[rick_reno]

Could be Gonzales - or Garza. There are some good conservatives that fit the criteria he's looking for.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9491993/

WASHINGTON - President Bush hinted on Monday that his next nominee for the Supreme Court would be a woman or a minority, saying that “diversity is one of the strengths of the country.”

The president also expressed optimism that the Senate would confirm John Roberts as chief justice this week — which seems virtually certain.

Bush, asked about his next nominee, said “I will pick a person who can do the job. But I am mindful that diversity is one of the strengths of the country.” The president is under pressure from many quarters — including his wife — to pick a woman or a minority for the seat of Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, who is retiring.

Two-thirds of the 100 senators — Republican and Democrats alike — had already announced their support of Roberts, the conservative federal appeals court judge, as the successor to the late William H. Rehnquist before the Senate even started its final debate Monday afternoon. Underplaying Roberts’ near-certain confirmation, Bush said he was cautiously optimistic that Roberts would be approved.

“John Roberts is qualified, impartial and committed to upholding the Constitution and the rule of law,” said Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn.

“He is precisely the kind of chief justice America deserves and I’m looking forward to debating his nomination on the Senate floor so he can be swiftly confirmed in time to lead the Supreme Court when it starts its new term on October 3rd.”

A floor vote is planned for no later than Thursday.

Some Democrats worried
His Democratic supporters say they’re still worried about how Roberts — Rehnquist’s former Supreme Court clerk — will rule on the bench, but he is undeniably qualified for the position of chief justice.

“Judge Roberts’ impeccable legal credentials, his reputation and record as a fair-minded person, and his commitment to modesty and respect for precedent have persuaded me that he will not bring an ideological agenda,” said Sen. Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, one of three Judiciary Committee Democrats who crossed party lines and voted for Roberts.

It takes a majority vote of the Senate to confirm a judicial nominee, and all 55 Republicans are expected to unify behind Roberts’ nomination.

Thirteen of the 44 Democrats have declared their support, the latest being Sen. Ken Salazar of Colorado and Mary Landrieu of Louisiana on Sunday. That easily gives Roberts more votes than the last conservative nominee, Clarence Thomas.

Thomas was confirmed 52-48 in 1991. President Clinton’s two nominees, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer, were confirmed 96-3 and 87-9, respectively.

Democrats opposing Roberts say they’re afraid the former lawyer in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations will be staunchly conservative like Thomas and Justice Antonin Scalia.

They question Roberts’ commitment to civil rights and expressed concern that he might overturn the 1973 court ruling that established the right to abortion. The White House refused to release paperwork from Roberts’ time as a deputy solicitor general in the first Bush administration, and the nominee refused to fully answer Democrats’ questions during his confirmation hearing two weeks ago.

Bayh will vote against Roberts
Sen. Evan Bayh, a possible Democratic presidential candidate in 2008, introduced Roberts to the Senate Judiciary Committee for the confirmation hearings. But he will vote against him, he said.

“I cannot vote to confirm, not because I oppose John Roberts, but because we simply do not know enough about his views on critical issues to make a considered judgment,” Bayh said.

The limited information from the nominee’s paper record raised troubling issues about Roberts’ judicial temperament, said Sen. Mark Dayton, D-Minn.

“I am deeply concerned that he and President Bush’s next nominee will shift the Supreme Court close to the extreme right for many years to come,” Dayton said.

Like Dayton, senators likely will use their speeches and votes to warn Bush — and other senators — of what they expect when the White House makes its selection to replace retiring Justice O’Connor.

Judiciary Committee chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., said he thinks the president might name a successor within days of Roberts’ confirmation. O’Connor often has been a swing vote, a majority maker whose retirement could signal a shift on the court on many contentious issues.

Some say Democrats are using the Roberts confirmation to prepare for a battle over the O’Connor vacancy. “Voting in favor would put senators in a better position to oppose later or a vote in opposition would put the president on notice that he better put somebody up who was acceptable to a broad spectrum of senators,” Specter said.

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.

[fourays2]

yes indeed, I mean we wouldn't want to pick a white male just because he's the most qualified :rolleyes:

[Otherguy Overby]

I sure hope Bush's idea of "diversty" is someone like:
J.R. Brown.... :evil:

That's Janice Rogers Brown

Sheesh if that happened all the moonbats coming up to full spin mode might finally be a "renewable" resource.

[Alex45ACP]

This obsession with "diversity" and "multiculturalism" has got to stop, it's getting out of control.

[R.H. Lee]

Skin color. The new Republican litmus test. How are they different than Democrats again........?? :confused:

[longeyes]

Bush continues to impress me with his banality. I expected better, lots better.

