Obama sees court pick as smart with common touch

Source: Associated Press

WASHINGTON – On the verge of choosing his first Supreme Court nominee, President Barack Obama has already provided a profile of the person he is likely to pick: an intellectual heavyweight with a "common touch," someone whose brand of justice means seeing life from the perspective of the powerless.

Obama is expected to announce his nominee this week, as early as Tuesday. His words, his young presidency and his own life experience reveal what the nation should expect — and help explain how the president is making a decision that will endure long after he leaves office.

"You have to have not only the intellect to be able to effectively apply the law to cases before you," Obama said in an interview carried Saturday on C-SPAN television. "But you have to be able to stand in somebody else's shoes and see through their eyes and get a sense of how the law might work or not work in practical day-to-day living."

That quality — Obama calls it empathy — is a huge factor in picking a successor to retiring Justice David Souter. Among the others Obama is weighing: judicial philosophy, intellectual sway, gender, ethnicity, age and the politics of Senate confirmation.

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090523/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_supreme_court

:hi:

I long for the day when gender and ethnicity aren't criteria for any job or even asked about on an application.

When MLK's vision becomes reality.

When you hire for a position based on sex or race, you are being sexist or racist. That's pretty much the definition.

Oh, you can spin it about making amends for the past and other BS. But what you are doing is trying to correct a wrong with a wrong, and two wrongs don't make a right.

And no, trying to balance your work force or class or court is not sexist or racist in any way. It is, in fact, the opposite of discrimination because it's a measure that seeks to include, not exclude.

Exclusion isn't good, right? If he wants a woman then he is excluding men from consideration. If he wants a specific race then he is excluding many other races from consideration.

There is only one group I believe in excluding, and that is those with less qualification for the job.

Martin Luther King, Jr.'s dream appears to be lost on you.

And there is no indication that apart from favoring a representative diversity, Obama is excluding any race.

I think Martin would side with me, and not with you, that redressing a wrong is not a wrong in itself. That may be lost on you. And, that's fine.

Many people think blacks hating whites for their race aren't racist either.

Yes, I know, no crime of racism or sexism can be directed towards a white male. It's simply not in the reverse racist's definition of racism.

of the terrible oppression of white men by those in their number that see their power evaporating.

population, were excluded for a couple of centuries--and you got decisions like "sure, it's okay if a state refuses to admit women to the bar. (Keep them out of the bar and you pretty much keep them off the bench too.) And women were also pretty much excluded from law schools, too, except for the odd token in this decade or that.

Any of that seem okay to you?


And with no racial minorities, you got decisions like Plessy v. Ferguson and, sure, interning Japanese Americans is necessary for national security."

That seem okay to you?

The country got to where it HAD to have affirmative action because only the white male (and mostly WASP) point of view had been running everything, both public and private since 1607--government, courts, schools. businesses, etc. We desperately needed a different way of operating because the old way was threatening to tear apart the nation.

I am sorry we were not all born yesterday and giving each other an equal chance from minute one. But we weren't and we didn't. I'm sorry that white, most WASP males weren't gender and color blind from day one. But they weren't. And therefore, shaking these up and insisting upon diversity became necessary for the health of this nation.

Talking about the most qualified in the context of the SCOTUS is a straw man anyway. When you are talking about qualifications for the SCOTUS, we are picking from a highly select pool anyway, any one of whom has at least thir5y times the baseline ability to perform the tasks necessary for the job. And you can't really measure who is the "best" qualified by any test currently known to humankind. So, you have to go to the next set of characteristics when deciding which candidate is most desirable to fill the slot.

The ability to relate to issues faced by women is a good characteristic. So is the ability to relate to issues faced by a racial or religious minority. (Justice Ginsburg had both those characteristics, as well as legal brilliance.) Could a WASP male have related as well as she? I doubt it, but maybe. Could yet another white male on the court been a role model for your daughter? Maybe, but also very doubtful.

Absolutely not. And it is still not okay.

I like the Army. They started letting blacks in regular service and blacks rose through the ranks based on their merits, not based on a quota of we need x% blacks in these ranks. Now the percentage of black officers is about the same as in the general population.

A racist would see that blacks make up only six percent of general officers and say we need to promote more blacks to those ranks because of their race.

