Vote for your choice for SCOTUS

[usregimechange]

We have been discussing the pros and cons of many of these candidates for the US Supreme Court since the retirement of Justice Souter. By now the average DUer should have some idea about who they would most support. This is not meant to be a comprehensive list of all potential nominees, rather it is a list of the most often mentioned candidates.

To learn more about the individual candidates please refer to the following:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_Supreme_Court_candidates
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/SCOTUS/Story?id=7480719&page=1
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/usregimechange

[Fearless]

1. Curiosity... why all women?

I for one would rather the best candidate not just the best female candidate. Not to say that either is mutually exclusive. I just think it's an arbitrary delineation.

[usregimechange]

2. I explained my reasoning for this already but please note that Cass Sunstein is male

[Zavulon]

26. So is Deval Patrick

but you left him off of your poll, even though he is a candidate. Probably wise, since it seems that the choice is going to be based on plumbing, especially with Bader Ginsburg campaigning to make sure a woman is nominated.

[Arkana]

38. Deval's my governor, and while he's a good guy I don't think he'd be a good SCOTUS justice.

[Zavulon]

44. Fair enough. You certainly know him better than I do. (NT)

[tekisui]

15. By all indications, it will be a woman. There is no man more qualified

than any of these women. To say you want the best puts probably 50 or so in that category. There is no reason to consider that a man in that group would be better than a woman in that group. We need more women on the Court.

[Fearless]

17. If a woman is indeed the best then it's a good idea...

All I'm saying is that just because the court needs a woman isn't a good reason to put up unqualified candidate or even less qualified candidates if indeed they exist. We'll see what happens. I'd love to see another woman, or better yet a lesbian Hispanic woman. It would really get the fundies going. :+

[jesus_of_suburbia]

21. "I'd love to see another woman, or better yet a lesbian Hispanic woman"

That's exactly what I think.. how wonderful would that be?

[Zavulon]

25. Why?

I don't think SCOTUS is really the place for genetalia-based quotas.

[Luminous Animal]

28. Why not?

Women are half of the population and certainly every single woman on that list is as qualified as any male candidate that could be proposed. The opportunity to view a list of extraordinary women qualified to be nominated to the Supreme Court is one goals of the feminist movement. We fought for equal access to the education necessary to open opportunities to gain a legitimate place in the seats of power.

[Zavulon]

30. So you believe in quotas for SCOTUS?

Okay, fine. I don't. I'm still with Sunstein because of the pros / cons sections on all of the candidates in the ABC link. I don't care if he has a penis or a vagina, what I care about is that the only knock on the guy is that he "flunks the diversity test," which I don't consider a knock. Much like the plumbing question, skin tone doesn't mean jack to me, either.

By the way, I don't buy your "certainly every single woman on that list is as qualified as any male candidate that could be proposed." I don't see every one on the list as qualified as Sunstein. However, his presumed ownership of a penis makes him unacceptable to quota mongers, which is something I just can't stomach.

Who is your choice, by the way?

Edited to add that my "Why?" was in response to "We NEED more women in SCOTUS." I don't see a "need" either way as long as a qualified candidate fills the seat - nine men, nine women, I really don't care. With my "why?" I was taking issue with the word "need," so I really can't answer your "why not?"

[Luminous Animal]

32. No, I believe in affirmative action for SCOTUS.

Putting aside your and ABC's flippant claim that Sunstein's only "con" is a penis, there has been substantial criticism of his support the Bush administration's extra-legal activities.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/12/23/14176/260

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notion/337598/netroots_summit_grapples_with_bipartisan_attacks_on_rule_of_law

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/07/19/law/index.html

[Zavulon]

33. There's the difference.

I don't believe in affirmative action at all - and, for that matter, I don't believe there is any difference between "affirmative action" and "quotas" in practice, regardless of what theory is claimed.

However, if you are such a big believer in "affirmative action" (quotas), am I safe in guessing that your top choice is a black or hispanic woman based on plumbing and genetalia? Who is your first choice and why?

BTW, my and ABC's "flippant claim" was based on Sunstein being a white male, not just the presence of a penis. When people mention "diversity," more are referring to race than gender, some mean both. You're the only one I've ever heard interpret that to "dick only."