If he is really interested in "diversity," or truly understands the depth of the concept, he will pick an Originalist, someone who promotes individual rights as honored in our Constitution by the Founding Fathers. He will not succumb to the in-vogue mantras of what I call demographic socialism with its arbitrary and superficial gender, ethnic, and racial divisions that perpetuate what we are supposed to eradicate in the political realm.

And in other news...

He wants to create The People's Army of China stateside. Posse Comitatus be damned. On it goes. And goes. And goes.

[tulsamal]

I don't have a problem at all with the idea that he should pick a woman. A court composed of all men has at least the appearance of a gender bias. (Down to one now.) However, my idea of "which woman" would probably be a lot different than what the left would like to see.

If it was up to me, I'm pretty sure I could find a qualified female candidate who would meet my libertarian standards! If it was a black woman or a Hispanic woman then that's just a bonus!

Gregg

[longeyes]

Nothing wrong with a Black, a Latino, a Woman--but picking someone on that basis alone isn't American, as I see it. It depends on what that individual stands for, and if that's the case, the rest of the criteria become irrelevant. I happen to favor Janice Rogers Brown--but not because she's black or a woman or comes from poverty. (That she wasn't in Skull & Bones, I admit, is a plus in her favor. :) )

[R.H. Lee]

Bush, asked about his next nominee, said “I will pick a person who can do the job. But I am mindful that diversity is one of the strengths of the country.” No it isn't. "Diversity" is devisive, and and such is one of the great weaknesses of the country. How about trying 'color and gender blindness' Mr. Bush, and pick the best person for the job, based on his or her principles. Makes no difference (not should it) what color/sex that person happens to be.

[longeyes]

Bush is mouthing the dangerous banalities that permeate every elementary school (public) in America. Bush comes from a tight white club. His view of "diversity" is just a leftwing form of cronyism.

[wingman]

Qualifications, if that is met then all else is irrelevant.

[junyo]

"Diversity" is devisive, and and such is one of the great weaknesses of the country. How about trying 'color and gender blindness' Mr. Bush, and pick the best person for the job, based on his or her principles. Makes no difference (not should it) what color/sex that person happens to be.

Diversity is divisive when people choose to make it so, otherwise having as wide a range of prospectives and experiances is a strength. And "color and gender blindness" much like gun control is lovely when you can assure 100% compliance. When you can't, then it sucks ass to be the wrong color when somebody decides that "diversity" is a little too "devisive" for their workforce or neighborhood or country club.

[R.H. Lee]

When you can't, then it sucks ass to be the wrong color when somebody decides that "diversity" is a little too "devisive" for their workforce or neighborhood or country club.
Exactly right. And the 'wrong color' could be white. But reverse discrimination is ok because it's 'diverse'.

[Art Eatman]

Nothihng at all wrong with diversity if we stay with the dictionary meaning of the word, instead of the misuse as brought about by the Left. I sorta think Bush used the original meaning.

:), Art

[longeyes]

Diversity is divisive when people choose to make it so, otherwise having as wide a range of prospectives and experiances is a strength.

Who says you have a wide range of perspectives and experiences when you create slots by race and ethnicity? Meaning what exactly? This is babble.

[Faithless]

Maybe he means that after putting up a potential RINO, for the sake of diversity he's going to give a conservative the nod?

Not holding my breath.

[lostone1413]

King George is a traitor to the Conservatives and the Gun Owners plain and simple!

[beerslurpy]

He better mean Janice Rogers Brown or I think a lot of republicans are gonna diversify their political holdings and start voting constitution or libertarian.

If he nominates gonzales I hope that he falls into the toilet and drowns for his treachery.

[junyo]

Who says you have a wide range of perspectives and experiences when you create slots by race and ethnicity? Meaning what exactly? This is babble. And they said openmindedness was dead. The recognition that the life experiance of people of different cultures is different even in the same environment is self evident (to most people). That a black person, or a Latino, or a woman see the world from fundamentally different prospectives is a simple truism. I'm not a woman, so my experiance, my prospective, doesn't include the the undersized women's restrooms in sports stadiums, wearing high heeled shoes, or what it feels like to carry a baby. I can try and empathize, but that's different than actually having the experiance. As much as a white person might try and empathize, they don't have, and can never have, the experiance of living in this culture as a minority, with all the good and bad that denotes. When they try and speak to it it rings just as true as a gun grabber saying how RKBA advocates are dangerous loons without knowing and understanding the culture. If you're in the business of governing or judging people having people that can truly speak to all facets of your electorate is usually helpful.[/BABBLE]

[longeyes]

The recognition that the life experiance of people of different cultures is different even in the same environment is self evident (to most people).

