Posted without much comment, except to say that I'm delighted to be reminded that our President-elect is at long last actually worthy of his station, and that he'll know what qualities to look for in a judge beyond partisan demographic manipulation and ideological slant.President-elect Barack Obama may have the rare chance to appoint two judges to the Supreme Court, giving the former law professor an opportunity to make a further lasting mark on American society.
Already observers are weighing in on what Obama could do in the key decision on replacements for the highest court in the land.
"It is quite likely he would choose a woman or a minority," said Nathaniel Persily, a law professor at Columbia University in New York.
"If he could find a Hispanic woman, that would be ideal, the best choice," he added.
Only two women have served on the Supreme Court, and two African-Americans have succeeded one another in the same seat, but never has an judge with a Latino background been appointed.
Hispanics are an ever-growing demographic in the United States, making up 15 percent of the population.
But beyond the race or sex of the candidate, observers are gearing up for appointments of politically progressive judges to the bench to replace the older liberals sitting on it today.
John Paul Stevens, appointed by president Gerald Ford, is 88 years old, and is expected to resign soon.
The nine justices are appointed for life.
Widely considered to be on the liberal side of the court, Stevens' replacement with another liberal would maintain the bench's fragile balance.
Currently four conservatives, four liberals, with the moderate Anthony Kennedy holding the middle ground, compose a balance Obama is expected to sustain.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 75, appointed by president Bill Clinton, is another liberal lifer also expected to resign within Obama's first term in office.
During Obama's campaign the Democrat hinted at what he expected of his appointees, and certainly could surprise conservative commentators expecting him to name someone more radical to the post.
"His pick might be radical, not in the ideology but in the background," noted Persily....
But in the hubbub surrounding Obama's projected appointments, his friend Cass Sunstein, a preeminent American legal scholar at Harvard University, Massachusetts -- where Obama himself studied -- noted a fact often overlooked.
"The first thing to know about Obama, which hasn't gotten sufficient attention, is that he is himself appointable to the Supreme Court," Sunstein said.
"He is a constitutional specialist who has taught for many years. There's a guarantee that we'd get someone of the first intellectual rank."
"Not Harriet Miers," he added, referring to the ultra-conservative lawyer nominated by President George W. Bush, and who was withdrawn when criticized across the political spectrum for never having served as a judge and being ill-prepared and uninformed.
Any thought out there as to potential Supreme Court nominees?
"
- PeZook
No, it's not an example of that at all. Sarah Palin was not a result of McCain saying "I need to pick a woman" and then picking the most qualified from among them. There were plenty of women far more qualified to be VP than Palin was. Kay Bailey Hutchison is the first who comes to mind; there are moderates like Snowe and Collins who would have done okay too. They would have pissed off the base, but independents are more important than the base in a general election anyway. Fuck, even Liddy Dole would have been better than Palin.
