News/Columns

Five Possible Trump Nominees Who Would Diversify the Supreme Court

, The National Law Journal

   | 4 Comments

If Donald Trump looks outside the box in picking a replacement for the late Antonin Scalia, he might land on this veteran, Federalist Society rock star or bow tie-wearing Michigan jurist.

This content has been archived. It is available exclusively through our partner LexisNexis®.

To view this content, please continue to Lexis Advance®.

Continue to Lexis Advance®

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber? Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® is now the exclusive third party online distributor of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® customers will be able to access and use ALM's content by subscribing to the LexisNexis® services via Lexis Advance®. This includes content from the National Law Journal®, The American Lawyer®, Law Technology News®, The New York Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM's other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information.

ALM's content plays a significant role in your work and research, and now through this alliance LexisNexis® will bring you access to an even more comprehensive collection of legal content.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at customercare@alm.com

What's being said

  • Barry Hirsh

    Diversity should have nothing to do with SCOTUS appointments. There should indeed be a litmus test, however, namely, are they originalist or not? The Constitution doesn‘t care about diversity, it cares about being faithfully applied, AS IT WAS INTENDED. We should insist on nothing less, and diversity should have nothing to do with it. The gender or ethnicity of a justice is immaterial; what matters is his or her commitment to originalism and textualism. "Diversity" is a Marxist tool for social engineering, and has no place not only on the Court, but in the country itself.

  • Carey Gage

    For most diversity mongers, the definition of the word is usually "looks different, but thinks and acts just like me." I don‘t know whether or not that is the case here, but I remain skeptical of making diversity a goal in most instances because superficial diversity is irrelevant to almost all rational criteria in selecting a nominee for the bench at any level.

  • Judson

    Trump‘s nightmare. Women (whom he won‘t be able to grope)? NEVER! A Black Man - (after his ‘shattering‘ relationship with Obama)? NO! An Indian-American - (after his ‘shattering‘ relationship with Elizabeth ‘Pocohontus‘ Warren)? NO! NO! An Hispanic - ABSOLUTELY NOT! Where are the White men?

  • Paul Blume

    By your apparent standard, the Supreme Court already is "diverse." But race, ethnicity, sex, etc., have no bearing on ability. Adherence to the Constitution is the sole qualification. Or should be.

Comments are not moderated. To report offensive comments, click here.

Preparing comment abuse report for Article #1202772089818

Thank you!

This article's comments will be reviewed.