by Mark Silva
There is but one woman on the nine-member Supreme Court, in a nation where women outnumber men at polling places, one black justice, in a nation that shed legalized racial discrimination only decades ago, and there never has been a Hispanic on the high court, in a nation whose fastest growing minority population is Latino.
Yet, with President Barack Obama weighing his first appointment for the high court and promising to pick a nominee with "diversity of experience,'' Americans apparently are in no rush to even the score for women or minorities on the court.
"There is simply no large groundswell,'' reports Frank Newport, editor-in-chief of the Gallup Poll, in a survey released this morning by the independent polling institute.
Nearly two-thirds of Americans surveyed say it "doesn't matter" to them if the president appoints a woman - 64 percent - according to the results of a Gallup Poll conducted last week.
Slightly more of those surveyed - 68 percent - said it doesn't matter if Obama names a Hispanic justice. And even more - 74 percent - said it doesn't matter if the first African-American president appoints a black justice.
Obama, who was elected with a majority of both the female and Hispanic vote, is believed to be considering women and Hispanic candidates for the court, including at least two who are both. Yet, while interest groups attempt to pressure the president to move in one direction or another, the Gallup Poll suggests that the public will offer the president wide lattitude.
Since Sandra Day O'Connor resigned from the Supreme Court in 2005 and was replaced by Justice Samuel Alito, an appointee of President George W. Bush, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, an appointee of President Bill Clinton, has served as the sole female justice. Ginsburg is battling cancer, which the court has said is under control.
But with the president now considering his first of what could become a few chances to shape the composition of the court for decades to come, only 6 percent of Americans surveyed by Gallup call it "essential" that Obama appoint a woman, while another 26 percent view it as "a good idea, but not essential."
The combined percentage of 32 percent is smaller than the 43 and 47 percent who voiced the same sentiment about a women following O'Connor's departure in Autumn 2005 Gallup Polls.
Women are more likely than men to call it important that the president nominate a woman for the court. Yet just 38 percent of the women surveyed by Gallup this month called it essential or a good idea. Among men surveyed, only 24 percent called it essential or a good idea.
"It is unclear how much the average American knows about the current demographic composition of the Supreme Court,'' Newport notes. "Still, as was the case four years ago, the current results suggest that -- for whatever reason -- there is simply no large groundswell of demand from the American public for the appointment of a new justice'' who is a woman or minority.
Gallup's findings come from a survey of 1,015 adults conducted May 7-10, with the results carrying a possible margin of error of plus or minus three percentage points.
Comments
It doesn't matter what the public thinks.on this. This is Obama's pick and his alone, and he needs to take gender into account.
http://www.political-buzz.com/
Posted by: matt | May 13, 2009 8:49 AM
One of the more serious responsibilities of our President, President Obama, as is the case with all Presidents, is the selection of a Supreme Court Justice. I am sure President Obama will be searching for a candidate, for that good Office, that has walked the earth and worked in the vineyards !! Scholarly candidates make for good Justices, but America is in need of Justices that know the everyday American and their concerns and their dreams. They would like to have Justices that understand fair play and the hazards of the workplace, both in safety concerns and in economic concerns !! They would like Justices that concern themselves with justice and not agendas.That would make for a good Justice and that is my hope, that President Obama will focus on a person who is loyal to the Constitution and loyal to civility and fairness.
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS, BRING THEM HOME, ALIVE AND WHOLE. NOW.
Posted by: Don Fitzgerald, America | May 13, 2009 9:00 AM
Please no tax cheat for the Supreme Court have enough in the White House already.
Posted by: Inky | May 13, 2009 9:00 AM
Please no tax cheat for the Supreme Court have enough in the White House already.
Posted by: Inky | May 13, 2009 9:00 AM
Polly want a cracker?
Posted by: bill r. | May 13, 2009 11:05 AM
My advice would be that Obama needs to counter the activist conservative judges on the court.
Posted by: C.Morris✈ | May 13, 2009 12:31 PM
Fyi blacks ARE proportionately represented on the court now.
African Americans comprise roughly 12 % of the US population, 11% of the court (1 out of 9, ) is black. Statistically equivalent.
There should not be "quotas" for such an important post. Qualifications, temperament should far outweigh race, sex.
Taken to it's logical extreme we would be required to include one, since we can’t appoint partial people, of all sorts of "diverse" groups including: American Indians, Chinese Americans, gays, etc. The list is endless, attempting to represent all diverse groups: impractical. Most of us are in some diverse or protected group or another.
The solution: appoint the best person and, over time, assuming equal access to training and equal probability per “diverse” group of being appointed, all groups will get proportionate representation. Admittedly, with lifetime appointments and only nine justices this will take more time than many would want.
I believe we have gone beyond artificial quotas.
Perhaps, blacks, gays and, I would argue especially American Indians, and others, are “special” diverse groups due to systematic discrimination.
This does not justify now over-representing groups, such as blacks, or choosing less than the best available Justice simply because they are a Hispanic woman (Oh great a Two-fer!). Such artificial machinations taint the selection process and lessen the honor of being chosen.
Some of these groups have little political clout. (Notably Indians). The ugly truth is quotas are often done not to correct past wrongs, but to satisfy political interest groups.
I did not vote for Obama because he was Black; I did so because he was the best candidate, who just happened to be black, or more accurately Bi-racial.
The same logic should hold for the court.
Posted by: bob james | May 13, 2009 1:07 PM
The greatest quota filler was George HW Bush who said Clarence Thomas was the "best qualified" one he could find for the Supreme Court.
Then of course Clarence sat mute and has only asked less than 10 questions in the entire public proceedings of the Court.
George was saying "take your quota ahd shove it".
Good work, George.
Posted by: Milton Friedman | May 14, 2009 1:48 PM