I'm still sticking with Sunstein. Your second and third links are one argument which doesn't sway me (I think he has a point), and I didn't even open the Kos link because I stopped reading that site after Markos Moulitsas said Hillary "doesn't deserve fairness on this site." I am not a Hillary supporter by any stretch of the imagination - in fact, I can't stand her (or anyone else who voted for Bush's war) - but that was over the top. If he can be willingly unfair to one person, I have no reason to trust or pay attention to anything Kos publishes.

[Luminous Animal]

37. The Kos articles are authored by Armando...

There is more to Kos than Kos. Personally I rarely read Markos. I find him too flippant

1) It is you who originally brought up genitalia as your initial criticism of the OP's list. Quote: "I don't think SCOTUS is really the place for genetalia-based quotas."

2) You can assert the right wing misinformation that affirmative action = quotas all you want, but it doesn't make it so. Quotas mandate diversity despite qualifications and are illegal. Affirmative action sets diversity goals amongst qualified candidates. A company or organization is not penalized for being unable to meet those goals due to a shortage or unavailability of qualified candidates.

3) Agreeing with the unconstitutional notion of the inherent authority of the presidency is a deal breaker for me. Sunstein, as a matter of fact, has had to back-pedal a bit from his position as a result from criticism from other Constitutional scholars. He cedes powers to the presidency that do not exist in the constitution.

4) I worry as much about Sunstein's approach to "cost benefit analysis" approach to regulation as I do the above. And his work with the right-wing think tank the American Enterprise Institute which never met a regulation that it likes.

5) He is a self-defined "libertarian paternalist" a regulatory scheme that puts onus on the individual. It's a marketing gimmick that substitutes regulation for better "super-market placement", a gimmick that props up the disgraced free-market fundamentalism that has brought us to the brink of economic destruction.

[Zavulon]

42. Since I refuse to go on Kos's site,

you'd have to tell me what the article is about.

Now as for your other responses, one-by-one...

1) And I stick by my quote. I'm just saying that what ABC said refers to more than genetalia.

2) As I said or at least indicated, there's a difference between the theory and practice of affirmative action - something I posted to save you the trouble of explaining that which I've heard so many times. Right wingers are not the only people who believe that AA means quotas in practice, but I'm not surprised you went there. If you disagree with anyone on DU, you're a Freeper - I learned that a long time ago.

3) I tend to side with the idea of inherent authority of the president on SCOTUS nominations. I hate it when it doesn't go my way, but I was a big believer in it when Clinton nominated Bader-Ginsburg. Mentioning the Constitution doesn't sway me because we're well past the point where the Supremes uphold it.

4) I take the cost benefit analysis into account, I think he's right. I don't want to lose in 2012.

5) I'd have to read more on both his stance and the stance itself to comment on this, unfortunately, but stance on markets isn't likely to make or break my support.

I'd still like to know who your choice is and why.

[Luminous Animal]

45. I don't have a choice at this point...

I am still researching.

1) And yet both you and ABC make a point of including genitalia.

2) When there has been abuse in affirmative action, it has been successfully challenged. The right-wing is and was successful in perverting the definition of affirmative action just as they were with demonizing the word "liberal". Saying that affirmative action = quotas does not make it so. My definition is accurate. For what it is worth, I never called you a freeper or right wing, only that you are utilizing their their characterization of affirmative action. Furthermore, not all right wingers are Freepers.

3) I never said that POTUS does not have inherent authority in regards to SCOTUS nominations (though POTUS does not have the authority to over-ride the Senate's rejection). The inherent authority I was referring to is Sunstein's defense of subverting FISA and supporting military tribunals. He is, also, a supporter of Yoo.

4) I have no idea what you are talking about.

5) His paternal libertarian views on markets elevates the needs of free markets over individuals.

[Zavulon]

48. Neither do I.

We see things differently and I see no point in going on. I could whip up five answers to the five things you just said, you'd counter with five, and we'd go on despite there being no purpose or benefit to doing so. The fact that I had to ask repeatedly just to get "I'm still researching" is just one of the reasons why this is pointless, the fact that you think affirmative action is pure (or even proper) is another. I'll never agree with it, and from all my years in human resources I'll never agreee that in practice, AA isn't just a quota system.

