"Given the diversity of the nation, and the qualifications of the vast field of American jurists, maybe it's a good thing if the president sought to improve the imbalances?"

For my part, I'd like to see a female, Reality-Based atheist of color up there. Just to help set things a-right, you know.

Obama should pick a wingnut, just to prove he's not a bigot!

It isn't just the sad spectacle of a white man wailing about the discrimination allegedly shown to white men on an almost-all-white-man court. It's that Halperin writes this crap preemptively. The administration hasn't even had a chance to come up with a list of names and Halperin is already stirring the pot with the angry white male crowd.

I'm with you--I take as a given that around 200 Americans are qualified for this job. Why not choose someone who is both qualified and not a white male?

http://www.bleedingheartland.com/diary/2705/who-should-replace-justice-souter

CNN and/or David Broder by this time next week: Did president Obama miss a chance to keep his promise of post-partisanship by not renominating Robert Bork for the Souter seat?

(Just checked The Page. Surprisingly enough, Halperin does not (yet) have something up about how the liberal blogosphere should "lighten up".

What about non-Catholics? Aren't 5 of the 9 current justices Catholic?

Everyone knows that white males are the backbone and foundation of our great nation. To not select a white male is to spit in the eye of our American exceptionalism.

Everyone knows that abortion is the key issue for the selection of the next justice of the supreme court. To select a nominee who is not anti-choice does disservice to the overwhelmingly held belief of the American public that a woman's health care choices should be decided by elderly white males.

Everyone knows that upholding the family values of the American public is an important factor in choosing the next justice. Among the most important of these values is that corporate entities have the same rights as individuals, except that they can only be punished financially. To not select a white male would show a willingness of The Chosen One to overturn decades of precedence.

If The Chosen One wants to show that he is bipartisan, he would allow The Federalist Society to provide him with a list of candidates from which to chose among. The final selection would, of course, be subject to the approval of Pat Robertson.

i think we need an atheist, lesbian, disabled woman of color and then we'll cover about half of the completely unrepresented groups.

I just thought you should know that I've already been offered and accepted Souter's spot. But, I had to agree to wear brown shoe polish on my face and hands, as well as stuffing rolled-up socks in my shirt anytime I appear on the court. That way, they couldn't be accused of discriminating against white men, while also representing people of color. The socks in the shirt was my idea because I just like that kind of thing.

Anyone know whether Halperin and his father are on speaking terms?

This is only tangentially related to the post, but...

It just occurred to me that Arlen Specter's switch will be useful here. I dont see how he could expect to win a Democratic primary if he votes against Obama's pick for the SCOTUS.

Quotas are never a good thing. I wouldn't rule out a qualified justice because of sex or race, even if the candidate's sex and race are "white" and "male."

I'm with you--I take as a given that around 200 Americans are qualified for this job. Why not choose someone who is both qualified and not a white male?

Haven't you guessed by now? As far as conservatives are concerned, there is no such thing as a woman or minority who is equally as qualified as any random white man, much less one who's more qualified than any random white man.

That's why they ran Sarah Palin for VP to try and get Hillary voters -- they literally did not understand that Democrats were voting for Hillary in the primary because they thought she was a smart person who could do the job. They thought they were voting for her because she's a woman and, hey, women are all the same, right? So nominating the one-term governor of a state with a homogeneous population of 600,000 was exactly the same as nominating a senator from New York state with a couple of decades of experience on the national stage.

Quotas are never a good thing.

So why are folks against qualified candidates who aren't white males?

How about our quota for LIBERALS ?
All we have are Conservatives and Moderates
Where are the Liberals ??

Will the nominee be asked about gay marriage ??

The PERFECT Pick:

Ralph Nader

An American icon
A man dedicated to public service

He wouldn't make straight, white males feel discriminated against !!

Are the qualified LGBT candidates ??

The Catholic thing is important because most Hispanics are probably Catholic, which would raise the number of Catholics on the court to six.

It just occurred to me that Arlen Specter's switch will be useful here.

Huh. It's interesting that Souter's announcement is coming so closely on the heels of Specter's.
Innit?

Are the qualified LGBT candidates ??

Klingon? Conehead? Log Cabin Repub? Albino Mulatto?

Mrs Obama?

Halperin is a tool.

Quotas are never a good thing. I wouldn't rule out a qualified justice because of sex or race, even if the candidate's sex and race are "white" and "male."

