Last week I was in Kansas, checking on the news from the New York Times website, when my niece and her friend came in to see what I was up to. When I explained and said that it was so exciting, the president would be nominating a new Supreme Court justice. They looked at me like I was crazy - and I of course, explained why I found it so exciting. But hey, they're ten - the most information they get regarding the SCOTUS is a paragraph or two during social studies class. They'll get there.
And now we have a nominee - Sonia Sotomayor. I was a little surprised - I had my own favorite candidates (not that it matters, since I'm not president) but I haven't read all the articles about it yet, so maybe her nomination will prove me wrong in my favorite candidates and give me something to think about. And it IS exciting to have a female nominee and the first Hispanic nominated as well.
Did any of you have favorite candidates - was the choice a surprise?
That sounds kind of like homework - but it's so exciting, at least to me - I want to know, what are your thoughts?
9 comments:
I didn't have a particular favorite but everything I have read about Sotomayor so far has impressed me. She seems extremely qualified for the job. Who were you favoring?
Well, personally, I liked Diane Wood - not that I don't think Sotomayor is unqualified. It was more a gut thing, after reading their bios on the New York Times and elsewhere. I do like hearing about how she's a 'judicial activist' already; the conservatives have already started with the attacks and it wasn't even announced until this morning!
Yeah, but they would have said that about anybody he picked. I mean they were attacking his choice before he even made one! I think I would respect their having a difference of opinion more if it actually seemed genuine wasn't just political posturing.
What I really like is the hypocrisy regarding a filibuster. There's all these comments about how it's never been done to a Supreme Court nominee and that even though it's their duty to confirm and agree to the nominee, it's really up to the president, etc. so be respectful but thorough (this was to Democrats when G.W. was nominating justices) and NOW they're all, "we might have to filibuster, even though it won't work, etc." I mean, that's just blatant. Not that the Democrats were better - any time people start talking about filibustering a nominee for SCOTUS, that's just wrong...unless the candidate is clearly unqualified (although, as Nick points out, according to the Constitution, there are NO qualifications needed for the Supreme Court - none!)
Technically, according to the Constitution, I could be nominated. I wouldn't get confirmed...but wouldn't that be awesome! Sometimes, I think I should have gone to law school and become a judge (not that that's really decided for you, since you get nominated for judgeship at the level I'd want to be)
I agree that the Senate shouldn't try to filibuster a SCOTUS nominee, unless it it obvious that they are completely unqualified. I don't like posturing from either Democrats OR Republicans. Such as all the countering of Republican talking points with saying how moderate Sotomayor was and how much she agreed with Republicans. I mean I want a justice that is reasonable and doesn't vote a certain way solely because it is the party line, but I think that kind of talk just alienates your base.
But I am glad you didn't go to law school because then you might have lost your soul.
Would not have lost my soul - I would have been a constitutional lawyer (teacher) / civil rights lawyer or a family lawyer - mainly for women. Definitely not a corporate lawyer. Might have been in environmental law as well.
Might have lost my mind though...
And your mind would have been a terrible thing to waste.
Post a Comment