When it comes to nominating the next Supreme Court justice, President Obama is likely under pressure from interest groups, lawmakers, you name it…
But it turns out Most Americans aren’t too concerned about the gender, race or ethnicity of the person who will fill Justice David Souter’s seat on the bench.
A new Gallup poll shows 64 percent of those polled say it doesn’t matter to them if the next Supreme Court justice is a woman. 68 percent don’t care if that person is Hispanic; and 74 percent say it doesn’t matter if the next justice is black.
It’s widely expected that President Obama will nominate a woman. Currently the Court only includes one female justice, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who has been battling cancer. Yet only six percent of Americans say it’s essential that the president appoint a woman.
To read more and contribute to the Cafferty File discussion click here
The bias among those responding is ASTOUNDING !!
The president should always look for the MOST QUALIFIED candidate, PERIOD !!
It should be someone who is considered by their PEER GROUP to be SO smart, SO knowledgable about the Constitution and other laws, that they stand head and shoulders above the rest.
It seems CNN viewers LOVE race and sex discrimination, as long as the victim is a white male.
We need the BEST and the BRIGHTEST, and someone of PROVEN good moral character.
Well if you look at the prison population and the educational scores coming from our schools, isn't it only right that a black or a hispanic be appointed?
I mean, prisons are full of white men, and all of the top educational minds in the country are minorities, so why shouldn't it be a minority who is appointed?
Suns up, time to go to bed!!!!
Obama and the Dems lately seem to be less about transparency, less about change, and less about substance. But they do like their style. personally, I think the Dems are no better than the Reps.
Bob Abrams, you are one very sick person, as are you jimmy the greek. both of you need to leave the country.
Allowing a candidate's ethnicity to have any bearing whatsoever on the selection is racist, pure and simple.
Allowing a candidate's sex to have any bearing whatsoever on the selection is sexist, pure and simple.
Expect a powerful backlash within the next ten years if today's rampant reverse discrimination doesn't abate. Anger over this issue will eventually give way to violence, and it will be every bit as righteous as that which occurred decades ago for the same (or opposite) reason.
If we're using population samples, then how about a 21 year old appointee? There's no young people on the bench, I declare age discrimination! (sarcasm)
Seriously though, how about we just get the best possible appointee, regardless of gender or race or religion or any other irrelevant demographic role? Limiting the choice to a specific demographic is in effect limiting our choices, and is discriminating against the potential appointees of the demographic(s) that is(are) left out.