Bin-go!

By Jeff Sessions

If President Obama nominates to the Supreme Court a highly qualified individual with a distinguished record that demonstrates judicial restraint, integrity and a commitment to the rule of law, his nominee will be welcomed in the Senate and by the American people.

But if the president nominates an individual who will allow personal preferences and political views to corrupt his or her decision making, he will put before the public a central question: Are we willing to trade America's heritage of a fair and neutral judiciary -- anchored in the rule of written law that applies equally to all people -- for a high court composed of robed politicians who apply the law differently based on their personal feelings toward a particular person or issue?

The Republicans' role in the Senate's exercise of its constitutional power to advise and consent will be to see that fair and rigorous hearings determine whether the president has selected a nominee who respects the Constitution or one who intends to rewrite it. The consequences of this question cannot be overstated.
...
The Senate has a duty to determine whether the president's nominee meets these expectations. Senate hearings represent the public's best opportunity to participate in the process and learn about a nominee's qualifications. Accordingly, senators must ask tough, substantive questions to determine if the individual possesses four characteristics that great justices share:


-- Impartiality ...
-- Commitment to the Rule of Law ...
-- Integrity ...
-- Legal Expertise and Judicial Temperament ...

The saddest thing to me, in this whole "Souter's is a woman's seat" argument, is that if indeed a woman is nominated, we will always wonder what better qualified males were passed over arbitrarily because the primary qualification here in 2009 was a person's gender.

If the female judge who helped decide Ricci -- the white firefighter's case* -- even without going into written specifics of why it should turn out that way, is nominated -- can you imagine how that would reinforce the notion that it's not the system that has to change, just the people unfairly ending up on top. I can't imagine sending that person -- that woman -- in to sit with the current SCOTUS as colleagues, if they do end up reversing that decision. That would seem ... odd, regardless of her personality traits, likeability or not, or whatever.

That would seem a poor political move too, sending a message to the people whose interests are represented in that suit.

Ditto the idea that an out gay person is needed for diversity's sake at this time. It shouldn't matter. The law is the law is the law ... whether one identifies with the white firefighters, the gay rights crowd, or the historical plight of disadvantaged and discriminated-against... women. A plight that apparently has been remedied in latter years by regulating the system so that their viewpoints are respected equally in schools, boardrooms, and family law courts. For better or worse...

You might say, minority status in many circles is an advantage, while the system remains in play that those still outside the system but within the minority group are indeed even more reinforced out. That's a shame, putting off needed change until another day, just because some think that's the safer route. And ripping that blindfold off Lady Justice -- so we even give the appearance of preferential treatment in judging coming issues before the courts ... in the end, wouldn't it be safer not to fix the game, but to build up your relevant talents and rely on them to compete with no handicap boost?
----------------------
*

"My feeling is: If you design a race-neutral test and there is objectively no problem with the test and there is no specific race-based animus to any of the actions here, then whatever the result is, it's fine and you go with that," said Ilya Shapiro of the libertarian Cato Institute, who filed an amicus brief supporting Ricci.

"If the test yields a disparity among racial groups, the problem isn't with the employer but with why aren't there qualified applicants?" he said. "It might be an issue of education or something else. Whatever it is, it's not a legal issue related to the employers' hiring and promotion practices."