Everyone talks about diversifying the Supreme Court. Maybe the time has come for a WASP.

There hasn’t been a white Anglo-Saxon Protestant put forward in the five nominations since Justice David H. Souter came to the court in 1990. With Souter’s impending departure, the demographic will be seriously underrepresented on a court that features five Catholics and two Jews…

I insist… the best jurist available and forget about diversity…

I believe yes, it is correct. Is just that in the “Hispanic vs. Latino” debate I am very firmly in the “Latino” side. Latino is just more inclusive and better describe the our cultural diversity.

But she’s Latina! Feminine suffix! Which is more different but no less significant! (Possibly more – third woman ever if she gets confirmed.) We need more women on SCOTUS. Do I want men who have never had to deal with ‘that time of the month’ firsthand (or firstuterus as the case may be, haha) deciding what I can and cannot do with my babymaker? As the horses say, neigh.

I’m going to bed, as I am obviously getting delirious. Or hilarious. One of those “-ious” words. See ya tomorrow!

”Benjamin Cardozo was indisputably the second Jewish justice on the Supreme Court. Was he also the first Hispanic? There is no conclusive answer.
The Federal Judicial Center, on its Web site, says he was not. Some readers, objecting to the description of Judge Sonia Sotomayor as the first Hispanic nominee to the high court, say Cardozo was Hispanic.
According to Harvard professor and Cardozo biographer Andrew L. Kaufman, “it’s all in the context.”
Cardozo was nominated to the court by President Herbert Hoover in 1932. He was a member of a prominent family of Sephardic Jews who claim Portuguese heritage.”

I just couldn’t believe that the AP would ever write something that dumb. It should be obvious to any with access to a dictionary, enciclopedia or the web that a Portuguese is not Hispanic. “Latino” should have replaced every instance of “Hispanic” in the previous paragraph for it to be factually correct.

Having said that, was justice Cardozo the first Latino on the Supreme Court? Count me in as a “yes”.

…you know what else probably ought to go without saying, but that I probably have to say now anyway? That until I become kickass lawyer-lady at some point in the not-too-distant future, there will be no Dominican/Saharawi agnostic SCOTUS justices who used to live in Australia and were born in DC and happen to like toast with strawberry jam and enjoy the works of Victor Hugo. It just seems weird to me that the majority of the court is older white males. But w/e. I was speaking in generalities. Sure, bring on Estrada! Shame he was filibustered down. Diversity doesn’t just mean “people I agree with”, even though it seems to for some people. (Of course, not saying that we need it to be like the “Politically Correct” casts of every freaking 1990s TV show, which always included some minority kid in a wheelchair just so they could cover all the bases. That was always something that seemed forced to me.)

I’m taking the Latina thing as a bonus. But it’s a damn nice bonus, IMO…and gives me a nice role model to boot, even if she doesn’t get confirmed. She’s awesome.

As long as they are competent I’ll agree. If the “makeup of the country” is the first or second of even third most important requirement in selecting a nominee, how are we going to agree on what is this “makeup”? Does this “makeup” include minorities like Miguel Estrada that happen to be conservatives?

A Democrats filibuster that prevented a vote in the senate stalled Miguel Estrada nomination to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia for two years. He finally gave up and moved on.

There are only 9 justices and if you look at the ethnic makeup of this country I’ll bet you will find more than 9 different ethnic groups… that you could also sub-divide even more if you look at their life experiences, political beliefs, religion… you name it. So…I’ll go with competence and if whoever is selected happens to be Latino, well…I’ll take that as a bonus.