It's different but not necessarily determinative of anything. What is the Latino perspective on the Second Amendment, as written? What is the Black perspective on the First Amendment, as written? What is the feminist perspective on the Fifth Amendment, as written?

The idea that people can't grasp another's experience makes a mockery out of all communication, art, and language.

I'm White; if I can't understand the Black Experience then Blacks can't understand my experience. I don't really believe that, either direction.

[longeyes]

I'm not a woman, so my experiance, my prospective, doesn't include the the undersized women's restrooms in sports stadiums, wearing high heeled shoes, or what it feels like to carry a baby. I can try and empathize, but that's different than actually having the experiance.

If this were really true we'd all live in solipsistic worlds and find shared communication impossible. You, apparently, already have some grasp of restrooms, high heels, and baby-carrying. Now Hear This: Society does exist and people do communicate. Is our knowledge of others intimate and complete? No. Can we get along and respect each other, however different? Yes.

[Standing Wolf]

Skin color. The new Republican litmus test. How are they different than Democrats again........??

I can't tell the Republicrats from the Democans even with a score card. At least I know who the Libertarians are.

[rick_reno]

I suggest we wait until we see who he picks. There are some excellent choices from women and minorities. Bush still has an ambitious agenda, and given his popularity he can’t get any of it done if he alienates his base. My bet is he'll pick one of the solid conservatives.

[junyo]

The idea that people can't grasp another's experience makes a mockery out of all communication, art, and language.

I'm White; if I can't understand the Black Experience then Blacks can't understand my experience. I don't really believe that, either direction.So in your world, thanks to communications art and language, misunderstandings, suspicion and deception most never occur. It's a wonder that you need to be armed since the world is so transparent to you.

Communication is only possible because of common objects and experiances. Words and symbols are used to represent ideas or concepts common to the communicators. Americans, regardless of subculture, will likely find it easier to communicate than an American and a Frenchman, who would find it easier to communicate that a human and a silicon based life form from the other side of the galaxy. The Americans have more shared reference points; common foods, music, holidays would mean a greater chance that any idea on one side is present on the other. However, throughout their lives Americans from different subcultures still have countless unique experiances that are not shared outside the culture and cannot be mutually accessed. Therefore you can never truly understand the sum total of my prespective, nor I yours, and whether you believe that or not doesn't make it any less true. Further that assumes that you want to try and understand my prospective, and act for some sort of mutual good, which in light of mankind's history is not a safe assumption. Getting along and respecting one another are noble goals but they are a far cry from truly, completely and viscerally understanding someone else. Diversity tends to insure that everyone has a stake in the welfare of the society, and that people's tendency to act in their own self interest can be relied on to ensure that prospectives reasonably close to any given individuals are represented.

[xd9fan]

how about someone that will protect individual liberty and get serious about the limits on Govt you moron. :cuss:

[LAR-15]

Diversity is a code word for "Hey Democrats, fillibuster the first Hispanic nominated to the court. Oh that's right, your a bunch of whiny racists."


:neener:

[publius]

Bush says ‘diversity’ key for next top court pick
I was irritated and not at all optimistic the last time I heard that.

Then there was a circus at confirmation, and I was less than impressed by the whole thing, nominee included.

Since then, I've warmed to Judge Thomas considerably. The right man for the wrong reason. Good enough.

[Coronach]

That, or El Presidente was crazy like a fox... ;)


Mike

[GEM]

Maybe it means someone with brains.

[longeyes]

Communication is only possible because of common objects and experiances. Words and symbols are used to represent ideas or concepts common to the communicators. Americans, regardless of subculture, will likely find it easier to communicate than an American and a Frenchman, who would find it easier to communicate that a human and a silicon based life form from the other side of the galaxy. The Americans have more shared reference points; common foods, music, holidays would mean a greater chance that any idea on one side is present on the other. However, throughout their lives Americans from different subcultures still have countless unique experiances that are not shared outside the culture and cannot be mutually accessed. Therefore you can never truly understand the sum total of my prespective, nor I yours, and whether you believe that or not doesn't make it any less true. Further that assumes that you want to try and understand my prospective, and act for some sort of mutual good, which in light of mankind's history is not a safe assumption. Getting along and respecting one another are noble goals but they are a far cry from truly, completely and viscerally understanding someone else. Diversity tends to insure that everyone has a stake in the welfare of the society, and that people's tendency to act in their own self interest can be relied on to ensure that prospectives reasonably close to any given individuals are represented."