The percentage of blacks in top ranks is lower but that is mainly because of the choices of the officers themselves since black officers tend not to pick combat positions. The blacks are looking forward to getting out later with a usable skill such as logistics or law. But the combat positions are the ones that propel officers to the top ranks, and whites simply choose those more.

Their underrepresentation is their own choice, but you would force them to top ranks, probably costing lives. The Army's realistic solution has been to advertise to blacks the advantages of the combat jobs to get more blacks in the combat pipeline to potentially become general officers decades later. But they are not going to put someone in a general officer position over a white just because he's black.

Yes, when promoting to general officer they also have a lot of different fully qualified picks for the position. But they pick on qualification, not race.

"Could yet another white male on the court been a role model for your daughter? Maybe, but also very doubtful. "

Do I care? Maybe. No, not at all. We pick judges for various reasons, but to be a role model is not a valid reason.


Hey, did you know women are severely underrepresented in the computer programming field? Guess what, it's because statistically women aren't attracted to that job as much as men are. The available pool of competent developers is mostly men. Should a company hire a bunch of incompetent females just to up their "equal opportunity" ratio? That would be your solution.

No, we need female role models for young programmers! Sorry, already have one of the greatest in Admiral Grace Hopper, who got there on her own merits.

with commissioned officers who graduated from universities such as Annapolis or West Point.

Nice try.

unlikely to happen again because THANKS TO AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, there are now so many more raccial minorities who have been graduated from law school that even a Republican President could easily find someoone better than Thomas to appoint, if he or she really thought appointing a minority were important.

If you are talking about a truly necessary job qualification that can readily be measured objectively, like the ability to carry 100 pounds, and one candidate can but the others can't, you have a case. Things rarely are that clear cut, however.

for a seat on the SC. There are quite a few people who are qualified. And there are quite a few qualified women and minorities. So why not choose one of those people? In other words, factoring in the make up of the court is in itself not sexist or racist as long as a qualified person is picked.

Then pick one if he or she is more qualified than the white males.

I've never been denied a job due to my race and sex, but I know people who have. I would not wish it on anyone.

there are many qualified individuals including women and minorities.

Succinctly stated.

She would fit the gender and race "compensation" argument, but as you would note is an extreme example that that criteria alone should not be what is used to govern the choice.

I would try to get a justice that we know will do the best job possibly in protecting the civil rights we all as Democrats value highly, especially Roe v. Wade, and that will also look to take away the rights of corporate personhood and restore to be being for real people again like it should be, and the constitution says it should be.

If we have two equal candidates that are separated by their race or gender, then I'd say pick the woman or the race that isn't well represented now, but it should be more of a way of separating two well qualified candidates, not the sole criteria, or we'll get in trouble again with someone being picked just that way just to masquerade that they'll work more and more in stealth for corporate America, etc. the way those in the background of this choice want it.

I do believe that there are likely many women or people of color who are well qualified to have this slot. But the public view of them shouldn't just be for their race or gender, but what they will actually do as one of these justices. I fear that the media will just focus on their race or gender to keep us from hearing the details of who is actually being selected (when there might actually be a better woman of color out there that would be better, but we won't have considered, since the real criteria for who they want will be hidden from us).

Erwin Chemerinsky has had a history of writing judicial opinions against corporate "free speech" (check the Nike case he wrote on). If we have a woman or a person of color, I'd like to find someone with a similar history!

he was chosen just because of his race or gender?

That fact is, America is a profoundly racist, sexist nation and every possible step that can be taken to ameliorate the effects of our perversity should be taken.

But if you had a choice of 5 physicians to do a serious operation on you and the one woman there was just out of med school, who would you choose?

SCOTUS is a critical choice for us. This person needs to be well versed on our laws, and also be prepared to rule in the ways that we now to be right on many important issues to us.

And whether that person is a man or woman, that person HAS to be one to respect civil rights for everyone, and a woman's right to choose. But if we have a well qualified woman who's a minority, favor her.

One could almost say the same thing happened in our presidential nominating process. I think Obama's a great person, but many of us are wondering where the real change is now. Perhaps we should have been more demanding of him spelling out his stances on issues rather than just focusing on him being a black man. Same went for Hillary Clinton being a woman.

I still think Barack has a chance to be one of our greatest presidents, but I think we've rolled the dice a little on some of what we think he will do. Had he made more commitments then to us that are meaningful to the Democratic base, where we could hold him more accountable for it, perhaps we could be more demanding now that he follows through on some of those issues.

