Only the forth woman ever. Obama nominated two of them

The man is shaking the world.

Watch!

He'll be known as the President who changed the court to reflect better
the United States!

There should be 5 women on the court, at least, if you ask me.

I have no problem with more women on the court, but it shouldn't be a reason to exclude a better candidate (say, Harold Koh, for example) just because he happens to have a penis between his legs. There really wasn't much of a surprise that Obama was going for another woman this time around, and it's certainly not one of my objections to Kagan. I'd just hate to think that some great candidates were never even up for consideration, based on that alone.

Now if you want to look at the "new" court in another respect, it's now 66.6% Catholic and 33.3% Jewish. Is that an accurate representation of America? The Protestants are losing their last representative, and the Muslims, Hindus, Wiccans, Native Americans, Atheists, and Agnostics never had one to begin with. And yeah, religion obviously enters into some big cases that are likely to come up in the near future, so it is an important factor, like it or not.

Or for that matter, just the fact that no judges from the West Coast were given any serious consideration. Shouldn't the Supreme Court, which makes decisions for the entire country, have a membership made up of the entire country? (This one should actually be easy enough to resolve. You have 9 federal court districts, and 9 slots on the Supreme Court. Should be one justice from each district, and when that Justice retires or dies, the replacement is appointed from that same region.

But gender is as good a place to start as anywhere. Religion next. I, personally, would love to see an atheist or Muslim Asian woman of color from the West Coast. Hey, I can dream, can't I?

Wouldn't a person's EXPERIENCES be more important than that they look different? How about a person with AIDS? Or a single mother? Or a former orphan? Why the obsession with race and gender all the time?

If so, you are most likely a white male, living a privileged life even if you are financially destitute. 50% of the US population is female, about 33% are people of color. The court has been overwhelmingly white and male since the country started, their experiences have contributed to the clusterfuck our country finds itself in today. And a person with AIDS? Now you're just being ridiculous. A president wants his appointees to be able to shape US law for 30 or 40 years, no one in his right mind would appoint someone with a terminal illness.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I said you were "most likely a white male." Explain to me how that makes me a bigot? And as a black male, answer the question: do you think we live in a post-racial society? You, personally, have never experienced any racism in your life?

Thanks to folks like you, in a generation young Americans won't even know what Nazism was. You're diluting what were once very powerful words (including "racism," "sexism") into meaningless tools of political convenience, so I doubt a real conversation about "race" would get very far with you.

You don't think Arizona is exalting race and nation above the individual brown-skinned citizens demanding they have papers proving their citizenship on them all the time? That's exactly the first step the Nazi's took with the Jews. Fascism is not relegated to only on place in one point in history. The fact that the term was coined in 1921 - thirteen years before Hitler was even elected - proves how little you actually know about history, Nazism, and fascism.

And for you information, I am the only white employee of a minority non-profit that works to educate people about white privilege. I have a masters degree in social justice, an interdisciplinary degree that spans the studies of race, gender and class. My undergraduate degree was in political science, with a minor in history. I know exactly what I'm talking about in this thread, and with my sig line picture. You, however, have once again offered nothing of substance to this conversation.

Foundation Director for our hospital and director of a children's cancer charity. Meanwhile, your entire job is to make my race feel sorry for itself? Seriously?

I don't know what's more shocking, that paid jobs like that exist, or that you paid for a Masters degree to get there...

ed for sp

I'm empowering people to recognize the uneven playing field they've inherited from the structures of government and work to bring about peaceful change. If you think talking about white privilege makes "your race" feel sorry for itself, well, that sounds like you've internalized the oppression and are projecting it back onto me.

You work with cancer patients and you're suggesting someone with a terminal illness be appointed to the court? :eyes:

that makes me win the argument. See how easy that is?

In essence you're saying, "I win my argument because I say I win my argument." Meanwhile, you've neither answered my questions nor offered any evidence of my bigotry.

And that's exactly what you've done by using the Nazi flag to argue against the Arizona law my friend.

I want a judge who considers habeas corpus an inalienable right. One who isn't okay with dungeons.

Too bad it'll be thirty years before the next CJ is named.

A black President nominating a Hispanic and a Jewish woman to the court, and we quibble that they aren't 'liberal' enough.

acknowledged two strong women and nominated them for the Supreme Court.

Recommended.

Harriet Myers. And the repukes nuked that one too.

The Democrats and GOP took her out because she was a fucking joke.

Shame. Shame.

I love this man and what he is trying to do.

:bounce:

filibuster her

:applause:

Had Obama nominated Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachman would he be wonderful for doing so?

Then again, demonstrably false equivalency in an effort to score political points off President Obama's achievements is never valid.

The full text of the OP:

"Only the forth woman ever. Obama nominated two of them. The man is shaking the world."

First, the OP is false. There have been five women nominated, not four. There have been three women on the court, not four.

Second, the OP implicitly treats nominating women as an independent good, which makes my reply perfectly sensible.

Reagan put the first woman on the court. Bush II nominated as many women as Clinton did. So the awesomeness of female nominations for the sake of female nominations is not apparent.

Now let's look at your typically nasty comment:

"Then again, demonstrably false equivalency in an effort to score political points off President Obama's achievements is never valid."

"demonstrably false equivalency" Okay, so you are contending that neither O'Connor or Meyers were biologically female. Otherwise the equivalency is sound in replying to the OP which addresses nothing other than biological gender. Yes, the equivalency is indeed worthless, but the equivalency was drawn by the OP and criticized by me.

"in an effort to score political points off President Obama's achievements..."

It may surprise you (and impik) to learn that impik is not President Obama.

Pointing out the fatuity of the OP can hardly be read as a criticism of Obama unless one has a serious transference issue and believes themselves to be functionally equivalent to the President. (ie, Attacks on me are attacks on Obama.)

so your comments are just plain silly

which only makes the idea posted sound even sillier

a woman.

Therefore, Reagan nominated a woman to serve on the Supreme Court.

in order to feel embarrassment.

I want to know where they stand on:

*Corporation vs Consumer

*Government vs Citizen

*Rich vs All the rest of us

I am race/gender blind in this very important placement.
It is certainly nice to have diversity on the court,
but not near as important as the issues listed above.
After all, Clarence Thomas is Black.



The Democratic Party is a BIG TENT, but there is NO ROOM for those
who advance the agenda of THE RICH (Corporate Owners)
at the EXPENSE of LABOR and the POOR.

If you want diversity, put them in based on life experiences, not whether they look better in tans/browns than you.

I'd rather have a Stevens than a Sandra Day, thanks.

Such an Oprah moment! But the Tiger Beat stance is just another shiny keys moment. :eyes:

Why does being Solicitor General for the United States count as legal experience?

Shouldn't listening to people argue about traffic tickets and divorce settlements count for more than having actual experience arguing before the Supreme Court?

:sarcasm:

Eva Braun?

I'm confused. :shrug:

:shrug:

disqualifying factor to her nomination.

On the plus side, Jeff Sessions would probably vote for her anyway.

But he could have chosen a lot better than this nominee.

That is counting Harriet Miers. But yes, 2 of the 5 have come from Obama.