In response to your "Saying that affirmative action = quotas does not make it so", saying that they don't equal quotas in practice doesn't make it so. Your "correct definition" is, technically, correct in that what you say is exactly how this supposedly wonderful corrective tool is sold, but - and again, I'm talking "in practice" rather than the "in theory" sales pitch - it doesn't work out that way when it's put into practice. Your "When there has been abuse in affirmative action, it has been successfully challenged" is either the result of being misinformed or naive. Affirmative action abuses which never got corrected are everywhere and not difficult to find. Try researching that while you're picking out a nominee, and see how you react to what you find.

I'm done, but feel free to have the last word. Stick to your technically correct definition (sales pitch) for AA if you want, but repeating the sales pitch doesn't make AA work the way it's described.

Have a good rest of the weekend.

Zavulon

[Zynx]

34. If there appears to be a bias toward appointing men despite the high prevelance of

extremely qualified women, I think that suggests a level of discrimination that deserves correction.

[Zavulon]

35. Appears? Correction?

So in other words, because something APPEARS that way to you, "correction" should be the first thing considered when nominating someone?

It's bad enough we have assholes like Scalia and Alito bending the law the way they see fit, but this quota-mongering takes us even further away from the purpose of SCOTUS. Now we have to take APPEARACE into account? Holy shit. "Correction" is nothing more than reverse discrimination, which is - obviously - a form of discrimination. There is no place for it on SCOTUS. I don't mean to offend you, but your way of thinking is really disturbing to me. You are actually endorsing discrimination in the nomination process. Wow.

If a woman is picked, it should be because Obama is absolutely convinced she's best for the job, not for "correction" of "appearance" which you seem to actually think is "deserved." Man, I still can't believe anyone can justify an argument for any form of discrimiation.

I can make almost any claim by simply saying that something APPEARS a certain way to me. For example, your post APPEARS to contain a lot of anti-male bias covered up by flowery language. Is there any proof that you're biased against males? No, but I could run around saying that this is how it APPEARS to me. You are for reverse discrimination, which I think - using your words here - "suggests a level of discrimination that deserves correction."

[Luminous Animal]

40. It is not discrimination

when you have a pool of equally qualified candidates. It is ludicrous to assert that there is one single white man whose legal judgment and intelligence exceeds any of those women on the list. They are all eminently qualified. Without a doubt, there has been institutional bias in the selection of Supreme Court justices. For the first 150 years, it was because of the fact that minorities and women were denied access to educational institutions and career opportunities that would enable them to be eligible for consideration. For the next 50 years, individual sexism and racism would make considerations of diversity impossible. If anything, the default quota is white male but as soon as this quota is challenged, white men start getting nervous about sharing the seats of power.

[Zavulon]

43. It is

definitely disc rimination "when you have a pool of equally qualified candidates," and you automatically cut out all the men because you feel it's necessary to fulfill a quota (a word I'm sticking with).

If you say "we need more women on SCOTUS, so men need not apply for Souter's seat," it's discrimination. Pure and simple. Call it "corrective," "affirmative action" or whatever else makes you feel good, but if you're going to exclude white men from your list because you feel you're righting a wrong, you're engaging in discrimination - reverse or otherwise, it's discrimination.

Emotional pleading about 150 years of this and 50 years of that doesn't make discrimination right in this day and age or any other.

If you're seriously arguing that "They are all eminently qualified" and that any of them would be good picks without one being more qualfied than the rest, I'd look at age, risk factors and family histories LONG before I'd ever start to care about gender or skin tone, given that this is a lifetime appointment. If we're going to discriminate, let's do it sensibly and keep a good pick on the court for decades.

[Luminous Animal]

47. So it okay if we discriminate

using your standards but no other?

Hahahahaha!!!!