That's why no matter who gets picked, I'm going to be firing off letters to both Patrick Leahy and Russ Feingold that I want to have a good feeling from their questioning of the candidate where that person stands on corporate personhood. That issue for me is far more important than what their gender or race is.

The premise is silly. Considering race or gender is only a way to open the gate to qualified candidates. not a determinant of professional qualification.

I guess people really don't understand or believe that there are qualified people that are never considered because they happen to be women or black or something. That's amazing.

We don't have a limited choice at this point. I do believe there is probably quite a few qualified women out there that would have the experience and the right judgement to be on the supreme court. Hopefully we'll get a person from that group.

I think the bigger concern I have is how we scrutinize this choice to make sure we have one of the better choices and not one that serves others agenda that don't share our interests. We need to step back from just focusing on her being a woman and a minority and still ask her the important questions that we'd also want asked of a male nomination, and if she's not the right choice be prepared to turn her down and have another choice to choose from if necessary. Just because the selection is a woman or a person of color, doesn't mean that we should question them any differently. Those wanting to keep the court conservative might be counting us not questioning them the same way.

Of course a big problem is that some of the questions I've wanted asked haven't been asked of past candidates, man or woman... I just want to make sure that this time we get the right person there that can field such questions properly, man or woman, and if she's a woman and/or a person of color, all the better!

"there are qualified people that are never considered because they happen to be women or black or something"

Disgusting that it happens, but true.

My point is that there are also white males who aren't considered purely because they are white male.

One way it's racist, one way it isn't. I can't understand that. Intentions negate racism even when you are doing the exact same thing? You still have one person who is out of consideration for a job because of his race and/or sex. To me that is unconscionable.

he wasn't overly concerned about racism suffered by white people.

edit to clarify: conservatives today are twisting the "content of their character" line to mean MLK was opposed to affirmative action.

In fact he supported affirmative action and the "content of their character" line was about racism against minorities.

they have been in almost constant power - at least in the Western world - for the past couple millenia, white people cannot experience racism. To experience racism, you need to be of a race that is not considered in power. Man, am I tired of hearing white people whine about 'reverse' racism. Ain't no such thing. Just by being born 'white', a person automatically is part of a group that generally gets preferential treatment. Not all white people benefit equally from the color of their skin, but generally in the job market, criminal justice systems, seats on a bus, etc. there is a benefit to having lighter skin as tribal and ridiculous as that may seem.

White woman here and ready for the flames.

Who were obviously influenced or told by the white men in their lives to think that way... oh, why am I causing trouble today? :P

too. That callous s.o.b.

"This note was a promise that all men - yes, black men as well as white men - would be guaranteed the unalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. "

ALL men.

"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."

Color blind. Selecting people for their race is not color blind.

He believed affirmative action could be a means to this end. But the normal totalitarian state in communism was supposed to only be a means to an end of establishing true communism. Not that this communism was ever achieved.

The problem is people rarely go beyond the "means" to the end once they realize how sweet the means are for them.

We have a black president. We've had a black secretary of state. I think we've established that blacks can do whatever they want now. Time to stop the gravy train and go to the end.

Congress is pretty underrepresented with blacks too. How about we make the votes of the white folks not count so we can put some more blacks in there?

Sound good? Why not, affirmative action at its pinnacle. We used to make the votes of blacks not count. It's only fair, right?

What color is the sky in your world, Norm?

Purposefully putting women and blacks into a pool of qualified candidates is not a gravy train. We call that equality.

And while you were sleeping, our elections are still stolen on the backs of black voters.

Picking them from the pool because they are black or female is. The Army example I gave gives the good pool concept. The Army is trying to get more blacks in combat so more blacks will have a chance for high rank. But it's the blacks' choice to go and once there they will only get to those ranks if they have the merit.

Sure, let Obama put a lot of women and minorities in the pool. He should at least have them in there in the percentage that they make up of the qualified candidates.

"our elections are still stolen on the backs of black voters"

Funny, I thought this election was won with the support of black voters. Of course Proposition 8 passed with the support of those same voters.

shows that our elections are stolen in the black community. And if you are still blaming black voters for H8, you have some catching up to do on the Archdiocese of San Francisco's strategy -- including the framing of black voters.

And you have yet to explain your "gravy train" remark although I suspect I don't really want to read it.

