Barack Obama + 19 months = two WOMEN on the Supreme Court

[impik]

Yep. Facts.

[WillParkinson]

1. Um...think you missed something...

To eminently qualified women. And I think that fact scares the Republicans all the more. They're boys clubs are in danger.

[Skittles]

33. I have liked his Supreme Court picks

[mcar]

2. Mmmm. Facts

:toast:

[great white snark]

3. One of the many political facts that cannot be dismissed.

Democrats=liberal minded justices.

Remember remember this in November.

[WI_DEM]

5. yep, and if dems sit on their hands in November and we get a gop senate

which will stall or reject out of committee Obama's later Supreme Court picks.

[Renew Deal]

4. Why hasn't he nominated three women?

:argh:

[Gordan Shumway]

20. Lol

[LoZoccolo]

6. We'll see this on a list of a lot of facts which will be dismissed with "oh, that list again". n/t

[jobycom]

7. Which is exactly why you should vote for anyone with a D over anyone else.

Even a weak president (not saying Obama is) can appoint decent SCOTUS justices if someone retires and gives them the chance, and even a DINO gives us a vote in the Senate to confirm it.

[JoePhilly]

17. +100000

[jpak]

8. I'm sorry but

this is OK with me

yup!

[derby378]

9. I don't care if they're women - just as long as they do the right thing

Sonia Sotomayor has made some good rulings and some bad ones. Overall, she's fine.

I'm not as confident about Elena Kagan, though. But now she's been confirmed, so we'll just have to sit back and see how she handles herself on the bench.

[scheming daemons]

12. What bad rulings has Sotomayor made?

Details, please.

[derby378]

16. MCDONALD V. CHICAGO comes to mind

She voted in the minority despite her previous assertions in support of Second Amendment rights. This was quite troubling.

On the other hand, Sotomayor did fire a shot across the bow concerning the legitimacy of corporate personhood, which speaks very highly of her ability to review the minuitae of previous cases.

[mkultra]

32. wow, who gives a shit. Im GLAD they are women

No justice will ever do the right thing all the time. That is why they have several. Insuring that their numbers represent the spectrum of American views is more important that satisfying your particular opinions.

[David Zephyr]

10. Yes and I hope he continues until there is parity.

!

[ProSense]

11. Roll Call

link

[Phx_Dem]

13. Awesome! Congrats to Justice Kagan!!

[Yavin4]

14. The Fact That He Hasn't Put 5 Women on the Court Shows That He's A Sexist Pig

Two is nothing more than a DLC/Clinton/Third Way/attack your base kind of thinking that dominates this administration. He should be primaried in 2012!

(This post is sponsored by the H.O.B.S. The Hysterical Obama Bashers Society of DU.)

:sarcasm:

[onehandle]

15. Sadly, Obama will never get to replace any of the conservatives.

He will replace Ginsburg when she steps down and that will be it.

Decades more of a corporate SCOTUS and there is nothing we can do about it.

[JoePhilly]

18. Yea Nader!!!!

[onehandle]

30. Yep. nt

[Chulanowa]

19. You know that the bench isn't stuck at just nine justices, right?

Just sayin'. ;)

[jobycom]

21. That would be bolder than anything Obama has tried so far.

I'd be mega-impressed. :)

[nemo137]

26. That would be bolder than anyone since Roosevelt.

It's not Constitutionally enshrined, but never underestimate the role of precedent in the American political system (one of our many legacies from the Anglophone political tradition), especially after the slapping FDR got when he tried to expand the court.

[Arkana]

22. You never know. Scalia could get leprosy or something.

[vaberella]

28. You do know that Justice Stevens was a Republican right?!

And yet he was the most liberal justice. You have no way of knowing how Kagan will vote and Sotomayor has been pretty liberal in her voting.

[onehandle]

29. Yes... Obama replaced non-conservatives with non-conservatives.

And then he will replace Ginsburg with a non-conservative.

Net gain: 0

Still a 5-4 corporatist court, as it will be for a long time.

[Odin2005]

23. two spineless centrists on the SCOTUS, you mean.

[impik]

24. Hilarious.

[BootinUp]

25. and pointless.

C'est la vie.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

27. Funny... There is a distinct lack of rotting wood odor in this thread.

Maybe that forest got clearcut.

[newtothegame]

31. Is there a reason why your skin tone and the thing between your legs...

are the only qualifications for diversity?

I understand that diversity is supposed to increase differences of opinion, bring in new experiences, etc. And I am 100% for that. But if we're going to bring in new experiences, why don't we focus on EXPERIENCES, and not just assume that being a woman, being a minority, etc. is good enough to bring in those experiences.

For instance, people OBSESS over race and gender on the Court or in Congress, but what about someone with AIDS? Or a single mother? Or someone that has been on welfare? I'm gay, black, and male, grew up on food stamps and raised by a single mother, and I can tell you that having someone represent me who'd been on food stamps before, or who also was raised by a single mother or was a single mother themselves, would be a MUCH BIGGER deal than the fact that they have the same skin color as me. You can't relate to me just because your skin is a few shades darker.

Why are skin tone and genitalia our primary qualifiers?

ed for sp.

[Bluenorthwest]

34. She's probably anti gay if he picked her

And the judge who gave such a brilliant shut down to the anti equality crowd, Obama, Palin and that set, that judge was appointed by old HW Bush. So history says we have to wait to see what these two women will do.