Pick a woman, Snowe and Boxer tell Obama

[jefferson_dem]

Pick a woman, Snowe and Boxer tell Obama
Posted: 05:30 PM ET

WASHINGTON (CNN) — Sens. Barbara Boxer of California, a Democrat, and Olympia Snowe of Maine, a Republican, sent the following letter to President Obama Monday.

The President
The White House
Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President:

The announced retirement of United States Supreme Court Justice David Souter—an outstanding jurist—has left you with the crucial task of nominating someone for a lifetime appointment to our nation’s highest bench.

The most important thing is to nominate an exceptionally well-qualified, intelligent person to replace Justice Souter – and we are convinced that person should be a woman.

Women make up more than half of our population, but right now hold only one seat out of nine on the United States Supreme Court. This is out of balance. In order for the Court to be relevant, it needs to be diverse and better reflect America.

Mr. President, we look forward with great anticipation to your choice for the Supreme Court vacancy.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/05/11/pick-a-woman-snowe-and-boxer-tell-obama/

[MercutioATC]

1. Pick the most qualified person. Period.

Obama seems to get this, though.

[polichick]

2. "The most qualified" MUST be a woman - since only a woman can...

...begin to balance the court so that it reflects the country.

[MercutioATC]

6. Actually, it "MUST" be a poor, handicapped, Hispanic Jewish lesbian.

...if you're using the "representation" card as your sole criterion.

[polichick]

8. That would be true if the poor, handicapped, Hispanics, Jews or lesbians...

...made up more than half the country.

[MercutioATC]

11. They're still all horrendously underrepresented on the Supreme Court.

The Senate isn't even close to parity either. Given a choice, do you always vote for the female candidate?

[polichick]

14. None of those other categories are as basic as gender differences...

Male and female energies TOGETHER make the world go 'round (so to speak) ~ the SC should be made up of 5 women and 4 men (of various backgrounds, ethnic groups, etc.) if we want it to reflect this country's citizens.

[MercutioATC]

15. If the sole criterion is mimicking the country's gender mix, I agree.

But if you're arguing that things like gender MUST be on par with the general population, you have to also demand parity in things like age, race, sexual orientation, able-bodiedness, etc.

[polichick]

16. Yes, as I said, the 5 women and 4 men should also reflect different...

...backgrounds, ethnic groups, etc.

[MercutioATC]

20. So, you'd appoint a less qualified woman over a more qualified man, based solely on gender?

...and your desire for the SCOTUS's balance to match that of the country at large?

[polichick]

22. It doesn't work that way...

Since there are plenty of EQUALLY QUALIFIED candidates, both men and woman, it's easy to balance on the basis of gender.

[MercutioATC]

25. I'm trying to establish your qualification hierarchy.

Since you said that it "MUST" be a woman, does gender trump actual job-related qualifications?

[polichick]

27. My last post addresses that - since there are plenty of qualified people...

...both men and women, that isn't an issue.

[bornskeptic]

28. Jews are horrendously underrepresented?

The Supreme Court currently consists of five Catholics, two Jews, and one Protestant. Less than 2% of the US population is Jewish. There are something like thirteen or fourteen Jewish Senators.

[totodeinhere]

33. Just like Clarence Thomas balanced the court?

There are a lot of women whom he could pick who would actually point the court in the wrong direction. Appoint the best qualified, who might very well be a woman, or it might be an African American, or a GLBT, or an Hispanic, or a Native American, or God forbid, even a white man.

[polichick]

34. That example doesn't work - this is a Democratic president choosing...

...between many equally qualified left-leaning men and women, not between an unqualified woman and a qualified man.

[JerseygirlCT]

36. I agree. In this case, being female ought to be one of those

qualifications.

There isn't a horribly limited pool to choose from - such that there's one iffy female choice, and many wonderful male choices.

There are many, many completely qualified women who could fill that seat. And a court with one woman on it does not represent the country well. Women are 51% of the population. Past time that's better reflected in our government.

[Skittles]

5. funny how historically the "most qualified" have overwhelmingly been men

pure fucking bullshit

[MercutioATC]

7. Thayt's changing and it will continue to change.

I still don't believe in "hiring" somebody for reasons that don't have to do with the job.

[Skittles]

9. a balanced court of law is important

and has EVERYTHING to do with the job

[MercutioATC]

12. A penis (or lack thereof) is not a qualification for anything other than reproductary roles.

...in my opinion.

[Skittles]

18. that is YOUR problem

[MercutioATC]

19. Well, I don't consider it a "problem", but ok...

Your opinion is noted.

[jberryhill]

24. The Suggestion That Judges Render Opinions On The Basis of Personal Bias

...is frankly insulting to the woman who will be appointed.

This kind of thinking leads to figures such as Clarence Thomas who pull so hard against their presumed bias that they come down the other way.

[Skittles]

26. in no way did I suggest that

YOU did

[jberryhill]

29. BS - it is inherent in this notion that justices "represent" anyone

Each individual justice represents nothing other than their studied opinion of the law applied to the case before them, and their view of the arguments and supporting precedent cited in the briefs.

Given a choice between Laurence Tribe and Sarah Palin, I'd go with Tribe. YMMV.

[Skittles]

30. your example is freaking ludicrous

[polichick]

31. Ditto.

[polichick]

32. What a crazy reading of a perfectly sensible post!

[Mass]

13. There are many criteria to be qualified. There is nothing wrong if ONE of these criteria is to

balance the court so that women are more represented. It is not as if he was going to get a woman in the phonebook and name her. There are qualified women.

There is nothing wrong making sure the court looks somewhat like the country.

[TheCoxwain]

3. only if you become a Democrat first

[movonne]

4. I would like Boxer ... but that will never happen...the repukes would

be on fire...

[Captain Hilts]

10. Red Rover, red rover, send Olympia Snowe over....nt

[polichick]

17. Lol - haven't heard that in a while!

[Captain Hilts]

21. Well, Ollie needs to hear it! She's a Roving Red, come to the Blue side! nt

[polichick]

23. Good one! :)

[JerseygirlCT]

35. Absolutely

And let's go right ahead and make her a scary-smart, liberal woman, shall we?

[polichick]

37. "scary-smart, liberal woman" - Works for me!!

[SharonAnn]

38. Yeah! Rachel Maddow! Scary-smart, lesbian, liberal woman.