Bush says ‘diversity’ key for next top court pick

Status
Not open for further replies.

rick_reno

member
Joined
Dec 25, 2002
Messages
3,027
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.
 
Diversity?

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.
 
This obsession with "diversity" and "multiculturalism" has got to stop, it's getting out of control.
 
Skin color. The new Republican litmus test. How are they different than Democrats again........?? :confused:
 
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.
 
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
 
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. :) )
 
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.
 
E Pluribus Unum

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.
 
"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.
 
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'.
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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]
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top