President Obama's reported consideration of only women candidates for the Supreme Court seat is an insult to women, and he of all people should know better. The first black president of the United States is in the Oval Office for one reason–more people voted for Barack Obama than for John McCain.
Watching the president this week at the "100 days" press conference, viewers were not thinking, 'That is a black president in the White House!' Rather, they were thinking, 'I agree/disagree with what he is saying about the economy, foreign policy, social issues.'
(Well, I was actually thinking that he finally figured out how to discreetly use his blankie - i.e. teleprompter.)
The resurgence of Americans patriotism at the Inauguration came from our common understanding that we elected a black president without his race being an issue. The non-issue of race was the joy in the moment, not the historic value of a black president, which is clouded by the negative–segregation and slavery.
Finally, we have put to bed the affirmative-action argument. We do not need the government to force us to hire or elect without bias because as a nation of doers, we want to have the smartest, hardest working and best qualified person in the Oval Office as we do in every job.
Appointing a Supreme Court justice is one of the most important decisions a president makes while in office as it will reverberate for generations. I would be proud if the best candidate for the bench was a woman. I would be offended if the candidate for the bench was a woman who was not the most qualified.
I was outraged when President Bush appointed Harriet Miers primarily because she was clearly way out of her league. (As a conservative, I was also concerned because she had no record on important issues. I was also worried that she could not hold her own on the bench and would be swayed by the more experienced liberal justices. Her lack of intellectual stature is just further evidence that she was unqualified for the position.) 43 was forced to withdraw her nomination and appoint the experienced conservative, Justice Alito.
President Obama seems adept at learning from mistakes of the past (his own and others), and he seems to have the personal belief that quotas are degrading to minorities and women. I know the next Supreme Court justice will not share my political agenda, but I hope he or she is smart, experienced, legally astute and–above all–believes in the supremacy of the US Constitution.
If the goal in appointing the next Supreme Court justice is to even out the number of women on the bench, then shouldn't we do the same for the White House? Since we're 0-44 in the Oval, maybe we should have just appointed Hillary to be president? I think not.
"Gosh, I step away for a couple of years and there's no telling what's going to happen," former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor joked recently in a speech at Georgetown University.
President Barack Obama was called to jury duty at a southwest suburban Chicago courthouse, the Chicago Sun-Times reports. But the White House said Saturday that the president notified the Cook County...
It's a rare day when liberals and conservatives agree on anything in Washington anymore, but when it comes to assessing President Obama, the conventional wisdom from right and left has coalesced into...
President Obama's place in history will be to appoint more women of color to the court.
The Hispanic female under consideration is ideal. Any intelligent person knows that the 1973 Roe Vs. Wade precedent affirms a woman's right to choose and thankfully no longer includes those suffering uninformed bimbosis, espousing publicly funded creationism/ID instead of centuries of internationally validated science, astrophysics & archeology as favored by greater than the 2/3 majority!
As Women comprise a majority of the US and world-wide population, the current courts single female justice of 9 is a gross injustice & conservative bastardization of democracies premise, promising equal representation for all.
Thankfully, Sarah is unable to appoint a surrogate or herself as a lifelong injustice to the reasonable, educated and free thinking people of America.
RATE THIS COMMENT: (-3)
grgrysmth
7:41PM May 2nd 2009
There are over a billion cockroaches in the United States. I guess the next Supreme Court justice should be a roach. Ahhh, but from what State. Let's see. There are more people in California than from any other state, so lets pick a tan colored roach from California. Oh and Hispanics, forget it. They only comprise 10% of the population.
RATE THIS COMMENT: (-3)
hurd3596
8:55PM May 2nd 2009
I do not agree all of this is bias. What both President Obama and Judge Sotomayor want is for the Supreme Court to be biased toward the weak and against the powerful. Rather than interpreting the law as is, they want the court to show bias for one group against another and figure out a way to make the law work to their advantage. It's time for a full debate between those that believe in the philosophy of strict constructionism and those, like the President, that believe the Constitution is a living breathing document.
Justice Sonya Sotomayor once proclaimed that it "is important for a Justice to take experiences as women and people of color in their decisionmaking, should affect our decisions.” This is the sort of statement that can and should be explored in a hearing. Judge Sotomayor has a long record as a Justice on the 2nd Circuit. As such, her belief, like that of Obama's himself, that the court is a tool of "social justice" has a long paper trail. A hearing for a Supreme Court Justice is the perfect platform to turn this from nice sounding euphimisms into the radical agenda that it is. This can be done through direct questions like "President Obama believes that the Supreme Court should venture into issues of redistribution of wealth and political and social justice. Is this something you agree with? How would you see it come about?" There are other direct questions like this one. "President Obama believes that empathy for the poor and downtrodden is an important quality for a Supreme Court Justice. Do you agree and can you give an example of a case in which empathy played a role in your decision making?"
