Bush told White House Counsel Fred Fielding and other administration lawyers that he wanted to nominate a woman or a minority to the Court, and his legal team has narrowed its focus to a half-dozen contenders, sources said.

What is wrong with this line of thinking?

This is the same scenario that George Bush used when nominating Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Ronald Reagan with Sandra Day O’Connor. They were so intent on nominating a woman to the court they never considered a more qualified candidate. This debases the process. Having a mindset that you are going to nominate a candidate from a particular race or gender at the onset rather than the best qualified candidate is defective methodology. There is nothing more idiotic than choosing someone from the middle of the pyramid rather than the top.

This is not to say the two previous women on the court were substandard because of this methodology of nominating. But I will say it anyway. Ruth Bader Ginsberg is one of the most unqualified justices the court has ever had. Sandra Day O’Connor was always considered the swing vote. What does that mean? It means she votes as an originalist and strict constructionist and she voted as a progressive activist if it is an agenda she wants to advance.

You have to choose from the top of the pyramid to get the caliber of Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito. What Bush is proposing and what Reagan did and Bush number one did was narrow the field down to a gender and race before starting with the most qualified.

There are several qualified women who are overwhelmingly qualified to be appointed to the Supreme Court. Janice Rogers Brown and Harriet O’Neill are two who are very qualified.

Hopefully if a qualified woman or minority is chosen it will not be because of their gender or race.