Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Obama has a higher rate of appointing women and minorities to the courts than any of his predecessors.

Posted by on Jul. 12, 2010 at 12:34 PM
  • 9 Replies

Obama has a higher rate of appointing women and minorities to the courts than any of his predecessors.

sonia1Yesterday, the Philadelphia Inquirer highlightedRepublicans’ successful efforts to obstruct President Obama from appointing judges to the federal courts. Despite these efforts, the Inquirer notes, Obama has had a higher “rate of appointing women and people of color…than those of any of his precessors during their first year of their terms”:

So far, nearly half of Obama’s 73 appointments to the federal bench have been women, 25 percent have been African American, 11 percent Asian American, and 10 percent Hispanic. About 30 percent of Obama’s nominees were white males. By contrast, two-thirds of George W. Bush’s nominees were white males.

Obama’s rate of appointing women and people of color is higher than those of any of his predecessors during the first year of their terms.

Unfortunately, Republicans have shown a historically high level of obstruction in blocking Obama’s appointees. While Presidents Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan had 91 percent of their judicial appointees confirmed in their first year of office, Obama only had 36 percent of them approved by the U.S. Senate.

 BabyFruit Ticker

by on Jul. 12, 2010 at 12:34 PM
Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Replies (1-9):
stormcris
by Christy on Jul. 12, 2010 at 12:46 PM

Affirmative Action is fine as long as no one better suited is being passed up but then I think about Congress and really have to wonder if there are any good minds left once they hit Washington.

kailu1835
by Ruby Member on Jul. 12, 2010 at 12:54 PM

 The thing that bothers me is this:  Are these women and minorities being chosen for the plain fact that they are women and minorities, or are the people he's appointing truly the best qualified?  If they are, no biggie for me, in fact I applaud him for finding the most qualified amongst women and minorities.  If they aren't truly the best qualified, then it's discrimination at its worst, and I frown on him.

Why is it, by the way, that everyone is so concerned with who's being appointed?  Why the emphasis on minorities and women?  If they're the best qualified, it doesn't matter who they are.  If they are the best qualified, then pointing out that it's a woman or person from a minority group lessens their achievement.

stormcris
by Christy on Jul. 12, 2010 at 12:56 PM

Good point!

Quoting kailu1835:

 The thing that bothers me is this:  Are these women and minorities being chosen for the plain fact that they are women and minorities, or are the people he's appointing truly the best qualified?  If they are, no biggie for me, in fact I applaud him for finding the most qualified amongst women and minorities.  If they aren't truly the best qualified, then it's discrimination at its worst, and I frown on him.

Why is it, by the way, that everyone is so concerned with who's being appointed?  Why the emphasis on minorities and women?  If they're the best qualified, it doesn't matter who they are.  If they are the best qualified, then pointing out that it's a woman or person from a minority group lessens their achievement.


teddysmom08
by Member on Jul. 12, 2010 at 1:25 PM

There is only one problem with that, they are all idiots!

candlegal
by Judy on Jul. 12, 2010 at 1:58 PM

yes, good point.

Quoting kailu1835:

 The thing that bothers me is this:  Are these women and minorities being chosen for the plain fact that they are women and minorities, or are the people he's appointing truly the best qualified?  If they are, no biggie for me, in fact I applaud him for finding the most qualified amongst women and minorities.  If they aren't truly the best qualified, then it's discrimination at its worst, and I frown on him.

Why is it, by the way, that everyone is so concerned with who's being appointed?  Why the emphasis on minorities and women?  If they're the best qualified, it doesn't matter who they are.  If they are the best qualified, then pointing out that it's a woman or person from a minority group lessens their achievement.


Godgaveme4
by Platinum Member on Jul. 12, 2010 at 3:33 PM


Quoting kailu1835:

 The thing that bothers me is this:  Are these women and minorities being chosen for the plain fact that they are women and minorities, or are the people he's appointing truly the best qualified?  If they are, no biggie for me, in fact I applaud him for finding the most qualified amongst women and minorities.  If they aren't truly the best qualified, then it's discrimination at its worst, and I frown on him.

Why is it, by the way, that everyone is so concerned with who's being appointed?  Why the emphasis on minorities and women?  If they're the best qualified, it doesn't matter who they are.  If they are the best qualified, then pointing out that it's a woman or person from a minority group lessens their achievement.

I had the same thoughts...but you said it better.  Good job.

TruthSeeker.
by Milami on Jul. 12, 2010 at 3:35 PM

 

Quoting Godgaveme4:

 

Quoting kailu1835:

 The thing that bothers me is this:  Are these women and minorities being chosen for the plain fact that they are women and minorities, or are the people he's appointing truly the best qualified?  If they are, no biggie for me, in fact I applaud him for finding the most qualified amongst women and minorities.  If they aren't truly the best qualified, then it's discrimination at its worst, and I frown on him.

Why is it, by the way, that everyone is so concerned with who's being appointed?  Why the emphasis on minorities and women?  If they're the best qualified, it doesn't matter who they are.  If they are the best qualified, then pointing out that it's a woman or person from a minority group lessens their achievement.

I had the same thoughts...but you said it better.  Good job.

    I agree.

    Different, but not less~Temple Grandin

MamaScorpio88
by on Jul. 12, 2010 at 4:16 PM

Racism is not dead. Just because we have a black (or half black) President, does not mean racism is dead.

Sexism is not dead either. Just because Hillary and Palin were both running for Pres and VP, does not mean sexism is dead. We all heard cracks about how could a woman possibly be able to do the job? They'd be too emotional, get their period, etc

So yes, it is a big deal he is appointing people who are minorities, and women. Both are discriminated against. Just because we want to believe the US is beyond that, doesn't mean it is true.

Godgaveme4
by Platinum Member on Jul. 12, 2010 at 4:20 PM


Quoting MamaScorpio88:

Racism is not dead. Just because we have a black (or half black) President, does not mean racism is dead.

Sexism is not dead either. Just because Hillary and Palin were both running for Pres and VP, does not mean sexism is dead. We all heard cracks about how could a woman possibly be able to do the job? They'd be too emotional, get their period, etc

So yes, it is a big deal he is appointing people who are minorities, and women. Both are discriminated against. Just because we want to believe the US is beyond that, doesn't mean it is true.

No one has said that those things do not exist.  I believe the question of the table is whether or not he is actually appointing qualified people.  OR is he just focusing on women and minorities?

Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)