If we're aiming for a court that "looks like America", it seems that a Hispanic judge would be in the running long before a black judge (which we already have).

However, rather than placing a person's skin tone (or genitalia) at the forefront of the nominating process, perhaps we should first address their values and expertise?

Personally, I think an interesting - and outside-the-box - choice for Obama would be Alan Dershowitz. Although he's 70-ish now, he's been a passionate advocate for progressive causes his entire life and thus acceptable to Democratic side of the aisle. And, at the very least, the confirmation hearings would be fascinating to watch.

Sonia Sotomayor is Hispanic - one or both of her parents are Puerto Rican. She graduated from Yale Law School, was a Assistant District Attorney in New York County (Manhattan), then in private practice, a District Court Judge in the SDNY (sits in Manhattan), and now a judge on the Second Circuit. She has always been extremely pleasant to deal with, although rigorous on the bench. She is very bright, very hard working and while moderate on criminal case can be quite progressive on cases involving social issues. She has worked her way up and has not forgotten her roots. A great choice who happens to be a woman and a Hispanic.

Sadly it will be about what they look like since this is what the vast majority of people in the world are into. Most people feel that someone that looks like them is somehow like them.

It is total BS but that is how most people are raised. Being a half breed (i.e. from two very different cultures), I'm just a mut and thus I don't believe in that crap.

Of course the main focus should be on their values and expertise. My guess is Obama will pick a Hispanic (and a women if he can work that out), because he is one smart politician.

Xxxx Xxxxxx xx Hispanic - xxx xx xxxx xx xxx xxxxxx xxx Xxxxx Xxxxx. Xxx xxxxxxxx xxxx Yale Xxx xxxxx, xxx xx Axxxxxx Dxxxxx Axxxxxx xx Xxxx Xxxxx Xxxxx (Xxxxxx), xxxxx xxxx private practice, x District Court Judge xxx xxx XXXX (xxxx xx Xxxxxx), xxx xxxx xx x Second Circuit. Xxxx xxx xxx xxx xxxx extremely pleasant xxx xxxx, xxxxxx xxxxxx xx xxxxxx xxx xxxxx. Xxx xx very bright, very hard working xxx xxxx xxxxxx xx xxxxxxx xxxx xxx xx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxx x xxxx xxx xxxx xxx xxx xxxxx xxx xxxxxxx. Xxx xxx xxxxx xx xxxxx xxx xxxx. X xxxxxx xxxxx xxx xxxxxx xx xx x woman xxx x Hispanic.

A very respectable resume for someone applying for partnership at a top law firm; a thoroughly unimpressive resume for someone to vault into the Supreme Court of the United States. You are one hundred percent behind her and the best you can come up with sounds like someone daming the woman with faint praise. Someday, I hope this country will move past identity politics and start picking the best person for the job.

I agree that a hispanic would be a good choice. Hispanics are the fastest growing population here in the US. A representative court should have a hispanic there.

Alan Dershowitz would make a great supreme court justice.... for Israel.

What is special about a Hispanic as it relates to legal issues? Really how does a hispanic make the court more representative from a legal POV.

Last time I checked the court decides legal issues. Anyhow, Obama will try to place a hispanic women since that is the best political move for him. (as you note fastest growing population).

Here2help,

What part of that sentence was 'faint praise?' "Very bright and very hard-working," with a resume that, frankly, not 5% of lawyers (not that a Supreme Court justice need be a lawyer) can lay claim to. The very same sentence, minus the "Hispanic," could have been used with regard to Justice Alito and Chief Justice Roberts. What should we say? "Arg, I was blinded by her incredible brilliance!" Chances are, the more brilliant people around are too controversial to be confirmed anyway - far better to be clever, fair-minded and hard-working, I think.

Also, the "best person for the job" for a *panel* of powerful officials cannot be looked at in isolation. With regard to race & religion, the vagaries of a nine-judge panel means that chances are that not everyone can be represented all at the same time. However, with regard to gender... come on, ONE out of NINE Justices? And we've never had more than TWO? How does that not pose terrific legitimacy issues?

Alan Deshowitz? Really? Why not get the whole O.J. Simpson defense team on the Supreme Court?

Wait, how is that resume anything less than extremely impressive? A top law school, prosecutorial experience, private practice, federal district judge, then federal appellate judge. Pleasant, but rigorous, intelligent, and hard-working. Sounds like a perfect resume for the Supreme Court--what else does she need to do to be qualified?

Of course one needs to be qualified but shouldn't Obama also pick one of the most qualified not just someone that is qualified?

"What should we say? Arg, I was blinded by her incredible brilliance!" Chances are, the more brilliant people around are too controversial to be confirmed anyway...

Sandra Day O'Connor on learning that John Roberts had been nominated to the Supreme Court, "That's fabulous, brilliant legal mind..."

Brilliance is where the bar is set. A nominee to the Supreme Court should be legitimately able to lay claim to being the most brilliant scholar or practitioner of Constitutional law. Obviously there are a small pool of people who could vie for that title, from among them the President may choose the one who best matches his political philosophy and who will appeal most to his constituents, but to reach beneath in the name of identity politics, to rule out brilliant legal minds on the basis of the race or sex of the body those minds inhabits, that is by definition racist and sexist. Anyone who supports that course of action is a racist and a sexist and a bigot.

2-help....my thoughts exactly....If you use race or gender as the main reason to appoint, or even a deciding one, you are doing what you accuse others of and then claiming its wrong..I guess its only wrong if you sit on one side of the fence...doublespeak...what is "is"....

Look, Sotomayor is extremely qualified. So are Elena Kagan and Janet Napolitano, two others I would love to see on the short list. So are, probably, a dozen or so others, male and female, black, white, Asian, and Hispanic. Why not view diversity of gender and/or background as positives? I would agree that it is wrong to promote an unqualified or underqualified person on the basis of those factors, but what about when there are several people who are basically equally qualified by intelligence, experience, and temperament? We are at a moment in history when there are probably more strongly qualified women available to choose from than ever before, women whose resumes need no apologies. Why not take advantage of that fact? Why not say that it is a shame that 8 of the 9 justices of the Supreme Court are men? Why pretend that it's because men are really more qualified than women?

I would agree that it is wrong to promote an unqualified or underqualified person on the basis of those factors, but what about when there are several people who are basically equally qualified by intelligence, experience, and temperament?

I think that it is always wrong to factor race and gender into hiring practices, both in the public and private sector. That the person hired should be the best qualified without regard to his or her race or gender.

If you disagree, I hope you at least have the courage of your convictions and would not complain if you were passed over in favor of a similarly qualified applicant, specifically because of your race or gender.

But what happens if there is no one "best" qualified candidate? I, like many people, have been passed over for jobs in favor of similarly qualified candidates, because there were many equally qualified people but only one available job. Perhaps I was passed over because the person hiring went to the same school as one of the other candidates, or liked that person's thesis topic better, or just "liked" that person better in a totally ineffable inexplicable totally subjective way. Would I be annoyed if I was passed over in favor of a less qualified person because of race or gender? Certainly--that would be unfair. Would I be annoyed if I was passed over in favor of an equally qualified person because of race or gender? Not really, because they were equally qualified, and no wrong was done to me. I didn't have the right to that job, some criteria had to be used to distinguish between comparable candidates, and at that point it's really just a crapshoot.