Should Pres. Bush have selected [minority] for Supreme Court

I think Bush should have selected whoever he thought would do the best job. Sure, it would have been nice if they were a minority/female/whatnot, but that's not the important part about the supreme court.

Opinions please - should President Bush have selected a [Democrat] as his Supreme Court nominee to replace Sandra Day O'Connor?

Now that's what I call affirmative action for minorities

Not wrong at all. The President should choose the person he best thinks can do the job. No preference should be given to woman or minorities.

Women are not a minority.  They are the majority.

But to answer your question. No.

Bush haters will have to admit, he has placed more minorities in high places than anybody. They can not be considered tokens in the positions they are holding for the first time in history.

No more honest opinions on the issue? Seriously, I would have thought that there'd be more complaints from those that wanted a minority to get the job, rather than lip service that says "the best person should get it".

I personally think a mulatto parapalegic epileptic with AIDs, a tic in HER right eye, and a single digit IQ should have been put in there to represent.

Happy?

The President is beholden to NO ONE to appoint a woman to replace a woman, just as he was under no obligation to replace John Ashcroft or Tom Ridge with another white man. Maybe he should appoint another Arizonan to replace O'Connor... or better yet, another resident of Duncan, Arizona (O'Connor's hometown), population 3000. I'm sure qualifications will sort themselves out in the vetting process.

But we're all apparently of like mind here...

Should Pres. Bush have selected [highly qualified and experienced legal professionals] for the Supreme Court?

Yes.

Depends.

I believe he should select the right person for the job. People of all races or genders are acceptable as long as they are qualified.

I believe a lot of Republicans would say he should select the right person for the job. People of all race or gender are acceptable as long as they are qualified and are not considered 'activist'; meaning they believe the role of the court is to interpret the law and not to legislate.

I believe a lot of Democrats would say he should select the person who has the right ideology for the job; believing the role of the court is to alter law and society to reflect modern world views. Not all minorities are acceptable to the Democrats, although they generally profess to accept all people of 'color'.

The first shield to any Supreme Court nominee are qualifications. We can define that as being one able to pass the bar, one who has delivered rational, progressive, originalist rulings, or one who best serves the public temperment at that time.

We must understand the phrases," best person for the job" or "most qualified person" are loaded definitions without absolutes at worst and wholly subjective at best.

How this applies to minorities is ridiculous; race and sex should not be a factor, this is probably what leads to the answers previously and generously offered by JU members and possibly the American public at large.

Some will feel a need to ascribe value to a possibly different perspective maybe offered exclusively by 'minorities' (yeah, women a minority in America when they are the largesse of the population, the highest percentage of consumers and the highest percentage of all undergraduates throughout American campuses - I think not), but applying the law in just manner and with regard to common sense is a better requisite for any new supreme court justice applicant.

Not that the requisite mentioned will ever be one the senate will ever go by. Instead, how best will the applicant will possibly serve one party or another will be the gold standard in every supreme court nominee scenario - just in case nobody ever knew.

I personally thought Harriet Myers was a stellar choice. Oh, yeeeeesssss, she was unqualified. But it was good payback for her loyalty. Isn't that important? Isn't that a qualification? No? ooops.