re: new Justice - should not be a white male catholic

[ensho]

or any color/religion male

should be a woman

(I really like what one DUer said the other day. make the new Justice an american indian)

[onehandle]

1. I don't care what sex, color, or religion they are.

I just want a young, healthy, proven liberal.

[Arkana]

2. How about we don't do quota shit and just pick whoever is most qualified?

[Craftsman]

3. Agreed

Discrimination is discrimination no matter who it is against.

[vaberella]

7. + Infinity. I think the topic was stupid to even mention. We need Progressives.

No matter their race or sex.

[SwampG8r]

13. amen

you cant put the agenda driven in power
history shows us why over and over

[lumberjack_jeff]

14. Exactly. n/t

[OhioBlue]

25. How do you decide who is most qualified?

I'm sure there are many choices with excellent credentials. We can't see into the future and know how anyone will vote on every decision. I don't see considerations for diversity as "quota shit".

[Arkana]

29. I'm saying that we should do away

with "Well, if Obama doesn't make a black lesbian transgender Jew the next SCOTUS justice, I just don't think I can vote for him next time!" I hate proclamations like this. They reek of idiocy and as much small-mindedness as any teabagger.

Vet these people, study their history, explore their legal opinions, delve into their personal history--but I gotta say: don't appoint someone because he/she happens to be a gay American Indian with a harelip or whatever. The President should choose his nominee based on chops alone--race, gender, and sexual orientation should be the absolute LAST dividing factor when making a choice.

[OhioBlue]

30. Well, I agree with your last paragragh

Your characterization of "Well, if Obama doesn't make a black lesbian transgender Jew the next SCOTUS justice, I just don't think I can vote for him next time!" - I think might be a little dramatic. Perhaps the OP should have explained themselves better, but we could discuss this with more cordiality.

I think I get what the OP meant - of course they are vetted first.. but let's add some diversity to the Court. It's an interesting conversation as SC Justices are so important and appointments so few.

[proteus_lives]

27. +1000

[Overseas]

31. Because the last time they pretended they were doing that they chose a couple of right wing Catholic

guys who weren't the most qualified. They were the most right wing.

[Empowerer]

33. The problem is that the MSM, political estalishment and apparently, a significant part of the public

believe that white males are the mean and that anything that diverges from that is a "quota" pick.

We heard that frequently in the lead up to the Sotomayor nomination . . . how often did we hear the question "Is the president going to seek out diversity or is he going to go with the most qualified person?" The assumption still is all-too-common that white men are automatically qualified, unless proven otherwise, while women and minorities are suspect unless they prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that they deserve to be considered.

I have found that when people say, "let's not obsess over diversity, let's pick the most qualified," they usually mean, "let's not try to find a qualified woman or minority. Let's just pick a white man." I don't think that's what YOU'RE saying, but I hope you understand why your point might be misconstrued.

[Enrique]

4. next justice should be from Queens, Staten Island, or Long Island

the rest of the NYC metro area is represented already.

[vaberella]

5. I'm going with Rachel's guest on this one. I'm not assigning race or sex on this.

I want someone qualified but not someone to be sensationalized, or put in as the first anything because s/he is the first anything. If they are qualified I want them in. Why? Justice Stevens was a WASP and from what has been reported a Republican but he managed to be the most liberal justice on the Supreme Court. So, I want someone qualified and who will speak for me before I want someone to fit some profile.

[LiberalFighter]

12. There is of course going to be some weeding out.

Some disqualifications:

Regent University graduate.
Oral Roberts graduate.
Former law clerks for Rehnquist, Scalia, or Thomas.
Former law clerks for other judges of ill repute.
Teabagger supporters.
Connected with Reagan, Bush 41&43, Cheney, McCain, DeLay, Pence, Quayle, Daniels, etc.
Connected with any Anti-abortion, Donohoe affiliated groups.
Connected with any major corporations, energy related, defense related, etc.
Any that are elders or deacons of their church.

[vaberella]

17. Sotomayer was connected with Bush...

So...

