SUPREME COURT NOMINEE: OUR LEADERS DISTRIBUTE THEIR OWN WEIGHT IN WORDS

HERE'S A QUOTE FROM THE NEWS THAT SOUNDS MORE RATIONAL THAN IT ACTUALLY IS.

President Barack Obama's search to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice David Souter should extend beyond the current roster of federal judges, senators from both political parties said Sunday.


COMMENTARY

It's lovely rhetoric, but highly unlikely, folks. Earl Warren was the last elected politician Supreme Court justice and Robert Jackson was the last Supreme Court Justice who did not have law school training.

We have here for y'all to read some quotations from Our Leaders concerning President Obama's upcoming Supreme Court nomination. These quotations come from a Reuters article posted on 3 May:

Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy "I would like to see more people from outside the judicial monastery, somebody who has had some real-life experience, not just as a judge,"

Noting that all nine justices came directly from the federal appeals court, senators on the committee said someone with a wider breadth of experience would be a plus.

"I would like to see, certainly, more women on the court. Having only one woman on the Supreme Court does not reflect the makeup of the United States. I think we should have more women. We should have more minorities," Leahy said.

President Obama said last week he wanted someone with empathy for average Americans.

Conservatives fear that means the president would consider "judicial activists" for the seat.

COMMENTARY Oh brother. This despite that fact that the president did not use the words "judicial activists."

Obama said Friday he would nominate a person who combines "empathy and understanding" with an impeccable legal background "who understands that justice isn't about some abstract legal theory or footnote in a case book. It is also about how our laws affect the daily realities of people's lives."

Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania suggested someone in the mold of a statesman or stateswoman, and said he could imagine a nominee who was not a lawyer, if that a person had the right credentials.

"I would like to see somebody with broader experience," Specter said. "We have a very diverse country. We need more people to express a woman's point of view or a minority point of view, Hispanic or African American ... somebody who's done something more than wear a black robe for most of their lives."

COMMENTARY It is ludicrous on the face of it. When one needs a car mechanic or a brain surgeon, we first do not look for someone of broad artistic experience outside garages and hospitals.

When we want a quality judge, we study the available judges.

Utah Senator Orrin Hatch said he hopes Obama will choose someone of "great dimension." At the same time, he said that Obama's criteria raise concern and he contended that the president says he will select a nominee according to that person's politics, feelings and preferences.

"Those are all code words for an activist judge, who is going to, you know, be partisan on the bench. We all know he's going to pick a more liberal justice. Their side will make sure that it's a pro-abortion justice. I don't think anybody has any illusions about that," he said. "The question is, are they qualified? Are they going to be people who will be fair to the rich, the poor, the weak, the strong, the sick, the disabled."

Senator Richard Shelby of Alabama said empathy should be only part of the criteria for a nominee and that a justice should follow the law, not make it.

"But if he will appoint a pragmatist, someone who is not an ideologue ... I think that would be good for the country," Shelby said.

COMMENTARY: Notice that no one in the article mentioned the Constitution. What does the nominee know about the Constitution? Does he believe in it?

LISTEN UP: RIGHT ASCENSION SAYS IT AGAIN:

If Alito and Roberts constitute what Republicans think Supreme Court Justices should be -- then they should not be nominating justices.

The senators should question the nominee on a wide variety of topics and issues. The senators should pass a Constitutional Amendment if they think that the Right to Choose or the Right of Privacy or The Right to an Abortion on Demand as Birth Control are so really important. If we make the points clear in writing in the document, then we would not have to obsess and handwring every time the President nominates somebody to the Supreme Court.