Why the need for linking a quota type mentality to positions such as that of the Supreme Court?
As the selection process begins again the first thoughts should be upon qualifications in the area of constitutional law versus gender, race, color, or creed.
In choosing a replacement for Harriet E. Miers, President Bush may feel less of a need to select a woman to fill the seat of Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, several lawyers and analysts said Thursday.
The lawyers and analysts, all of whom have been involved in directly or indirectly counseling the White House about Supreme Court selections, also said that because of Mr. Bush’s desire to move quickly, he would probably choose from the roster of candidates whom he has considered before and whose backgrounds and records have been extensively researched.
Looks like (thankfully) the need for expediency on a new nominee is going to place priority on constitutional law capabilitites versus gender, ethnic, or religious convictions.
I’ve been amazed at the stance that “women in power,” have taken regarding the next nominee – “it needs to be a woman.” Sandra Day O’Connor proclaiming that ‘we (women) represent half the population, so we should have more of a presence in the Court’ frankly astounded me. After having filled “the job,” how could she not cite first that the person with the best qualifications should receive the nomination?
It would be far more damaging to women’s rights to have an appointee who is not equipped, by training as well as substantive experience, to do the job effectively. Essentially, we’re setting that person up to fail, as well as torpedoing the “cause” upon which that person was touted.
The emphasis for getting more women and minorities into this level of leadership should be upon the education and training that is offered. By focusing upon development and creating a career path with substance, there will be much more opportunity afforded and sustained.