[LiberalFighter]

18. I meant in their administration.

[hughee99]

6. We should search for the best candidate who was also a

gay or transgendered, disabled Native American. The SC already has women, these groups are not represented at all.

Either that, or we should just try to find the best candidate regardless of their other attributes.

[bain_sidhe]

8. Hmmm, dunno. I'm kinda hoping for Deval Patrick

even though he's a long shot. But, basically, I'm with some of the other posters - young, healthy and liberal progressive* are the most important characteristics. I can live with anybody who satisfies those criteria.

*I changed "liberal" to "progressive" based on David Sirota's definition of the terms - essentially, that liberals look to establish programs to improve people's lives, and progressives look to set up the system to improve people's lives.

[kenny blankenship]

9. Seeing how the most liberal Justice is a white Anglo-Saxon protestant

heterosexual male --and seeing how this Justice was appointed by a Republican-- maybe it's time for Democrats to reconsider how they go about evaluating the fitness of judicial appointees?

I'll say it again, the most liberal Supreme Court Justice is a white anglo-saxon protestant heterosexual male - and he was not appointed by a Democrat either but by a Republican. And on top of that he is way OLD. According to the conventional wisdom prevailing here at DU, all that whiteness, maleness, Anglo-ness, Protestantism, and heterosexuality, and elderliness is SUPPOSED to make JP Stevens the most EVIL judge imaginable. Instead he's the most likely justice to represent the concerns and viewpoints of the Democratic base.

God forbid Democrats should start judging people based on the content of their character!

I want the best LIBERAL legal mind possible on the Supreme Court. A "sensible moderate" in this environment WILL JUST CAUSE MORE RIGHTWARD DRIFT in the SCOTUS no matter if that new "moderate" has a vagina, or black skin, or a non-Christian Protestant background, or an unconventional private life, or speaks Spanish at home with their family.

You should be more concerned with what the replacement for Stevens will do on the bench, not what they look like or sound like. Leave that kind of tribalism to the Republicans.

[JVS]

16. A moderate of any color or gender is a bad choice.

[saltpoint]

10. Were he still with us I could get behind a Red Cloud nomination.

[ensho]

11. there are plenty of well qualified women to choose from

of course I want a qualified person. that goes without saying.

[lynne]

15. IMO, sex, religion, ethnicity should NOT be considered when choosing a SC justice -

- what should be the one and only criteria is their history of interpretation and knowledge of our laws and our constitution. Period. If the best happens to be white, male, catholic - so be it. If the best is female, native american, pagan - so be it.

Any other considerations implies that they've been chosen for reasons not relating to what will be their duties.

[OhioBlue]

24. However - that one and only criteria

could result in many people that are well qualified. I have no problem with adding diversity and possible longevity into the mix. I think all groups perform better when they are diverse. If you look at the current SC - and have 20 vetted, excellent choices... considerations for longevity and diversity should be given weight, IMO.

[ZombieHorde]

19. I demand an intersexed Justice. A cute one! nt

[boppers]

20. Can we have a TV call-in show?

Maybe with celebrity "judges"?

[ShadowLiberal]

21. All the matters at the end of the day is getting a young hardcore Liberal on the court

[Ex Lurker]

23. that's it, the younger the better, as long as they're otherwise qualified

we need someone who'll be there for the next 30-40 years.

[rucky]

22. I want one that can put themselves in other people's shoes

no matter what their personal background is.

[proteus_lives]

26. How about a great judge?

And whatever equipment they have under the robe isn't a issue.

[tkmorris]

28. Dayum. I hope you didn't break any teeth slamming that foot into your mouth

Seriously, think these things through before you say them.

The second you start opining what a USSC justice should be based on anything other than their judicial views, you are being a bigot.

[ensho]

32. I have hardly any teeth left as I can't afford a dentist and of course

I want a highly qualified woman. that goes without saying.

so go bigot yourself.

[tekisui]

34. For sure, no more catholics.

Other than that, I just want a young liberal.