Again, fulfilling a quota would demand appointing a woman/minority no matter the qualifications. Promoting diversity is considering the entire pool of equally qualified candidates including white men and hiring/appointing the best person for the job while keeping in mind the current make-up the organization. It is a method with which to address institutionalized racism and sexism. I am not excluding white men from my list because I feel that I am righting a wrong, I am excluding white men from my list because they are already well represented on SCOTUS (that is, the quota of white men on SCOTUS has already been filled) and there are equally qualified alternatives. I have the luxury of excluding white men from my wish list for consideration because I am not the one doing the appointing but I sincerely doubt that Obama has excluded white men from consideration.

You can try to obscure verifiable fact with accusations of "emotional pleading" all you want but it doesn't make it true. Minorities and women were historically barred from the seats of power by both design and personal bigotry. Diversity is a reflection of our society and our democracy. You could look at filling Souter's seat with someone other than a white man as a democratic action.

[Zavulon]

49. No, it's not okay at all, but I'm not suprised that you missed my point.

I'm just saying that if you want to discrimante (and by your "I am not excluding white men from my list because I feel that I am righting a wrong, I am excluding white men from my list because they are already well represented on SCOTUS" it's obvious that you do), be logical about it. Skin tone and plumbing are not logical reasons to pick for or against anyone.

I'm done with this subthread as well. You missed my point and you ARE discriminating. I have no use for discrimination or anyone who supports any form of it. This discussion is a waste of time for both of us.

As I just said in another post, have a nice rest of the weekend.

[TexasObserver]

3. Granholm

[usregimechange]

4. She was my #2 behind Karlan

[usregimechange]

6. Oh, I forgot Sullivan, she is tied for 2nd on my list and may move to 1 before this is over

[annarbor]

52. I'm with you on that one!

My Governor and former State Atty General would make a fine Justice.


Ann Arbor

[blue_onyx]

57. I would hate to lose her in MI though

It could be beneficial since it would allow John Cherry to become the incumbent for the 2010 election. MI, however, is going through such a bad time, especially with GM likely declaring bankruptcy within a month. It would be nice to have her here since 2009-2010 will be such critical and difficult years.

Granholm would make a great addition to the Supreme Court so she would have my support, even though I would be sad to see her go.

[usregimechange]

5. I didn't expect Sotomayor to do so well here but it is early in the voting

She isn't my top choice but I think she would be a good Justice.

[usregimechange]

7. There seemed to be a lot of folks supporting Wardlaw last I was on here...

[usregimechange]

8. Can I get 5 people to rec this to the greatest so we can get more votes?

[usregimechange]

9. It is getting interesting...

[Number23]

10. Look at all of the chicks!

I LOVE it! :loveya:

[Kaleva]

11. Kagan is my first choice. Wood is the second.

[usregimechange]

12. I think it is likely to be Kagan and soon

[tekisui]

16. She does seem to be seen as 'lock'.

I am happy with her. I like everyone on that list.

[JFKfanforever]

18. Why? What makes her "Special K"?

Just asking politely... I have no idea why she would be better
than SS, who would be a sensational Supreme.

[Corey_Baker08]

13. Granholm n/t

[Lyric]

14. Sullivan or Diane Wood

[recoveringdittohed]

19. My vote is for the youngest liberal available

Clarence Thomas was only 43 when he was appointed & confirmed so I want a Supreme who is younger and more liberal than Thomas is right wing.

[ShadowLiberal]

20. Elena Kagan,at 49 she's young, plus she'd be the first gay SC justice

[Kaleva]

22. I think you've mistaken Kagen for Karlen

[usregimechange]

24. Yep but not the first time that has happened

[liberalpragmatist]

29. Well Kagan is rumored to be...

... but it's hard to say whether it's credible or not. There's an unfortunate tendency to assume all unmarried, female professionals with bobbish haircuts are lesbians.

[cwcwmack]

51. lol... n/t

[fadedrose]

23. Anybody but Granholm..

In addition to Michigan's lousy primary, didn't she say the other day that that Rick fella, head of GM, was a scapegoat, after Obama fired him?

[blue_onyx]

55. She made a mistake supporting the primary

but based on your avatar image, you're willing to overlook Dean's poor decision to give New Hampshire and Iowa permission to violate the primary schedule.

Granholm would make a fantastic Supreme Court justice.