RATE THIS COMMENT: (1)
Janet
12:00AM May 2nd 2009
I think anyone who thinks women don't need help in the US, is at best, naive. The thought that there is, in this moment in time, this "one" qualified person to fill the job of Supreme Court justice and that we must find that "one" person is uninformed. There are candidates that are men and women who will be superbly qualified, but our Supreme Court should be representative of the people and understand all of our prospectives and needs. It's time for a woman, again. We are smart enough and up to the task of many things to include Supreme Court justice (of course, as Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Sandra Day O'Conner have proven) We, women, just like men, need a sponsor. President Obama with this one very important decision will be our sponsor and appoint a highly qualified woman that will serve us all. I can't wait!
As one great servant of the people once said, "it takes a village" and it does. We all, men and women, need a little help.
I was pleasantly suprised that Americans did choose a president who happened to be black. Actually, I was shocked and in some ways it hasn't settled in and I'm still shocked. It gives me such hope. However, one black president is not the end to inequality or racisim, it is but one large step of many in the right direction.
If this were the case that inequality is dead, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 would have ushered in equality. And, we would have long ago forgotten about whether we "could" elect a black man or a woman president. Women would long ago stopped lagging in pay with that of men. Today, we know that the CRA of 1964 was a beginning; and that beginning is reinforced by the election of President Obama.
We have moved mountains, however, there is still terrain to manuver. We will one day soon have a woman president and this act will once again bring the United States one step closer to being the best we can be. It's a journey and it will take a village.
RATE THIS COMMENT: (-4)
Debra S.
4:40PM May 4th 2009
Thanks, Janet. Could not have said it better myself. There are a pool of individuals highly qualified for the Court. And, it is quite naive to assume as this blogger does, that racism and sexism have simply disappeared. Diversity in our institutions is one of America's biggest strengths.
RATE THIS COMMENT: (0)
Former sailor
2:25AM May 2nd 2009
Emily: while I agree strongly with almost everything you just said, I disagree with one major point: Obama wasn't elected in spite of his being black, but, rather, because he was black. Although many ignorant bigots voted AGAINST him because he is black, many more people voted FOR him because he is black! If most of those voters had had the option of voting for McCain or another white man with the same beliefs and politics as Obama's, McCain would have won in a landslide! This election was decided by race, not ideals or politics! Isn't it ironic: racism has kept the black man down for countless generations, and now racism elects Obama to the highest office in the world, in spite of his complete lack of qualifications (to say nothing of his lack of proof of having been born a U.S. citizen!)! It would have been so much more logical if my preferred ticket had run: Powell/Rice! And not because of their race or sex, but because they would have made a really great combination for this country!
The big problem is that the President will now nominate (man or woman) a pro-abortion candidate to the Court, and Patrick Leahy and the rest of the members of his committee will push that nomination through. They will not threaten to turn down the nomination of a candidate who is pro-abortion, because the "litmus test" used on President Bush's candidates will no longer be needed. Leahy's goal is not to exclude those with pre-conceived opinions on abortion - just those who might be against it.
How ironic! Many, many of those people who voted for Obama because he is black, are also pro-life - but, in their ignorance, they voted for him anyway, because they were led to believe that a black President would solve all of the country's problems! His number one stated goal as a future president was to further the cause of the abortionists - maybe once people realize this, they can vote him out in 2012.
RATE THIS COMMENT: (-2)
David S.
2:56AM May 2nd 2009
Former sailor - you are beyond ridiculous. Barack Obama is in the White House because of 8 years of George Bush, whether you will admit it or not. Sure, some folks voted for Obama because he is African-American. Who the hell can blame them? Others liked his political platform and ideas. He would not have won the White House if white folks had not supported him. You are a Republican, so of course you like their platform better. But the American people were tired of the GOP's tired rhetoric and not living up to their own principles. As to the abortion issue, please spare me. Name me one elected Republican - just ONE - who has called for abortion to be outlawed and crimnalized and women to be hauled off to jail who get them. Last I checked, we have had more Republican presidents in the White House than Democrat ones since 1973 (when Roe v. Wade was made law) and they haven't done anything to stop abortion yet. As to this article, Obama never said he is considering "women only." Yes, I am sure he is under pressure to nominate one, considering only two have served in the entire Supreme Court history!
RATE THIS COMMENT: (1)
SouthernMan
1:45PM May 2nd 2009
Obambadin can pick his nose and nominate that...he is an educated fool. After the remarks he made yesterday, he will not make the choice...rather whom ever is telepromting his comments as he speaks will be...and that progressive group of imbecilles has shown a disdain for America, and for the rule of law.Only 1050 days till we remove bumba and his crooked cohorts along with the imbecilles he has appointed...maybe most of us will get smart and start removing every polishitan every chance we get.
