Who should Obama pick to replace Souter?

[Wagner]

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

[Wagner]

Originally Posted by asawadude

The media has Sonia Sotomayor, who sits on the bench of the U.S. Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit and Kathleen Sullivan, Dean of Stanford University Law School, pegged as the two leading candidates. Both would be controversial candidates for various reasons.

A lesser known, yet very qualified pick would be Harold Hongju Koh, former Dean of the Yale Law School and recent Obama nominee as legal counsel for the State Dept. Koh will have have some huge tasks at hand (i.e. Guantanamo), if his nomination is approved. This guy should get the nod, but the Asian always gets passed over in both the white man's and black man's world unless there's a computer involved.

Sonia Sotomayor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Kathleen Sullivan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Harold Hongju Koh - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Of course, Jeremiah Wright and Al Sharpton are patiently sitting by the phone, waiting for Barack's call.

Question should be, why will it take the Obama crew until October to get this done?

[Krimson X]

Originally Posted by Wagner

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

Well Wagner, if you must know, as a lawyer, I am very interested in the S.Ct. nominations. Always have been. I was curious to see what criteria lay persons like you base their choice on. Do they need to be Ivy League educated, do they need to first serve in a USDC, be a scholars, professors of law, ect?... This could be... no... is the most important appointment any president could ever make.

If you are suggesting my question is baited, I'd suggest you read it again. It is very open ended and is race and gender neutral. Of course I would expect some dialogue about race and gender, but not racism or sexism. I was asking for your opinion. I guess we all know what that is now.

We don't need to go back 220 years. It is irrelevant because...well, for obvious reasons. Let's just look to the last 30, 20 or 10. It doesn't matter.

I'm not looking to diversify the bench for the sake of diversity. But I am sure there have been more than two minority and two female persons who had the qualifications for the bench.

[Krimson X]

Originally Posted by Wagner

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.

Well, here you go...

From the American Bar Association. Taken from the 2000 Census:
Statistics About Minorities in the Profession from the Census Links - ABA Commission on Racial & Ethnic Diversity

[asawadude]

Originally Posted by Wagner

Question should be, why will it take the Obama crew until October to get this done?

Souter is retiring at the end of the current term; the new term starts in October. That's the drop dead date.

Obama will have his candidates, if he doesn't have them already. Even with Democratic control of the Senate, whoever he shoves out there is not going glide through the selection process without major scrutiny. Whoever that candidate is needs to get his or her shit in order before walking onto the floor of the Senate.

So Obama has a sizeable window to play with; the most pragmatic decision would make full use of the window.

It's like the Jets naming Mark Sanchez as their starting quarterback today, May 6, 2009. Why bother?

[motordavid]

At the risk of sounding PC or like a chauvinistic apologist, (neither of which I am, imo), I think the next SC candidate(s) should be female.
All of the other background req's are easily filled by a host of potential candidates.

If my pick rings like righting the gender balance, blah blah blah, I guess it is; but, to have 1 female on the SC, in a country where more than
half the pop is female, is absurd.

I don't care if the woman chosen is white, pink, black, brown, green, or some kind of mixture, etc.
BR,mD