WE'VE MOVED! Democratic Convention Watch is now at http://www.DemocraticConventionWatch.com
In selecting people for positions in the Obama administration, the choice has been "smart and capable." (As an aside, I heard on TV that more than 200,000 people have applied so far for the 7,000 positions available.)
Once the government gets going, there is going to be another position to fill: the first Supreme Court vacancy. The likelihood is that Justice Stevens will serve, at most, to the end of the current term.
My brother and I had a conversation about this last night, and he believes that the initial choice must be an incredibly smart and competent woman, black and/or Hispanic to make the Court look more like America and less like a bunch of old white guys with a token woman, and an African-American wingnut. I care less about race, colour, creed, gender, sexual orientation: I want the brightest, most liberal mind to fill Justice Stevens' seat. I want Russ Feingold.
The choice might be an academic, a judge below the radar (in fact, I have this cousin...), or someone else we might not know yet. Who do you think the first new Justice should be? You can answer either with a name, or whether you agree with my brother that the race, colour, creed, gender, sexual orientation is most important.
And just for the sake of trivia, and knowing that he is NOT a choice for the Supreme Court, why would I mention the name "Hill Harper" in this post?
Logging you in...
del.icio.us
tmess2 70p · 853 weeks ago
1) More than racial or gender diversity, though both would be valuable, I want a younger nominee (late 40s). The Republicans have done a great job over the years at appointing Justices who could easily serve 30 years. When you appoint justice with that longevity, you don't have to win every election. When you appoint someone near 60, you really do have to win every election to avoid the other side replacing your appointments.
2) Likewise, I want a justice with practical political experience. Other than Sandra Day O'Connor, most of the appointees of the past 40 have come primarily from the appellate bench (and except for Souter from the federal appellate bench at that). You need one or two justices who have worked in the legislative trenches and one or two who have been primarily state judges for the Court to have the proper respect for those two parts of our legal system.
My own preference would be Claire McCaskill or better yet a Representative (since we can't afford to lose a Senator.)
DocJess 71p · 853 weeks ago
CHAD · 853 weeks ago
All joking aside, we need someone young to counter bushes appointments.
KarenAnne 67p · 853 weeks ago
mister liberal · 853 weeks ago
tmess2 70p · 853 weeks ago
Historically, former politicians have made decent justices. Furthermore, the stand that someone took as a politician does not necessarily tell you anything about what they will do as a justice. Eisenhower thought, based on his political career, that Earl Warren would be a conservative influence on the court.
History tells us that prior judicial experience is not a prerequisite for greatness on the Supreme Court. President Obama should be open to considering those from other talent pools than just the federal bench.
Peter Zenger 62p · 853 weeks ago
Consider these justices and their age at appointment:
Roberts 50
Scalia 50
Thomas 43
Tom 53p · 853 weeks ago
DocJess 71p · 853 weeks ago
What, you turn 50 and something happens to make one unsuitable to serving on the Court? In recent times, most Supremes have served well over 20 years -- and they work into their 70's and 80's. This is not like sports where it is rare to find a professional competitor over the age of 40.
Shame!
KarenAnne 67p · 853 weeks ago
What's a hackle, it occurred to me? Answer, which I had to look up, feathers or fur that stands up on the back of the neck of an animal.