Quote:
Originally Posted by Krimson X
I had a feeling my question would lead to this.... My question was who should he pick. Obviously, you are not limited to the frontrunner list.
That had been the non-spoken word for years (and for women).
The S.Ct. was established in 1789. Thurgood Marshall, the first non-white male, was selected to the bench in 1967, and served until 1991 where he was replaced with....  .... Clarence Thomas. A one-for-one swap-out for the black dude. O'Connor was the first non male selected to the bench in 1981, followed by Ginsburg in 1993. So, during the 220 years that the S. Ct. has been established, only four justices were something other than white male.
... but I regress... |
So by that logic, an American Indian should be the only pick. Sorry not going back 220 years to justify something in 2009 and I don't believe you 'diversify' for the sake of it.  But that is just me, guess it works to some peoples advantage to specialize in the past. But for those who can't make it now, I'm sure it is a great asset to pull to the past and grab an extra card. Like playing 5 card stud with 6 cards   I for one would like the best person for the job, whatever color/sex they might be. Just out of curiosity I'd like to know the make up of lawyers in the US, ya know the near 2M of them, and how it breaks down over race/sex lines.
And I doubt you are naive enough to 'have a feeling' I think you knew exactly where this would head 
__________________
An unwavering defender of those I see worth protecting.
"promote the general welfare, not provide the general welfare"
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Last edited by Wagner; 05-04-2009 at 08:42 PM.
|