The Supreme Court is very small - too small, in my opinion, for any kind of formal or informal quota to be used in the nomination process. I don't know much about this nominee but hope he at least has the gravity and respect for precedent necessary. I was most afraid that Bush would select someone with neither of those qualities - many extreme conservatives dislike a respect for precedent very much - which I think would seriously undermine our judicial system.Kyung Dae-Seung wrote:Apparently from what I've heard, which isn't alot, this guy is Super Conservative Man.
It did surprise me though when he did not nominate a female to replace a female. Any female opinions on the matter?
Judicial nominees are often difficult to read. This nominee has very little appellate court experience - which isn't a good sign and leaves little record to judge. Perhaps he's a Souter or a Kennedy - or maybe he'll be a Thomas or a Scalia. Souter - after all - was nominated by Bush Pere. In fact of the six supporters of women's reproductive rights four, Souter, Kennedy, O'Connor, and Stevens, were nominated by Republicans. Some people are able to separate their personal feelings and beliefs from their responsibility to interpret the law of our secular government. (O'Connor said before her appointment that she found abortion personally abhorrent - I see no reason to doubt that or doubt that it is still the case) Generally those who cannot do that don't meet even the basic qualifications - that doesn't necessarily prevent a nomination. But, trust me, many very conservative lawyers would oppose a conservative nominee who did not have the experience or judicial temperament necessary despite their personal opinion. Once you encourage the court to make law and ignore precedent you've irreparably damaged the judicial system itself. I think Bush may be trying for a stealth nomination. Someone with sort of the experience but without a record anyone can nail down on issues. That sort of thing has backfired badly in the past but is probably his only choice given the extreme views of many of the supporters to whom he owes his position.
back to the question - the notion that one woman on the court must be replaced with another woman is silly to me. I would be more concerned that women are represented on the lower courts. Not because I believe they judge other women more fairly or have some special female insight - but because I think it's a better indication of how able women are to advance in their careers or how blocked they are from advancement.
, human nature is for personal gain. Besides even if people put that emotion to one side, it was shown in the USSR that once everyone had a job, there was no incentive to work hard because you were guaranteed pay, goods were of rubbish quality. *Shrugs* If communism didn't work then Marxism won't either.