Bunk.

But thanks for the lecture, Professor. I'm printing this up and putting it in my wallet so I can keep it close to my heart. It's interesting to know that because there are always barriers to complete understanding and identification I am compelled to make political choices based on race, ethnicity, and gender. I'll keep that in mind as a bright red flag on what a socialist America would look like--if I and people like myself were to let that happen.

You should read Peter Schwartz's essay on diversity and multiculturalism wherein he makes a cogent argument that such concepts are meant to destroy all values and all rational discrimination.

[longeyes]

"Therefore you can never truly understand the sum total of my prespective, nor I yours, and whether you believe that or not doesn't make it any less true."

And having said that you apparently think you have said something profound rather than something grandly obvious. You aren't perhaps either an academic or a recent graduate, by any chance?

The fact is I do understand as much of your perspective as I need to. While we indeed lack mystical conjunction my nose presents a familiar leftwing odor. I plan to trust it. :D

[Sam Adams]

The president is under pressure from many quarters — including his wife — to pick a woman or a minority for the seat of Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, who is retiring.

While I think that choosing a judge or a justice, who is supposed to interpret the words of the Constitution and the laws of this country, should have nothing whatsoever to do with skin color or gender, Bush has an opportunity to really shove this diversity crap back up the Leftist orifice from whence it came. That opportunity is: Janice. Rodgers. Brown.

Black and female - let's see the Dims vote against her!

[longeyes]

Yes! Rogers Brown is the American Left's worst nightmare.

Watching Schumer and Kennedy and Boxer and Biden attempt to skewer Rogers Brown without looking like meanspirited buffoons would be worth paying to see.

[longeyes]

"The president is under pressure from many quarters — including his wife — to pick a woman or a minority for the seat of Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, who is retiring."


From the Land of the Free to the Land of Yes, Dear?

[Camp David]

This obsession with "diversity" and "multiculturalism" has got to stop, it's getting out of control.

I agree; however, I acknowledge that the President is mindful of the society we now live in wherein such "diversity" and "multiculturism" plays a big part. Regardless of the President's feelings toward "diversity" and "multiculturalism", one needs to play along in order to achieve cooperation; in this case, a second appointment to the Supreme Court. It was apparent how much trouble Judge Roberts caused and he was supremely qualified; image how much difficulty a lesser nomination could cause, or a nomination that wasn't a member of the diversity/minority group? Believe me, I am sure the president is tempted to nominate another white caucasian qualified nominee, and I wish he would, but I doubt it will happen! So, regardless of how stupid and absurd "diversity" and "multiculturalism" are, politicians need to adopt it, or be criticized severely...

[TheEgg]

Picking a Justice of the Supreme Court:

"Now, what we need is a woman, with black skin, with a Mexican surname and an Indian ancestor back there somewhere. It would help a lot if she is a fundamentalist Christian lesbian. What am I leaving out?"

GWB.

:banghead:

[JohnBT]

True diversity would require the nomination of a person who isn't a lawyer.

What the court needs is your basic intelligent working person with loads of common sense.

Naw, too radical an idea.

John

[rick_reno]

"Now, what we need is a woman, with black skin, with a Mexican surname and an Indian ancestor back there somewhere. It would help a lot if she is a fundamentalist Christian lesbian. What am I leaving out?"

How about an odd number of legs? 1 is good, but 3, 5 or 7 would be great.

[pax]

I think LAR-15 nailed it. Not that it'll work that way anyhow.

Although if the President really wanted diversity on the Supreme Court, he'd be doing as JohnBT said. A pleasant thought, but obviously one that would never work in the real world. Too bad!

pax

[BenW]

Janice Rogers Brown would be the ideal choice, diversity aside. Unfortunately I think the current PC fad in diversity is "hispanic", which means that a very qualified individual -- who happens to be a black woman -- may not get the nomination because she's not part of the "popular" minority group.

[wingman]

Sometime back I worked for a government agency that based all hiring/promotion on diversity.

What I saw was position after position filled with people who were in over there heads. We need to find a way to put all this nonsense aside and hire qualified people, but I won't hold my breath on that. :(

[RealGun]

I think affirmative action on the Supreme Court is just as much a problem as that kind of thinking anywhere else. The Court becomes culturally political rather than composed of those who are best qualified. So called disadvantaged people are chosen only to respond to political pressures. It is lack of prejudice in considering candidates that really counts.

