Obama's Supreme Court Short List Incl...

Obama's Supreme Court Short List Includes Six Women

There are 26 comments on the ABC News story from Apr 13, 2010, titled Obama's Supreme Court Short List Includes Six Women. In it, ABC News reports that:

Fewer than 10 possible U.S. Supreme Court nominees -- six of them women -- are on President Obama's short list to replace retiring Justice John Paul Stevens on the U.S. Supreme Court , according to ABC News sources.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at ABC News.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#1 Apr 13, 2010
Good, time for some more women on the court. Enough with the white men. He can take Jennifer Granholm from Michigan, we're done with her!
estanson

Windsor, VT

#2 Apr 13, 2010
WeTheSheeple wrote:
Good, time for some more women on the court. Enough with the white men. He can take Jennifer Granholm from Michigan, we're done with her!
replace man with woman, replace white with black...
now how does your statement sound?
Disgusted

Boise, ID

#3 Apr 13, 2010
6 Catholics and two Jewish USA Supreme Court Judges will be left on the Bench after Stevens retires.

Seems now days the TOP QUALIFYING factor for being appointed as a USA Supreme Court Judges is that they be Catholic.

Guess soon there be 7 Catholics and 2 Jewish on the USA Supreme Court.

The question is how many Judges on Obama short list are Catholic and who are they.
estanson

Windsor, VT

#4 Apr 13, 2010
Disgusted wrote:
6 Catholics and two Jewish USA Supreme Court Judges will be left on the Bench after Stevens retires.
Seems now days the TOP QUALIFYING factor for being appointed as a USA Supreme Court Judges is that they be Catholic.
Guess soon there be 7 Catholics and 2 Jewish on the USA Supreme Court.
The question is how many Judges on Obama short list are Catholic and who are they.
I dont think anyone anticipated or expects the court to be representative of the population...
given their assumed role, such criteria SHOULD be irrelevant...
but i understand why folks dont think it is...

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#5 Apr 13, 2010
estanson wrote:
<quoted text>
replace man with woman, replace white with black...
now how does your statement sound?
That would sound like it was for the first 200 years of justices- ALL WHITE MEN.

Enough already, time for the majority- WOMEN- to be represented on the court.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#6 Apr 13, 2010
Disgusted wrote:
6 Catholics and two Jewish USA Supreme Court Judges will be left on the Bench after Stevens retires.
Seems now days the TOP QUALIFYING factor for being appointed as a USA Supreme Court Judges is that they be Catholic.
Guess soon there be 7 Catholics and 2 Jewish on the USA Supreme Court.
The question is how many Judges on Obama short list are Catholic and who are they.
Maybe we've finally gotten to the point where the particular religion doesn't matter? Unfortunately, there is still the unwritten rule that the nominee must espouse SOME kind of religion; still no athiests allowed I guess.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#7 Apr 13, 2010
estanson wrote:
<quoted text>
I dont think anyone anticipated or expects the court to be representative of the population...
given their assumed role, such criteria SHOULD be irrelevant...
but i understand why folks dont think it is...
Well certainly all the straight white christian men don't think the court should be representative of the population, because they know that would limit them to no more than 4 seats instead of the usual 8 or 9.
estanson

Windsor, VT

#8 Apr 13, 2010
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Well certainly all the straight white christian men don't think the court should be representative of the population, because they know that would limit them to no more than 4 seats instead of the usual 8 or 9.
it was an attempt to embarrass you with your "bigotry" that clearly missed...

So, what would be you reaction to a post that said we need to prevent any blacks or women from the court?

your reverse discrimination is palpable... and should be as unacceptable as racism is...

more than that, it shows your limited understanding of the court and its function.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#9 Apr 13, 2010
estanson wrote:
<quoted text>
it was an attempt to embarrass you with your "bigotry" that clearly missed...
So, what would be you reaction to a post that said we need to prevent any blacks or women from the court?
your reverse discrimination is palpable... and should be as unacceptable as racism is...
more than that, it shows your limited understanding of the court and its function.
My response would be the same as it was before. WHY was it okay for only white men to be appointed to the court for 200 years?? WHY is it okay to give preferential treatment straight white christian men, but now all of a sudden we're supposed to ignore race and gender and religion and sexual orientation?

I understand that every single justice on the court is affected by their life experiences, whether they admit it or not. Why should the wealthy white male experience given preferential treatment?
Disgusted

Boise, ID

#10 Apr 13, 2010
Maybe Obama can find a BLACK FEMALE CATHOLIC Judge.

Yessiree in 1790 thru out world women had full civil rights, voted, were judges and had equal rights with men---but evil white men in the USA denied them that right for over a hundred years.

The same evil white men whom fought armed forces from most European Countries, Indians and finally a civil war sure as hades did not move fast enough to insure Blacks and Women could vote and be supreme court justices. Darn shame. Maybe they should have called off the civil war and worked on it full time.

Wharever!!!!

