This page contains a single entry from the blog posted on July 19, 2005 4:56 PM. The previous post in this blog was In the evenings he's still singin' with the band. The next post in this blog is Stumped. Many more can be found on the main index page or by looking through the archives.

E-mail, Feeds, 'n' Stuff

Tuesday, July 19, 2005

The new guy

The Bush nominee for the Supreme Court is out. Woman? Nope. Minority? Nope. Heeeeeeeeere's Johnny!

Looking for some dirt on the guy to spice up your protest party tonight? Try here (although nothing there really spun my beanie).

Comments (13)

If the Democrats would stop fighting so hard against minority appointees, the Justice could have been someone like Gonzales.

save the babies!

Nothing else he will improve the groups picture quality that was greatly harmed with the appointment of RBG.

If the Democrats would stop fighting so hard against minority appointees, the Justice could have been someone like Gonzales.

Er, wrong. "Someone like Gonzalez" is actually opposed by the freakout wingnuts who are currently pulling the puppet strings of the man at 1600. You think Mullah Dobson would allow Bush to nominate Gonzalez, Scott? Think again.

With all the talk of the last few weeks you would think the SP now has designated slots for whatever passes for a minority these days. So much for judging people by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin, sexual preference, gender, ethnicity, or political orientation. Or, maybe, W is just trying to make up for his dad's mistake in selecting Suter.

Hey, great point, Ronald M. Bush of course wouldn't have selected Jonny based on his "political orientation." No way. His nomination was clearly based solely on the "content of his character."

Soon one out of the nine supreme court justices will be a woman. And apparantly that won't bother you a bit. It must just be that men are better judges, or, as you put it, have a better "content of their character." I certainly can't think of any other reason that 89% of the justices would be men. It couldn't be, for example, that 7 of the spots (now up to 8) are actually "designated" for men, now could it?

It's a good thing we don't have liberals like Ronald Reagan appointing women to the Court because of their gender anymore. Thank God for W.

(p.s.: it's "Souter," not "Suter." And don't you think 41 already made up for it with Thomas?)

So, Josh, is it your belief that some of the court positions should be designated for women? If so, five of the nine would be appropriate given the proportion of genders in our population. And given the composition of law school classes these days I imagine we'll be there in not too many more years.

The point I was trying to make was that as soon as the position opened there were numerous calls for replacing SDO with another woman. Or someone who would not be in favor of restrictions on abortion. Or be a member of an ethnic minority. And on and on - where does it stop?

Obviously any president is going to propose appointments that are consistent with his (or her) understanding of the role of the judicial system in regard to the Constitution and of course there are plenty of highly qualified women that fit that category. Given W's track record with female and minority appointments (compare with Clinton for a good laugh), I'd give odds that his next appointment will be something other than the dreaded white male. Then you can get worked up about their conservative beliefs or affiliation with the NRA or their clerking for a judge that ruled the "wrong" way on the PC issue dujour.

And regarding Thomas, I think Ginsberg was a more than adequate tit for tat.

Given W's track record with female and minority appointments (compare with Clinton for a good laugh)

Ronald, you're just talking out of your you-know-what here. Where'd you hear that one? Here's a link from Media Matters (that contains links to other supporting materials, if you have some inherent distrust of Media Matters) that proves you wrong. It turns out that while Bush does nominate women and minorities for prominent positions, overall Clinton appointed more. (I'm not trying to say this makes Clinton better - not trying to go down that road of argument - I'm just saying you are wrong.)

Media Matters: A self-described "progressive" organization that is "...dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation...".

Gee, a real unbiased source with scrupulous attention to providing relevant and balanced citations I'm sure. Love the background statements of their staff and advisers. Relying on 2000 and 2002 data in the article doesn't help either. Do you think there's an equivalent conservative site that has a different take on mostly similar data?

Perhaps Clinton did, numerically, make more female and minority appointments in 8 years - I don't know for certain as I was addressing the quality/prominence aspect rather than the quantity. In that regard I think the President is well ahead of his predecessor in his first five years. And, as I said previously, I'll give odds that his next supreme court appointment will be a female or minority. Can't wait!

After a couple of days to let it sink in. I like Roberts. I don't agree with his political affiliation and he might be too top-middle-class white-bread to have a broad cultural experience. But I think he is the intellecutal giant the court needs. I think the polarization of the court has produced far too many duds on the current court as the political process has chosen values over intellect. Good riddance to O'Connor. She never understood her role as a judicial policy-maker and constantly wrote opinions like a trial court: narrow and around the facts.


Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The new guy:

» What is The Alliance for Justice? from Mover Mike
Pres. George Bush selects John G. Roberts Jr. for the Supreme court.

The Alliance for Justice said

At this time,

[Read More]

Clicky Web Analytics