RATE THIS COMMENT: (-2)
haroldlynn
1:38PM May 2nd 2009
It seems to me it is time to appoint a Native American to the court. There is no other group that is represented less in this country. They are the only true Americans. The rest of us are uninvited guests.
RATE THIS COMMENT: (-1)
SouthernMan
3:01PM May 2nd 2009
MAYBE INBECILLE BUMBA SHOULD NOMINATE HIS 500 DOLLAR A PAIR "KEDS LOOKING 9.99" SNEAKER WEARIN' EVIL LOOKING WIFEY POOH...MIGHT AS WELL KEEP IT ALL IN THE FAMILY...ONLY 1050 DAYS TO REMOVAL - I HOPE WE MAKE IT TILL THEN.
RATE THIS COMMENT: (2)
SouthernMan
3:12PM May 2nd 2009
see my last comment was removed so I will reiterate it. buma boy should nominate his evil looking wife.
RATE THIS COMMENT: (-1)
rumandcoke56
4:17PM May 2nd 2009
There should be no confirmation hearings on any liberal idiots that curious george thinks he can stick on the bench.
RATE THIS COMMENT: (-3)
Kurt Zaccardo
6:39PM May 2nd 2009
(OBAMADECEPTION.NET)-(USAWAKEUP.ORG)THE OBAMA-NATION BE COMING! WHY ARE THE BORDERS STILL OPEN? (NUMBERSUSA.COM)DRUGLORDS WARS,ILLEGAL ALIENS, TERRORIST & NOW A VIRUS. TIME TO WAKE UP AMERICA BEFORE THERE ISNT ONE!
RATE THIS COMMENT: (-5)
Kurt Zaccardo
6:41PM May 2nd 2009
AOL NOW REMOVES WHAT IT WANTS. EXCEPT FOR THIER PAYMENT!
RATE THIS COMMENT: (-2)
H.B.
7:53PM May 2nd 2009
Emily,
I totally agree with your opinion that the choice of the Supreme Court Justice should be soley based on qualifications and NOT based on gender or any form of Affirmitive Action. In fact, I will take it one step further...that the nominees should not be limited to Federal Judges. When our Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution, they believed that the Supreme Court should be made up of the most qualified individuals regardless of their occupations.
RATE THIS COMMENT: (2)
Somber
10:29AM May 4th 2009
Wow. A conservative feminist. How... novel.
I largely agree with the central premise of your argument. Whoever Obama nominates should be competent, not simply for their reproductive system. Fortunately there are many women candidates who are competent, and so Obama will likely select one.
RATE THIS COMMENT: (2)
Rox
12:18PM May 4th 2009
Sure... Easy for Ms. Miller to write ... Perhaps she feels that considering women is an "insult." But if President Obama bypasses a woman nominee, all the women's groups will come out of the woodwork to cry foul (in the same way that they did when he was appointing cabinet members)... The FACT remains -- which is irresponsible to ignore -- the highest Court in the land, which should strive to be a diverse balance of make-up and constitutional opinion that reflects the nation it serves, is disproportionately white male. Obama was elected by the people, many of them women. He will service the COLLECTIVE people, regardless of topic du jour social network blogs.
RATE THIS COMMENT: (2)
Steve
12:38AM May 5th 2009
the highest Court in the land, which should strive to be a diverse balance of make-up and constitutional opinion that reflects the nation it serves, is disproportionately white male.
Bull shit!
It should be made up of the best people for the job. Those that understand and adhere to the constitution and American Values. All this diversity BS has destroyed this country under some distorted notion of tolerance.
RATE THIS COMMENT: (-1)
Meredith
5:32PM May 4th 2009
Confused who said the word? The comments are just crazy when in the present, are we looking for common sense to prevail. The real candidate for the Supreme Court can only be a person who : Does not believe in paying their taxes: Who hates America: Who does not want to provide safety to the citizens: Who wants to socialize our industry: Who wants to eliminate the upper class and wealthy: Who wants to murder our babies:
RATE THIS COMMENT: (2)
Rheinhart Moxon
7:19PM May 4th 2009
The real candidate for the Supreme Court can only be a person who: Does not believe in paying their taxes [MUST have a secret overseas bank account]: Who hates America [Intends to KEEP their overseas secret bank account]: Who does not want to provide safety to the citizens [By DENOUNCING single-payer health care for all]: Who wants to socialize our industry [INSTEAD of shipping the jobs overseas and putting American out of work]: Who wants to eliminate the upper class and wealthy [Instead of allowing them to evade taxes while benefiting from the taxes the Poor and the Middle Class pay]: Who wants to murder our babies [while allowing the deaths of thousands of Iraqi children be called "Collateral Damage"], you mean.