Glad to hear it. Now, getting back to the actual issue under discussion . . .

Quotas are never a good thing. I wouldn't rule out a qualified justice because of sex or race, even if the candidate's sex and race are "white" and "male."

So let's say we have two equally qualified and impressive candidates where the only difference between them is that one is a white man and one is a black woman. Are you arguing that the white man should be given the job to avoid the appearance of "quotas," even if the black woman is just as qualified as he is?

The PERFECT Pick: Ralph Nader

Putting everything else aside, his age provides a compelling argument against that.

.

I love the "Stock photo" tag under the picture of the generic white guy, like they keep one handy in case they ever need to illustrate what a white man looks like.

HydroCabron,

I completely agree.

For the same reasons, Obama should chose a non-Catholic, since they are overrepresented on the Court.

...like they keep one handy in case they ever need to illustrate what a white man looks like. -Stefan

At first glance, I thought it was comedian Jim Gaffigan. If you're unfamiliar with Gaffigan, but enjoy laughing, I suggest checking him out.

I couldn't be less interested in the gender or race of the next justice. But since seven of the nine justices are confirmed radical liberals, anyone interested in "balance" would be pushing for a real conservative.

But you guys aren't really interested in balance, are you?

"Eight of the nine are men. Eight of the nine are white. " and Thomas? Looks Afro-American. But what is he inside. Listens closel to Scalia...

with tongue firmly planted in cheek

You seem to have your audience confused with these guys.

Tell you what, I am SSSSOOOOOOO sick of "aggrieved" white men.

I want to know what percentage of investment bankers are white men, what percentage of Congress is white men, what percentage of corporate CEOs are white men, what percentage of MSM executives are white men, what percentage of ANY power brokers in this country are white men.

Sure, if the BEST qualified person is a white man, he ought to be given careful consideration, but the word "qualified" and the modifier "best" are so value-laden they cannot be commonly agreed upon.

As others have pointed out, above, I also want to know what makes Roman Catholics so much BETTER qualified than everyone else. Huh? I'll tell you what -- Catholics, especially Republican ones, are staunch opponents of abortion. THAT's what made them so "best qualified" to the ReThuglicans that stacked our Supreme Court.

You know who won't be represented once Souter leaves? Non-theists, that's who. Give me someone -- male, female, black, brown, green, gay (now THAT would stir things up) -- who understands WHY religion has no place in government. THAT would make ME happy, and would represent ME.

For a double benefit President Obama might well nominate Joe Biden for this post.

homer www.altara.blogspot.com

"So lets say we have two equally qualified and impressive candidates where the only difference between them is that one is a white man and one is a black woman. Are you arguing that the white man should be given the job to avoid the appearance of "quotas," even if the black woman is just as qualified as he is?"

No, I'm not. Are you arguing that the black woman should get the job simply because she isn't a white man? Surely there is some other factor that would separate these two exemplary applicants. There's a fine line between diversity and tokenism.

You know who won't be represented once Souter leaves? Non-theists, that's who. Give me someone -- male, female, black, brown, green, gay (now THAT would stir things up) -- who understands WHY religion has no place in government. THAT would make ME happy, and would represent ME.

So a theist who believes in the separation of church and state isn't good enough? It has to be a non-theist, or nothing?

I think Americans United for Separation of Church and State might disagree with you there.

C'mon, let's all weep for Mark Halperin and poor mistreated white men everywhere. WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAUGH!

And they're so much more (sniff) QUALIFIED than anyone else!!! THOSE people have never BEEN in charge! WAAAAAAAAAAAAAGHAAAAAAAHAAAAA!!!

Are you arguing that the black woman should get the job simply because she isn't a white man?

If everything else is equal and the only difference between them is that the white man would be the 8th white person on the court and the black woman would be the 2nd black person and 2nd woman on the court, why not? Why should the white guy automatically get the job if the other candidate is equally as qualified?

Surely there is some other factor that would separate these two exemplary applicants. There's a fine line between diversity and tokenism.

In other words, if both candidates are equally qualified, the white guy should get the job to avoid the appearance of tokenism.

Dude, that's effed up. This is why affirmative action (not quotas, but affirmative action) exists -- so people like you don't automatically default to, "Choice between equally qualified candidates? Give it to the white guy." The whole point is to encourage people not to automatically assume that the white guy should always get the job if everything else is equal.

