http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/09/26/roberts.ap/index.html

Hopefully it will be a qualified female.

Democrats say their planned votes shows their senators are allowed to think for themselves, instead of being forced to toe a party line.

 

"Republicans are saying take the politics out of it, but they all marched in lockstep. Democrats made their mind up independently," said Sen. Charles Schumer of New York, the head of the Senate Democratic campaign committee.

 

Copyright 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Gonzales?? :puke

Why is everyone so worried about diversity as opposed to finding the best candidate?

Why is everyone so worried about diversity as opposed to finding the best candidate?

 

Being a woman, I'd like to see a qualified woman up there instead of all men. What's wrong with a little variety?

Being a woman, I'd like to see a qualified woman up there instead of all men.  What's wrong with a little variety?

 

 

Variety is wrong when its done just for the sake of variety and no other reason.

Why is everyone so worried about diversity as opposed to finding the best candidate?

 

Because it's possible that a quality candidate would be overlooked because they're a minority.

Variety is wrong when its done just for the sake of variety and no other reason.

But in the case of the SC, there are lots of qualified men and women--there's no ONE right answer. So, I say use a pick that will, perhaps, reflect more the make-up of the country and give voice to a relatively voiceless population.

Variety is wrong when its done just for the sake of variety and no other reason.

 

Sorry, but in the case of people making decisions on the law on the lang, it's not just variety for the sake of variety - it's making sure half this country's point of view (ie the female half) is taken into consideration when deciding on points of law - I know I am not wording it the way I mean it, but it is the best I can do at the moment.

 

I am certain if it were all women up there you'd be clamoring for a man to be appointed.

I am certain if it were all women up there you'd be clamoring for a man to be appointed.

 

 

Not if there wasn't a qualified male candidate under consideration. That works 2 ways.

I have a hard time believing there isn't one "qualified" female worthy of nomination.

I have a hard time believing there isn't one "qualified" female worthy of nomination.

 

 

I didn't say that.

There was a day when affirative action and other laws would create a situation where a less qualified candidate would get a position. I have to believe that there are qualified minority candidates available. (Aren't Dems a minority right now?)

 

Just asking QP, which would be more important, a woman who votes like a man, or a man who votes like a woman? Woudn't a verdict record that would fall in line with "women's interests" be better? This kind of harkens back to the Thomas confirmation. Voting record was more important than color to some people.

“Diversity”? Absolutely not!

 

I think every member of the Supreme Court should be female.