Do Democrats dare make an issue out of John Roberts' race and gender?

[BurtWorm]

I do think they should make an issue out of it. There's no good reason to appoint a white male if a nonwhite male or a female of any race is just as qualified.

Unfortunately, the Republicans, being the slime they are, have no doubt thought this through very carefully and have a response ready, something to the effect that it doesn't matter what color, gender or what have you a person is as long as they interpret the constitution faithfully. (I've already seen this line taken here on DU.) Bush has appointed two African-Americans, one of whom is a woman, to be Secretary of State, and he's nominated many fascists of color to the judiciary, so he doesn't need to demonstrate his "political correctness" anymore.

Can this be countered with a question about the wisdom of wasting an opportunity to diversify the court? If color, etc., doesn't matter, why appoint a white male? Why not appoint a qualified woman or person of color?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

1. Yeah right and get the Thomas hearings thrown back in our faces?

[BurtWorm]

9. You mean Bush would then come back with a Scalia clone of color?

That is a possibility. I mean there aren't too many Republicans of color who aren't fascists already, and it certainly would be worse to get another Thomas than another Kennedy.

[noiretextatique]

10. thomas hid behind his race

when the going got too tough.
and the fact that he wasn't particularly well-qualified for the job...
not to mention his questionable behavior towards attractive, black females he happened to supervise...

i WISH they would bring up the thomas hearings again.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

2. No. Beware of Rehnquist.

Hate to say it, but the man might die at any time. Then the Repugs just nominate a female minority and all of our squawking will be nullified as being misplaced and hateful. It's far too easy a trap to fall into.

[bryant69]

7. This is right

And it doesn't take a genius to figure out what to do if we slam into him for being a white male.

That doesn't prevent us from pointing out some conservative jubilation that they have "ignored affirmative action" and selected a white male, however.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Pawel K]

3. I think pointing out his race is stupid

but then again they did this every time we would say something bad about Rice or any other minority Bush decided to appoint. So the fact he is white is fair game.

[BurtWorm]

12. I think it's fair to wonder why Bush squandered an opportunity to

diversify the court. It's not as though there are no qualified centrists of color. Or are there?

This doesn't mean drawing a line in the sand. It means instilling in the public another doubt about Bush's ability to understand ordinary people's issues.

[LisaM]

4. Fight everything

I'm on hold with the White House comment line right now.

[Inland]

5. No, for the NEXT nominee will be a minority or female NUTCASE

And the argument will be, sheesh, you democrats wanted a woman or a hispanic, and you get what you wanted....

Jesse Jackson commented, that's enough.

[RememberWellstone]

15. You are correct.

His next choice will be a woman Jesus freak who will look like the church lady. This is'nt going our way anymore. At all. It will take 20 years to gain back the losses from Chimpy and his tree monkeys.

[BurtWorm]

20. That is probably his plan already.

But the Democrats could win the public relations battle by talking about how failure to reflect the diversity of opinion and background of the nation is a major failure, considering the life term appointments at stake. Because it is true, after all.

[LeftNYC]

6. Its a valid point, but that would be a very bad decision by the Dems...nt

[slackmaster]

8. He has blue eyes

Obviously a neo-Nazi or something.

:dunce:

[tk2kewl]

11. there are plenty of other issues to hammer him on

[BurtWorm]

13. Maybe "issue" is the wrong word. "Doubt" might be better.

Just to put in the public consciousness the doubt that Bush made the best choice, as usual, even if his nomination sails through.

[BurgherHoldtheLies]

14. How about 4 Catholics on the SCOTUS? (Fundy Fun Facts)

Are the efungelicals really aware of the fact the Catholics will now make up 4 of the 9 justices? :evilgrin:

[realFedUp]

17. and not just your cafeteria Catholics either....

these guys are Dominionist Opus Dei Catholics,
who want Christianity to dominate every part
of this country and world.

I wouldn't turn a blind eye to this stuff.

[bigtree]

16. I like this reasoning. I've run it through the cobwebs a few times

If race doesn't matter, then why the predominance of white males?

[BurtWorm]

18. Why the OVERpredominance, the inordinate number of white males?

I'm uncomfortable with their feeling comfortable with this choice considering Roberts is far from being the only candidate they could have chosen.

Of course, as Howard Dean says, it's the White Christian Party...

[bigtree]

19. right

They want to bring back into realization the old (boy) guard in the SCOTUS, covered up, they hope, by that old canard that we've 'moved beyond the need' for such considerations.

Oh. Here's Scotty. "We considered a diverse group." Or something similar. Yeah, right!

[Geoff R. Casavant]

21. I disagree

What you are saying is that a nonwhite or a woman must be appointed, simply by virtue of the fact that he/she is a nonwhite or a woman as the case may be.

If we start with the premise that race and color should not be a factor, for or against, then there is no great wrong in nominating a white male.

[BurtWorm]

22. I'm asking a question, actually.

I don't think any person or kind of person *must* be nominated. I only wonder why, when there are already seven white men on the court, another one "must" be nominated. Isn't there someone who is not white or male who is as qualified as or more than Roberts? Then why was Roberts preferred over this person? Or more likely, these persons?

[rogue emissary]

23. The questions you ask are a perfect frame for bring up Roberts' race.

Republicans brought up race in defense of Rice and Gonzales. It wouldn't make sense if Democrats were silent on Roberts' race.

To those that worry about the Republican counter attack. Of course they'll use it against Democrats in the future, but they use everything we do against us anyway.

[BurtWorm]

24. I think it is legitimate to ask the question.

It's legitimate to spread legitimate doubts about the wisdom of this pick. And this is definitely something to wonder out loud about.

[gulliver]

25. Not as Democrats. However African Americans, Hispanics, ...

... and women should feel free to sound off if they are disappointed. It isn't for the party to do.

[Stirk]

26. Did you hear Andy Card on Hardball? Haha!

Paraphrasing:

'The president considered many different candidates for his Supreme Court nomination. Some of them he already knew well enough that he didn't have to interview them. The non-white male candidates fell into that category'.

[WMliberal]

27. anyone with more than two years experience as a judge is more qualified.

I just don't think * knows more than 20 or 30 people. He keeps renominating these schmucks because he doesn't know anyone else.