= getting a job or other preference because if your race or sex.

It is the opposite of not getting a job or having a preference against because of your race or sex.

They are two sides of the same racist and sexist coin.

when trying to achieve balance in a racist, sexist society.

Try again.

We had to commit racism and sexism in order to stop racism and sexism?

70% of blacks voted for Prop 8, which was the highest percentage of any demographic except for conservatives and Republicans

Black voter turnout was at a record high.

Prop 8 barely passed by a couple percent.

Blacks were 10% of the vote.

Without the extra black turnout it might not have passed.

Yes, Prop 8 was funded mainly by white conservatives. So either the large majority of blacks are suckers (you get to be the one to say it, not me), or they agree with the conservatives on that one subject.

Carlos R. Moreno is the only Hispanic member of the California Supreme Court and its sole Democrat. He propelled himself from the working-class neighborhoods of Central Los Angeles to Yale University, and rose to become a justice on what is arguably the most important state court in the nation. . .

On May 18, 2009, in an important tort case, he wrote the majority opinion in a 4-to-3 decision that preserved the right of consumers to bring class-action lawsuits against corporations.

His parents were Mexican immigrants who never married, and who separated when he was young. An uncle took in the mother and her five children. In an interview, the justice recalled that it was not an easy time, though "there was always food on the table."

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/m/carlos_r_moreno/index.html?inline=nyt-per

The reich wing will have a fit.

are totally partisan and totally baseless. Therefore, they should be totally irrelevant.

I look forward to the day when people in the center and to the left stop caring about that issue.

You don't see the right wing worry about what the left wing might say or think. In that respect, they are correct. We need to follow their example in that.

What they say and think is irrelevant. The 9 to 29 percent that supported Bush-Cheney to the bitter end is either insane or severely challenged or so cynical and one issue that they are a fricking danger to the nation. We--including Obama--just HAVE to stop worrying about what they might say or do or we will always be doing the wrong thing for the planet, the world community, the nation and most of the people in the nation.

They always 'complain,' as framing issues to their advantage is one of their major skills. Unfortunately they do it well and somewhat dramatically, so the media has an excuse for promoting it.

but it does give them a 'hook.'

I've been looking at Bush's judicial picks recently -- and the common denominator among all his most controversial choices, as well as his less controversial but mediocre choices, is an unswerving devotion to the rights of corporations and government power and a bias against consumers, taxpayers, workers, and criminal defendants.

When Democrats stalled or filibustered Bush nominees, they generally phrased their objections in terms of such specific problems as racism, anti-environmentalism, or being stridently anti-abortion. But as nearly as I can tell, those were just the easily identifiable issues that they seized on in order to avoid talking about class warfare. The single common factor shared by all the objectionable judges -- as well as any number of other Bush appointees who were able to fly under the radar because they didn't have those obvious "tells" -- was a strong bias in favor of powerful institutions and against the powerless.

Since the early 1990's, when Karl Rove decided that "tort reform" was a winning issue for his pro-corporate candidates, first the state and then the federal judiciaries have been systematically made over to prevent awards in personal injury cases large enough that corporations won't just write them off as a cost of doing business, to exclude anyone from suing over insults to the environment if they can't prove a personal financial loss, to deny taxpayers any voice in how their tax dollars are spent, and to generally cut off any meaningful recourse to the courts by ordinary citizens.

Obama is clearly aware of the problem and intends to do something about it -- but even he can't speak openly in terms of class warfare. That's why he's using his own code phrases, like "empathy" and "day to day living." But even if he can't describe the problem straight out, we have to, because otherwise nothing will get fixed. Even if the "CW" phrase is currently toxic, we can still say clearly that Bush remade the courts to have an unacceptable bias towards the wealthy and powerful and that Obama is trying to restore balance on the side of the little guy.

That is really what it's about -- and getting bogged down in arguments over affirmative action is only playing the GOP's game.

Although I solidly support President Barack Obama, let's face it: He hasn't provided a profile of the person he is likely to pick, he's provided an example of how he intends to sell his pick to Congress and the people. We're not getting a look inside his mind, we're getting a preview of his sales tactics.

This court justice needs to be the start of newer justices that will throw that piece of "court clerk activist" POS out!

America needs to know they'll follow the constitution in this instance and not be a corporate toadie...

I'm anxiously waiting to see who the nominee will be.