[Zavulon]

27. Sunstein

As I read through the pros and cons of everyone, the only knock against him is that he "he flunks the 'diversity' criteria? To me, that's not a knock at all, especially when one of the pros is "He would be a judicial rock star on the court who could easily go toe-to-toe with Roberts and Scalia and leave a lasting legacy for Obama."

In this case, I don't give a flying fuck about diversity, quotas or whatever else. Sunstein seems like a perfect choice to me, but of course there are those who believe plumbing and skin tone should trump this guy's qualifications.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/SCOTUS/Story?id=7480719&page=3

[liberalpragmatist]

31. I like Wood, Sotomayor, Kagan, Karlan, and Granholm

I like Wood because, by all accounts, she a fantastic, brilliant jurist, whose opinions are said to be extremely well-written and persuasive. She could really have a big impact on the court - more so than many other potential justices might be. (For example, I have no doubt most of the people named will vote in ways that make us happy, but it'd be great to have someone who can really have a long-term philosophical impact.) She's also a graduate of the University of Texas. While I don't have a problem with Harvard, Yale and other Top 5/Top 10 schools having an outsize presence on the bench (we want the best), I think right now it's TOO tilted in that direction. Everyone but Stevens attended Harvard or Yale Law (Ginsberg attended Harvard Law but transferred and graduated from Columbia). I think some diversity in terms of educational backgrounds would be good.

I like Sotomayor because she's clearly bright and because we should have a Hispanic justice on the bench. That being said, one criticism against her is that her opinions don't have the force that Wood's has, for example. (I'm not citing Jeffrey Rosen's hit piece, either - by all credible accounts, she's extremely smart and capable - I just worry that her judicial theory may be a bit more minimalist and case-by-case, which is something the court's liberal wing already has a lot of - I'd like someone to go toe-to-toe with Scalia and Roberts.)

I like Granholm because she's clearly trained in law (clerked for a federal judge, was editor of a law review at Harvard) but she brings elective experience, something the court lacks and really should be restored.

Karlan would be brilliant - she comes from academia and would REALLY be able to go toe-to-toe with Scalia.

[whistler162]

36. Judge Reinhold

Seriously, Obama will make a pick. Many will scream and shout about his betrayal of _______ group and many will laud his choice as brave and courageous.

Granholm I think is out of the running not so much because she is a politician, William O. Douglas was a good Supreme Court Justice and governor of California, but because her starte is in such bad shape.

It maybe a woman but hopefully the list includes all those that are qualified for the position.

[Arkana]

39. This.

This right here.

I guarantee you that when Rahm, Axelrod, Jarrett, and the other senior counsel to the President talk about this, they say, "No matter who we choose, there will be a subset of the Democratic Party who screams and yells and cries 'BETRAYAL!' because he/she was not their chosen candidate."

[whistler162]

41. Oops... meant Earl Warren.....

not William O. Douglas.

[blue_onyx]

58. MI being in bad shape isn't Granholm's fault

It was a mess before she ever took office. I do agree, however, the fact that MI is doing poorly would be used against her by the GOP if she was nominated.

[Supersedeas]

46. Allyson K. Duncan, Federal Circuit Court Judge, 4th Cir

[cwcwmack]

50. Kathleen Sullivan ftw...

SCOTUS should be chock full of legal eagles... and she's one of the best and brightest.

[usregimechange]

53. I agree and she is catching up here.

[ecstatic]

54. Other: Judge Judy

Just kidding. My choice is Sonia S. I love her backstory and think she will bring a diversity and perspective that's badly needed in that court.

[saltpoint]

56. We need a girl. Too many boys on the Court right now. Some balance

would be good.

I'd like it to be a woman of established profile within the field and study of law who on intellect and energy could stand up to the Scalia/Roberts/Thomas gang and push right back at them.

I'd like a justice-shaper, in other words, someone whose name our grandchildren's grandchildren will know and honor.

[usregimechange]

59. kicking for more votes

[Sebastian Doyle]

60. Whichever candidate the whore media talks about the most

...should be the first one eliminated from the list. Second elimination should be whichever one is recommended by either Snake in the grass Schumer or Spineless Reid.

[usregimechange]

61. Not bad