Thread: AP source: Obama has more than 6 people for court

NAPOLITANO?

WASHINGTON (AP) - A source tells The Associated Press that President Barack Obama is considering California Supreme Court Justice Carlos Moreno and more than five other people as nominees for the Supreme Court.
An official familiar with Obama's decision-making said others include Solicitor General Elena Kagan, Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and U.S. Appeals Court judges Sonia Sotomayor and Diane Pamela Wood—people who have been mentioned frequently as potential candidates.

The official said there were other people under consideration. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because no names have been publicly revealed by the White House.

THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP's earlier story is below.

WASHINGTON (AP)—President Barack Obama plans to announce his Supreme Court choice soon but isn't saying who is being seriously considered, senators who met with him said Wednesday.

"I don't envy him the decision, but I think he's going to make it soon," Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., told The Associated Press after a private White House session. "I think when he goes out west today and tomorrow, he's going to have a lot of stuff on the airplane with him."

Obama was leaving later in the day to give a commencement speech at Arizona State University, while the debate simmers about the nomination of a successor to retiring Justice David Souter.

Asked if the president ran any names of candidates by the senators, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said: "No. No names."

Obama's bipartisan consultation came as he zeroed in on a nominee. Souter is part of the court's liberal wing, and his replacement by the new Democratic president is not expected to change the high court's ideological balance. Obama is widely expected to appoint a woman to replace Souter, and he is under pressure from some Latino officials to name the nation's first Hispanic justice.

Obama met with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.; Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, the top Republican on Judiciary; Leahy; and McConnell. Vice President Joe Biden, a former Judiciary Committee chairman and veteran of confirmation hearings, also attended.

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said Obama and senators reached agreement that the confirmation process "would be civil."

Sessions said that Obama didn't give a timeframe for his decision but indicated he wanted to get it done soon. "My impression was he doesn't want to let it take too long," Sessions told reporters on the White House driveway.

The White House has said Obama will not announce a decision this week. It appears increasingly likely, though, that he will do so before month's end.

One official said none of the senators present at the closed-door White House meeting mentioned the names of any potential nominees.

"The president said we may disagree on how to vote on a nominee, but we can agree on the process, or the tone of it," Sessions said. "I think that's true."

Obama wants his nominee confirmed before the Senate goes on recess for the summer in early August. But the senators would not commit to that.

Reid said the chamber would not be wedded to "arbitrary deadlines" and cautioned about the Judiciary Committee's busy schedule.

"We'll work out a decent schedule," said Leahy, who promised a fair chance for Republicans and Democrats to ask questions during confirmation hearings. "Let's get the nominee first."

An emerging point of debate is Obama's insistence that his nominee be someone who is willing to show "empathy" in making rulings. Some Republicans have balked at the notion, including Sessions, who wrote an op-ed in the Wednesday editions of The Washington Post prodding Obama not to pick someone who would rule based on personal feelings.

Asked whether that matter came up, McConnell said: "We did have a discussion about the importance of following the law, and not acting like a legislator on the bench."

Should Obama make his pick shortly, that would leave June and July for his nominee to get through the vetting process, with voting presumably taking place in the Senate by August. It is possible, however, that the confirmation process would carry on into September.

Leahy said he saw no problem in having a nominee confirmed by the start of the new court session in October.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id ... _article=1

LOL....we were on the same page, must have posted it within seconds.....so mods, delete mine.

I spit my diet coke all over the keyboard when I read that. Great, get her out of homeland security and right with the supreme court to make em all legal.

Obama is widely expected to appoint a woman to replace Souter, and he is under pressure from some Latino officials to name the nation's first Hispanic justice

How about best person for the job? NOT based on gender, race, marital status or relegion. You know....the EQUAL RIGHTS thing.......

California Supreme Court Justice Carlos Moreno and more than five other people as nominees for the Supreme Court.
An official familiar with Obama's decision-making said others include Solicitor General Elena Kagan, Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and U.S. Appeals Court judges Sonia Sotomayor and Diane Pamela Wood

Are we to assume there is not one caucasian male in the running? Are we also to assume there is not one caucasian male that can equal the abilities and qualifications of the six listed above? I guess when you're President of the United States it's okay to discriminate.

crazybird said:

How about best person for the job? NOT based on gender, race, marital status or relegion. You know....the EQUAL RIGHTS thing.......

Now thats a radical concept.

If amnesty happens, the ethnocentric "equal rights" screamers will use the increased number of Hispanics to demand ever MORE quotas. They will demand Hispanics be appointed to 50% of all existing government and business positions. Merit will mean nothing.