[longeyes]

So, regardless of how stupid and absurd "diversity" and "multiculturalism" are, politicians need to adopt it, or be criticized severely...

We wouldn't want to be criticized severely. No, that would hurt. Let's pursue the stupid, absurd, painless path. By all means.

[TheEgg]

How about an odd number of legs? 1 is good, but 3, 5 or 7 would be great.

"Don't be absurd. You KNOW that the Dems already have the 3 legged voting block sewn up.

Hey, how about a BALD woman? Karl, do you think we can crack the Bald Block with this?"

[Standing Wolf]

Now, what we need is a woman, with black skin, with a Mexican surname and an Indian ancestor back there somewhere. It would help a lot if she is a fundamentalist Christian lesbian. What am I leaving out?

You left out the vegans.

[Alex45ACP]

You left out the vegans.

You evil racist white male!

[Yanus]

Diversity?

I nominate Michael Jackson

He's black......he's white....... he's black n' white! :evil:

Yanus

[longeyes]

I see Harriet Miers, White House Chief Counsel, is on the alleged short list for SCOTUS. She was formerly W.'s personal attorney. Texas hospitality rearing its head again?

Say it ain't so. Please.

Perhaps W.'s personal trainer could be head of Special Forces?

Bush needs to be transcendent with this pick. He needs an Originalist Babe Ruth--with no asterisk.

[R.H. Lee]

The Supreme Court is no place for patronage. Maybe I'm just naive.

[lostone1413]

GWB will pick someone just like him. Someone who it doesn't bother destroying the Constitution. Someone who is against the 2nd amendment. If you think he isn't look at his AG and what has he done for the gun owners. The next requirement will be someone who sees nothing wrong with the Police State we are heading for and believes it is alright to crush the middle class. Soon the haves and have nots. Of I forgot they must also go along with the open borders. I voted for GWB twice but in almost 60years i've never seen someone sell our country out as bad as him. He is a traitor so will the one he wants to appoint be a traitor

[longeyes]

What really ticks me off is that we have rarely needed a truly noble leader as we do today. We can't afford mediocrity right now, much less treachery.

[Thin Black Line]

Quoted from lead article:

Bayh will vote against Roberts Sen. Evan Bayh, a possible Democratic
presidential candidate in 2008, introduced Roberts to the Senate Judiciary
Committee for the confirmation hearings. But he will vote against him, he said.

“I cannot vote to confirm, not because I oppose John Roberts, but because
we simply do not know enough about his views on critical issues to make a
considered judgment,” Bayh said.

The limited information from the nominee’s paper record raised troubling
issues about Roberts’ judicial temperament, said Sen. Mark Dayton, D-Minn.

“I am deeply concerned that he and President Bush’s next nominee will shift
the Supreme Court close to the extreme right for many years to come,”
Dayton said.

Like Dayton, senators likely will use their speeches and votes to warn Bush —
and other senators — of what they expect when the White House makes its
selection to replace retiring Justice O’Connor.

------------------

Quoted from "The Hard Road to World Order" by Richard Gardner (1974):

We are witnessing an outbreak of shortsighted nationalism that seems
oblivious to the economic, political and moral implications of interdependence.
Yet never has there been such widespread recognition by the world's
intellectual leadership of the necessity for cooperation and planning on a
truly global basis, beyond country, beyond region, especially beyond social
system. Never has there been such an extraordinary growth in the
constructive potential of transnational private organizations — not just
multinational corporations but international associations of every kind in which
like-minded persons around the world weave effective patterns of global
action.
<snip>
Thus, while we will not see "world government" in the old-fashioned sense of a
single all-embracing global authority, key elements of planetary planning and
planetary management will come about on those very specific problems
where the facts of interdependence force nations, in their enlightened self-
interest, to abandon unilateral decision-making in favor of multilateral
processes.
<snip><special emphasis below>
To be sure, changes in outmoded or unreasonable decision-making
arrangements may be opposed initially by the countries that presently have
more than their fair share of influence. The challenge to multilateral
diplomacy—and one that has not been seriously faced so far—is to persuade
the countries that are overendowed [ :cool: ] with power in a particular
institution that a fairer sharing is needed to save the institution from
creeping irrelevance and make it more effective on matters of interest to
them.
<snip>
We will know we are serious about our "world order business" when we stop
using positions in our missions and delegations to international agencies for
political payoffs, and start applying the same requirements of excellence here
that we apply in negotiations with the Russians and Chinese. Another test of
our seriousness will be the extent to which we include in the very top
structure of decision-making —in the White House and the key executive
departments— persons experienced in and committed to the multilateral
approach.