The best candidate just happens to be BOTH a woman AND a minority:
Janice Rogers Brown
"But I am mindful that diversity is one of the strengths of the country."
True PC, through and through
Given that the Supreme Court is not a political body, there's no reason to consider demographics of the candidate.
There should be but one qualification: can you READ (and do so without "reading between the lines")?
Hillary just announced that she found out she was part Hispanic.
Disingenuous on Leahy's part. He knows the president got with senators before announcing his selection. He got their opinions, suggestions, and cautions.
Short of having consultation mean that senators get an up/down vote in the consultation stage, then they definitely had their constitutional prerogative of advising the president taken seriously by Pres. Bush.
Any gay woman Hispanic paraplegics on the list?
TRUE diversity would mean picking a species other than human. How about a porpoise or whale? (Associate Justice Flipper)
I bet Vicente Fox will approve of Bush's choice.
Um, this is the definition of gender bias, right?
Please Mister President, DO NOT nominate Alberto Gonzalaz. Lets have a solid conservative like Luttig, Brown, Owens. No liberals. No centrists. No moderates. Thank you.
ALF?
I don't want any diversity at all in his picks for Supreme Court. I want all originalists, and nothing else. I want all Scalia/Thomas clones. If Scalia and Thomas could have children, those are the ones I want on the bench.
"Consuelo Maria Callahan
Federal Judicial Service:
U. S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Nominated by George W. Bush on February 12, 2003, to a seat vacated by Ferdinand F. Fernandez; Confirmed by the Senate on May 22, 2003, and received commission on May 28, 2003. "
I am sure the libs out in Kalifornia loved this appointment.
Diversity and 'balance' my patoot. Dubya should follow the "Clinton Standard" and appoint who the 'heck' he wants. That's what Willard did with that PERVERT commie crone Ginsberg as she replaced a conservative. I don't recall any screams for "maintaining balance" then, so screw it, put Luttig on the court and be done with it. The senate rats can go pound sand.
I think it is either Emilio Garza (5th Circuit) or Karen Williams (4th Circuit), either of whom would be excellent.
And just in case the Whitehouse is lurking, No Gonzales.
Janice Rogers Brown needs to reveal the family secret, that they changed the original family name to avoid anti-Hispanic prejudice, and that her real name is Moreno.
Which is code for "hold mah beer", prepare for another RINO as a Supreme..
It is time that President Bush nominated a woman. Women do have a different perspective because of their different gender experience. Many Republican women are watching closely. The party is not particularly known for its outreach to women and its recognition of "women's issues." In fact, in a lot of the dialogue I have read from conservatives here, the view of the proper role of women in society is frozen somewhere in the 1950s.
The principle of a fair jury is to be judged by ones peers. I know that SCOTUS decides the law and not fact, but the overwhelmingly lop sided gender makeup of the court calls into question whether women are truly considered equal with men in our society in their intelligence, disposition, knowledge and abilities.
Greater than 50% of the population is female. Why do we have only one female on the Court? It is obvious to me that when the rubber meets the road, women are still looked upon as inferior.