I love the "Stock photo" tag under the picture of the generic white guy, like they keep one handy in case they ever need to illustrate what a white man looks like. Posted by: Stefan on May 1, 2009 at 1:36 PM

OMG, I assumed that photo was of Halperin!!

You know who won't be represented once Souter leaves? Non-theists, that's who.

We're not represented now. Souter's an Episcopalian.

However, I agree with Mnemosyne: Any justice who actually supports the separation of church and state passes my "religious test."

Mnemosyne:

I'm not automatically favoring either candidate. You are, and that's my point. It would be just as wrong to favor the black woman as it would be to favor the white man.

I never said the white man should get the nod to avoid the appearance of tokenism. I'd appreciate it if you didn't put words in my mouth. And I really don't appreciate the "people like you" language.

"i think we need an atheist, lesbian, disabled woman of color and then we'll cover about half of the completely unrepresented groups." - personal failure

And vegan. Don't forget the vegans!!!

This is just so annoying. Seriously, if there were 8 women on the Supreme Court, do you think that there would be any man who would not think it would be time for a little more balance?

I'm not automatically favoring either candidate. You are, and that's my point. It would be just as wrong to favor the black woman as it would be to favor the white man.

Here's the thing: history has shown that, all else being equal, the white guy gets the job. That, I think you would agree, is a problem. Until we get to a point in our society where we really are color-blind, that problem will persist.

Therefore, yes, I do think it's more fair that when you have two equally qualified candidates, you should give the job to the one from the underrepresented group. When 8 out of the 9 justices already on the Supreme Court are male but 51 percent of the population of the country is female, it's hard to argue that no consideration whatsoever should be given to gender when comparing equally qualified candidates. If the Supreme Court is supposed to determine the interests of the entire population of the country, they should reflect the entire population of the country when possible and not a minority of the population.

I never said the white man should get the nod to avoid the appearance of tokenism. I'd appreciate it if you didn't put words in my mouth. And I really don't appreciate the "people like you" language.

I did get a little strong with my language, and I apologize. When I said "people like you," I was referring to people who (IMO) had not entirely thought through the implications of saying that race and/or gender should never be part of the equation and do not seem to realize that taking those factors out of the equation entirely leads to people making the easy, comfortable choice, which is the white guy who looks just like the 7 other white guys already on the Supreme Court. I was not implying bad motives.

KT, let me use an analogy from another field to explain what I mean:

Until the 1970s, most professional orchestras were made up of men, with the rationale that the men just happened to be the better musicians than the women who auditioned. With the rise of the women's movement, some orchestras moved to holding "blind auditions," where the musicians auditioned behind a screen so that it was impossible for the judges' decision to be influenced by knowing the musician's gender ahead of time.

This practice led to a major increase in women being hired by orchestras, because they were judged solely on their ability and not on their gender.

Now, were the people judging the musicians prior to blind auditions horrible, horrible people who were deliberately preventing talented women from being hired? There might have been one or two but, for the most part, no. They were just used to seeing a particular kind of person (male) and assuming that he could do the job, and seeing another kind of person (female) and assuming she could not do the job as well. Once that visual was removed and musicians were judged solely on ability, more women were hired because the judges realized they could, in fact, do the job.

That's what "people like you" were doing -- not maliciously holding people back, but making unconscious assumptions that needed to be questioned.

It upsets me when people say that considering hiring someone not of the majority who is of equal talent for the reason of adding diversity is a quota-filler.

People used to ask if I wasn't upset about getting a job based on affirmative action. My answer is, "No, because affirmative action only got my foot in the door so that I could be considered." In other word, it evened the playing field. I like Mnemosyne's example of the orchestra's behind-the-screen auditions. It perfectly illustrates how the prevailing preconceptions of the day hold a great deal of unconscious sway over people's decisions. It's not that most people consciously say, "Hey, I'm going to hire a white guy", but it's what ends up happening as a default. Why? Because people hire those who are most like them. In most of the cases, those hiring are white males.

So, I will state with unequivocal firmness that I want the next Supreme Court Justice to be a woman of color who is qualified for the job. Barring that, a qualified white woman is acceptable as well. Until the playing field is truly equal, I will always be in favor of diversifying. In fact, I nominate myself for the job. I am Asian American, a female, bi, and an agnostic-deist. What, you have to be a lawyer to be on the Supreme Court? Never mind then.

