Comments on: Potential Democratic SCOTUS Nominees

By: Swing Trading

Swing Trading — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 07:40:27 +0000

Interesting post. I have made a twitter post about this. My friends will enjoy reading it also.

By: SCOTUSblog

SCOTUSblog — Sat, 14 Jul 2007 22:10:59 +0000

Follow-Up to the Democratic (Not So) Short List

My post on potential Democratic Supreme Court nominees generated a variety of email responses, as well as interesting posts and reader commentary. See for example the responses and comments at Above the Law, Althouse, The New York Times Opinionator (Ti…

By: David Schraub

David Schraub — Fri, 13 Jul 2007 20:48:45 +0000

If it’s not quality I seek, it’s quality I’ve found. Or perhaps you can tell me which of these thirty names is an unqualified individual? Is it Harold Koh, the Dean of Yale Law School? Or Kathleen Sullivan, former Dean of Stanford Law? Judge Sotomayor, who has served on the federal bench for 15 years since being originally named by George H.W. Bush to a district court seat (later promoted by President Clinton). Roger Gregory, nominated to the 4th Circuit by the current President Bush? With which name are we sacrificing quality?

It is a pleasant happenstance of America that quality can be found among people of all races, and all sexes. All but four of the Supreme Court Justices in American history have been White males, and every single Justice has been one or the other. This far exceeds the proportion of talent and quality these demographic groups hold vis-a-vis the rest of population. Given that, a list of potential justices that is only 60% male (gasp!) and only 37% White (sob!) really does not distress me, nor should it you.

Put another way, what is so shocking or unbelievable about the prospect that a little less than two-thirds of the most qualified candidates for a position might not be White? Why are you so incredulous that up to 40% of the most qualified judicial candidates could be women?

Color-(and gender-)blind my ass.

By: DLS

DLS — Fri, 13 Jul 2007 19:46:42 +0000

“Gender” (sex) and race are illegitimate, perverse, anti-American, not to mention (properly) unconstitutional criteria for qualification and rating of the candidates. It’s not quality you seek.

By: domajot

domajot — Fri, 13 Jul 2007 16:19:50 +0000

It’s nice to think about these folks. I hope, I hope.

By: Rambie

Rambie — Fri, 13 Jul 2007 00:34:38 +0000

Isn’t is early to start to pick the next Administration’s SCOTUS nominees when we don’t even know who the next President will be?

Just asking.

By: Lynx

Lynx — Thu, 12 Jul 2007 20:43:51 +0000

I have no clue who will be elected, I can only hope it’s the most qualified candidate and that politics does not trump everything in his or her choice.

As for the race or gender of the candidate, I could really care less, much as I could care less that Rice is black or that Gonzalez is latino. If the most qualified is a white male, fine, if it’s not, also fine.