Time for A Black Woman to be on the
Supreme Court--surely there one whom is Catholic who would be an outstanding Judge.
estanson

Windsor, VT

#11 Apr 13, 2010
I am in honest disbelief of the blatant racism and sexism being displayed here...
lawful

Hauppauge, NY

#12 Apr 13, 2010
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
My response would be the same as it was before. WHY was it okay for only white men to be appointed to the court for 200 years?? WHY is it okay to give preferential treatment straight white christian men, but now all of a sudden we're supposed to ignore race and gender and religion and sexual orientation?
I understand that every single justice on the court is affected by their life experiences, whether they admit it or not. Why should the wealthy white male experience given preferential treatment?
your reply is ridiculous. We don't do something now because it was done previously. your racism and sexism isn't justified at all, for any reason; it just makes you as bad as the original perpetrators of racism and sexism. I want someone QUALIFIED to fill the post of supreme court justice. I'm a woman, by the way and a professional.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#13 Apr 13, 2010
lawful wrote:
<quoted text>
your reply is ridiculous. We don't do something now because it was done previously. your racism and sexism isn't justified at all, for any reason; it just makes you as bad as the original perpetrators of racism and sexism. I want someone QUALIFIED to fill the post of supreme court justice. I'm a woman, by the way and a professional.
So you don't believe a woman or black or asian or homosexual or native american would be "qualified"?

What's wrong with finding a highly qualified person who also balances the court?

As a professional woman, you honestly believe a person's background- including race/gender/sexual orientation- has no effect on how they view the world, and therefore may affect how they interpret the constitution?
estanson

Windsor, VT

#14 Apr 14, 2010
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
So you don't believe a woman or black or asian or homosexual or native american would be "qualified"?
funny you try to spin it when you are the one who said the contrary, that a white man would not be able to fill the position....y

ou do remember when Sotomayor was nominated the position was white men need not apply?
FYI...in modern america you are discriminating...
your posts so far if reversed would have to be removed by the moderator.

to me its sad that someone would ask for tolerance in one regard and be so bigoted in another.
BrokenIndian

Sanford, FL

#15 Apr 14, 2010
Here is a suggestion ..If you are running for a public office..Make it a requirement everyone submits their personal computer for forensics..not to be disclosed..But to see exactly What type of person people are dealing with ..Politicians./Lawyers./Judges ./Supreme Court Judges,/Boy Scout Leaders,/Religious Leaders./Teachers/Doctors
Anyone who is seeking a public position
That would correct a bunch of the corruption and Child abuse.and dishonest we are seeing throughout the world Today
Red Diaper Doper Babies

Florham Park, NJ

#16 Apr 14, 2010
Maybe Obama can find a BLACK, FEMALE, ATHIEST LESBIAN, PARAPLEGIC. The loony left would wet the bed over a nomination like that.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#17 Apr 14, 2010
estanson wrote:
<quoted text>
funny you try to spin it when you are the one who said the contrary, that a white man would not be able to fill the position....y
ou do remember when Sotomayor was nominated the position was white men need not apply?
FYI...in modern america you are discriminating...
your posts so far if reversed would have to be removed by the moderator.
to me its sad that someone would ask for tolerance in one regard and be so bigoted in another.
Until the court is balanced, there IS NO NEED for another white man on the court. If it was okay to discriminate against women, blacks, asians, etc, etc. for 200 years, then it's okay to discriminate against the white man for the next 200 years.
estanson

Windsor, VT

#18 Apr 15, 2010
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Until the court is balanced, there IS NO NEED for another white man on the court. If it was okay to discriminate against women, blacks, asians, etc, etc. for 200 years, then it's okay to discriminate against the white man for the next 200 years.
is this Andy Kaufman?
It can't be real...or is it?

are you a child playing on your parent's computer?

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#19 Apr 15, 2010
estanson wrote:
<quoted text>
is this Andy Kaufman?
It can't be real...or is it?
are you a child playing on your parent's computer?
Give me one good reason why diversity shouldn't be one of the considerations for nomination to the Supreme Court? I'm not saying it is the ONLY consideration, but I see no reason why it shouldn't be on par with whether or not they are a liberal or conservative.
estanson

Windsor, VT

#20 Apr 15, 2010
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Give me one good reason why diversity shouldn't be one of the considerations for nomination to the Supreme Court? I'm not saying it is the ONLY consideration, but I see no reason why it shouldn't be on par with whether or not they are a liberal or conservative.
One good reason: The Supreme Court is NOT a representative body!

(check back to your history books and read about how it works)

first, none of what you said is justifiable regardless..

but your quote "if it was alright for white men to be racist for 2 hundred years" is perhaps the silliest thing I have ever read on here and that is saying something...

so, are you saying it was alright for white's to be racist?
of course not, its just nonsense!
so if it was not ok then, ITS NOT OK NOW!

Next, if you believe that judges can't be impartial (that is separate out their own values for that of the "law") than you dont understand our system of rule by laws and not men, and you dont understand the role of the court or the values we have in impartiality...
it means you want to turn the court into a political faction...ie the death of checks and balances...

in short, your are being niave to the point that my questioning whether you were actually just kidding or were just a child were serious...

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Ex-Gov. Rod Blagojevich files another appeal on... 15 hr online reality bu... 1
News Ex-Illinois Governor Blagojevich's 14-year pris... Apr 22 tomin cali 2
News Appeals court denies Blagojevich request for 3r... Apr 22 CodeTalker 2
News US court, again, takes up issue of Blagojevich ... Apr '17 okimar 1
News High court may re-examine Civil Rights Act afte... Apr '17 Gremlin 3
News The Latest: Lawyer: LGBT work bias ruling is 'g... Apr '17 Rainbow Kid 4
News Court: Civil Rights Law covers LGBT workplace bias Apr '17 Rainbow Kid 4
More from around the web