I would have no problem with "blind auditions" for Supreme Court seats. Perhaps the names could be redacted from potential justices' opinions before they are reviewed.

Don't get me wrong; I realize there has been a historical preference for white men, and that cannot be allowed to continue. But two wrongs don't make a right.

In order to move toward a more balance representation on SCOTUS, in addition to eschewing whites and men, Obama needs to ignore Catholics and Jews, both who are overrepresented on the current court (~2:1 and ~10:1, respectively).

How about an atheist Asian-American woman?

In fact, I nominate myself for the job. I am Asian American, a female, bi, and an agnostic-deist. What, you have to be a lawyer to be on the Supreme Court? Never mind then.

No you don't have to be a lawyer.

I'll 2nd your nomination.

What pisses me off about shit like this is that if Obama picks any one who is not white and male, it will be assumed that it was for reasons of diversity rather than competence.

No matter how brilliant a jurist s/he may be, there will always be references to him or her as a token.

MSierra--Are the qualified LGBT candidates ??

Depends what you mean by "qualified". The Oregon Supreme Court has two openly LGBT members (out of seven total), Rives Kistler and Virginia Linder, but neither has been on the court all that long (six years for Kistler, two for Linder). The only openly LGBT federal judge is Deborah Batts, who has 15 years of experience in the Southern District of NY but may be a bit too old at 62.

So, probably not now. But in a second Obama term, with more experience and more appointments at lower courts...

The headline is wrong too. Of course, NO ONE "applies" for the job. Candidates are first recommended by various groups, selected for a short list by White House staff, vetted by law enforcement, then nominated by the President, and finally subject to confirmation by the Senate. A tell-tale sign that a story is wrong substantively is when it gets the simple little details wrong too.

No you don't have to be a lawyer.

And, you know, if we're ruling out anyone from groups already overrepresented on the court, then the group that there is the strongest case for ruling out—far more than whites, men, catholics, or jews—is lawyers.

For me, it boils down to this: There are hundreds of different factors and vectors relating to a person's education and experience that add up to what qualifies them as a Supreme Court nominee. How do you determine the "best" candidate or the "most" qualified? Who gets to decide which factors are more or less important in determining one individual's ranking?

There are a lot of potentially qualified people in the entire country. I don't think there's so much a linear hierarchy of candidates as there is a cloud of people who rise well above the bar of minimum qualifications for the job. It's literally impossible to objectively look at such a group and say this person is .00001% "better" than this other person?

Affirmative action can be an ugly thing, but this isn't exactly a case of well-qualified white Bob being passed over for a promotion because less-qualified black Jane was selected to fulfill a quota. So if a woman or minority is chosen from among a field of fairly equally qualified candidates, so what? If the administration focuses their search on women and minorities all from a pool of fairly equally qualified potential nominees, yeah? You gotta admit the current SCOTUS looks quite a bit like an old gentlemen's club.

And, you know, if we're ruling out anyone from groups already overrepresented on the court, then the group that there is the strongest case for ruling out ... is lawyers.

I'm secretly hoping that Prof Obama will select an academic.

I have no clue why you are giving Halperin so much importance. Lay him off all ready. Please.

How about someone who didn't go to one of the same old same old law schools (Harvard, Yale, Stanford, etc.)? I'm sure there are plenty of talented, liberal jurists who didn't attend an "name" law school. Having one reach the Supreme Court might help eventually lessen the influence of the coastal elites and boost the progressive movement in red-state territory.

It's sort od dangerous to say this because it gives one the impression that you back the likes of Harriet Miers or those Regent right-wing punks, and that's emphatically not the case. One problem with progressives is that sometimes they are blinded by the meritocracy, that Ivy League credentials give one the divine right of kings. After eight years of bumbling and horrid leadership from someone who went to Yale and Harvard Business School, shouldn't we know better?

Of course, given that Obama -- who I like, for the most part -- has so many cronies with Harvard Law connections, I'm not holding my breath.

I have no clue why you are giving Halperin so much importance.

Time is still considered trustworthy by many self-described liberals.

Sad but true.

M3RfD4 comment6 ,

Great. Now i can say thank you!

Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!

Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!

Perfect site, i like it!

Incredible site!

+1

Very goood!!!