If amnesty happens, the ethnocentric "equal rights" screamers will use the increased number of Hispanics to demand ever MORE quotas. They will demand Hispanics be appointed to 50% of all existing government and business positions. Merit will mean nothing.

It already is. They call it "demographics". Which is nothing but race based quota hiring. They are holding jobs here for just hispanics. Now, I might, if you stretch it, understand it, if it were a relevant issue, like it used to be with the blacks. But the "hispanics" have never, to my knowledge, been kept from getting an education based on race, they were considered white as long as I've been around, until this recent change to make them special and different. We have them in sports, movies, music, government, management, Dr's, lawyers, on down the line. They haven't been kept from or out of anything. It's just using this huge illegal influx of poverty from Mexico that has changed the tune. If you were to look at the white population, we have poverty, severe poverty. Being white is no guarentee to financial success. We have people who lack education in which money, bad parents, bad habits, lack of desire to succede or whatever has a percentage of us not as rich as the Clintons. The same issues that effect any group. But since their flood of people, it's like they expect everyone, to move over and FUND and GUARENTEE positions based on race alone.

I watched it here. It started with "must speak Spanish", but then when people learned Spanish, THEN it switched to "demographic quotas". Except it works like this. If we (hispanics) are the majority, majority rules and we can do what we want. But if we're the minority, then you pull the race card and claim you must hire me over white people,( or you are racist,, and black etc. because we are the minority majority, or simple minority(which is rare, because you don't often find a few settling in an area where before long they don't run everyone else out). Win, win and based on nothing but race. They did this thing with our schools where it was 45% white, 40% hispanic, 10% black on down and whites still had to back down because even though they aren't the majority, when you add all the minority groups up, their percentage is still more than other groups. If it was 20% white and broken down perfectly equally, they'd still loose, because they're white. They had a panal of "racial diversity" people....white, black and hispanic.....what about asian? What about the other various groups of people, and race? If our schools are close to majority white, we have to have our lines re-drawn to be more diversified. But if it's a majority hispanic or any other minority group, they don't have to diversify because they are a minority. So no matter how you work it, if you are anything but hispanic, you loose. Like it was fine to oust the black principle because the school was newly majority hispanic, and they wanted one of their own in there....and see, majority rules.

I read something recently, where they were starting up with how it didn't count, if it was Puerto Rican and Cuban to fill hispanic positions because they weren't Mexican....they wanted Mexicans in those positions. (Which is what everyone saw as the bottom line ions ago) So that means whites can pull the Irish, English, German, French, Greek, Polish, etc etc. ethnic cards, because we all have a bit of differences in our culture as well. I haven't checked the stats but has every ethnic group of whites been in the supreme court? Male and female? Christian and non? Straight and gay? It is insane!

Seems they are wanting the wrong people in diversity classes, because they just don't get it.

I got it.....to be American you must be a racial and ethnic mutt to prove your ability to melt with others.

Crazybird said:

So no matter how you work it, if you are anything but hispanic, you loose.

Absolutely. They have hijacked the Civil rights movement. The Civil Rights movement used to be legitimate; it was supposed to make up for past discrimination towards African-Americans. But since the illegal invasion by primarily Hispanics occurred at the "right time" for them to hijack it, they took full advantage.

They claim out of one side of their mouths that they are "immigrants just like all Americans", yet they want special treatment like no other immigrant groups have had. They want special treatment like affirmative action etc based on nothing but race or ethnicity.

My Irish ancestors were discriminated against. Businesses would hang signs saying "No Irish Need Apply". The Irish were often poor maids or gardeners for the rich English. So am I now eligible for affirmative action? Of course not. And I would never have thought to claim that my ancestors' experience was anywhere near what African-Americans went through. Yet that is exactly what Hispanics are now trying to do. And they are very much getting away with it. It is absolutely absurd.

Crazybird wrote:

It started with "must speak Spanish", but then when people learned Spanish, THEN it switched to "demographic quotas".

I recently saw a job opening for Fed gov - @ VA Hospital. Of course only certain qualified groups could apply, and of course I didn't meet any of the qualifications, even though I would have qualified for the position in terms of education and experience.

Some of the special groups were Veterans, disabled, etc. I don't have a problem with giving these groups some priority. But another category of eligible applicants was for "Bi-lingual/Bi-cultural". So if they can't get priority for high-paying Federal jobs with the "bi-lingual" thing, they will demand another way to get it, with a "bi-cultural" requirement. Well, you know full well I'm not going to be considered "bi-cultural" if my ancestors are Irish and English. This is simply a code word and a way to avoid hiring a non-Hispanic white even if they are bi-lingual.

I am worried about my young nieces and nephews, and what all this insanity is going to mean for their opportunities in this country.