You are right that people are discussing other characteristics, and I shouldn’t have implied that they weren’t. But they are discussing those other characteristics only after reducing the pool of likely nominees down to women and minorities. It is that first reduction that I think is illegitimate. Increasing “diversity” on the court is not a worthwhile goal in my opinion.
So if Sonia Sotomayor is nominated, would you conclude it was because she is a distinguished federal judge, or just Obama kowtowing to those who want a woman or a person of Latin descent?
Seems to me like you’re the one focusing on gender and race.
And if Obama were doing the same thing, I’d agree with you. However, people are discussing his likely appointment, and since there is currently a grand total of one woman and one black guy on the Court, it is likely that he will want to appoint someone who is not a white male. He’ll probably also want to appoint a liberal. Is that reduction illegitimate?
Why not? Obviously an unqualified candidate should not be nominated on account of race or gender, but I don’t think there’s any danger of that happening.
I recommend The Brethren by Bob Woodward and Scott Armstrong (assuming you haven’t already read it). It’s a pretty interesting look at how the Court worked in the late 60s and early 70s.
Rand, given a pool of qualified nominees, is it reasonable to consider other “identity” issues (and again, I include perceived political leaning as one part of that “identity”)?
Is the public perception that the country’s highest court is not the domain of old White guys worth anything at all or not?
What do you think? The opposite of that is the right answer.
IMHO no.
IMHO it’s worth nothing.
IMHO yes.
Obama should appoint the best person for the job regardless of that person’s race or gender.