Comments


  • The Constitution gave Congress the right to set the number of justices on the Court. It was finally set at nine in 1869, from what I've read.

    Who is The Best for the job? That's a pretty subjective criteria.

    I'm just grateful It wasn't Bush nominating Gonzo for the job. Miers was a bad enough choice.

    May 4, 2009 at 5:49 p.m.

  • Maybe the Supreme court should be expanded to say 100 Justices?

    That way everyone would be represented.

    May 3, 2009 at 8:05 p.m.

  • Women are not equally represented on the nation’s highest court. Obama will rectify that, call it what you want…

    So since there are more women alive in the us, and they live longer, then at least 5 out of the 9 justices should be woman?

    Following that logic, one should be African American, check got that covered, 1/2 of one should be Asian, (errr 1/2 a justice??)Three should be Hispanic, and five should be female. Ok that's 8 and 1/2 of the nine.

    Makes sense to me.

    May 3, 2009 at 8:03 p.m.

  • Alton
    If you are saying that liberals and conservatives practice politics when it comes to nominating supreme court justices;then I agree with you but I was writing about today’s fight over an unnamed candidate.

    Republicans do not control talk radio; other way around…The RNC chairman, and several conservative legislators had to apologize to Rush Limbaugh….It is well documented that the hateful rhetoric of talk radio angered Hispanic voters…Rush regularly calls women that don’t agree with him “Femi Nazis” and if talk radio follows that same line when Obama’s female candidates are know...Alienation.

    Legion357
    Pat Buchannan said Nixon was looking for an Italian when he picked Anton Scalia and both Bush’s wanted minorities (Thomas,Gonzales,Miers) so get a grip with reality.

    Women are not equally represented on the nation’s highest court. Obama will rectify that, call it what you want…Before we had a good old boy system, now you want attach your label to it...Affirmative action…Wrong, it’s called politics.

    May 3, 2009 at 7:34 p.m.

  • Mike's whole paragraph, in case I get accused of taking things out of context....

    We will hear the “best qualified” argument but Justice Thomas didn’t meet that qualification, so if Obama is smart (no reason to think otherwise) he will go ahead and pick a female because about one half of this nation’s law students happen to be women ,and the court should reflect that...IMO

    May 3, 2009 at 5:54 p.m.

  • True Alton, one curious point of Mikes argument.....

    "pick a female because about one half of this nation’s law students happen to be women ,and the court should reflect that IMO"

    So uhh, just because 1/2 of law school students are female he should appoint one to the supreme court?

    Not that that would be wrong, just the reason he expressed.

    Mikes other point....We will hear the “best qualified” argument but Justice Thomas didn’t meet that qualification.

    So instead the" best qualified candidate" does not matter?

    Mikes post smacks of affirmative action on a federal scale.

    Concerning Justice Thomas nomination process in the senate he stated ...

    "This is not an opportunity to talk about difficult matters privately or in a closed environment. This is a circus. It's a national disgrace. And from my standpoint, as a black American, it is a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves, to do for themselves, to have different ideas, and it is a message that unless you kowtow to an old order, this is what will happen to you. You will be lynched, destroyed, caricatured by a committee of the U.S. Senate rather than hung from a tree."

    May 3, 2009 at 5:47 p.m.

  • Interesting blog. One could as easily replace the words of conservates with liberal and come to the blog would have the same meaning IMO.
    It is interesting how you believe the republicans control talk radio and they alienate women and Hispanics.

    May 3, 2009 at 5:02 p.m.