Mickey Kaus writes:
Here is Harriett Miers‘ bio … and here’s Michael McConnell‘s. Assume they’re both fine people. If you had to make a snap decision, which one should be on the United States Supreme Court?
Miers’ biography, as you might guess, is rather thin compared to McConnell’s.
Meanwhile, no better example (even if completely unintentional) can be found of the obnoxiousness of the current infatuation with judicial “diversity” than the following paragraphs from an article in today’s Washington Post:
Among Republicans close to the White House, the most commonly mentioned candidates in the past couple of days were White House counsel Harriet Miers, former deputy attorney general Larry D. Thompson and Judge Karen J. Williams of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit. Miers, a late addition to the public list, is close to Bush from their Texas days when she was his personal lawyer. Thompson, who is black, is a Bush favorite from the first term. And Williams has impressed many Bush advisers as a strong potential choice.
Also mentioned were appellate judges Alice M. Batchelder of the 6th Circuit and Priscilla R. Owen of the D.C. Circuit, as well as Maura D. Corrigan of the Michigan Supreme Court. If Bush does not opt for a woman or a minority, the leading white male candidates appear to be J. Michael Luttig of the 4th Circuit and Samuel A. Alito Jr. of the 3rd Circuit. Some former Bush aides think he may pick his friend Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, but other Republicans said they think conservative opposition has undermined him too much for him to be chosen. [Emphasis added]
“If Bush does not opt for a woman or a minority….” Indeed. This nicely if unwittingly reveals the “diversity” approach to judicial (or any) selection: First, decide if you want to “opt” for a woman or minority. If so, pick one from the “diversity” pool. If not, then pick the best person from the pool of all qualified candidates.
How demeaning and insulting to all the “diversity” hires everywhere, but then all of them who do not reject being selected on the basis of the “diversity” they allegedly provide ask for it.
Women and minorities (and remember: they are fungible) will not be equal until they are no longer selected, hired, admitted because they are women and minorities. The respect they deserve is the same respect everyone deserves: to be treated without regard to race, religion, gender, or ethnicity. To treat them with more consideration is to treat them with less respect.
“Women and minorities (and remember: they are fungible) will not be equal until they are no longer selected, hired, admitted because they are women and minorities.”
With respect to sex discrimination cases, our federal judiciary appears to not treat women equally when there is or there is not a woman on the bench.
Which means that if equality is a concern, we may just have to pick candidates for the bench based on whether they are women or not.
You are perfectly correct that the best person should be chosen on the basis of qualification, not on the basis of skin color or nature of reproductive organs.
Sadly you must deal with the special interest cabals who care less about the US Constitution than they care about their tribalistic concerns.
“With respect to sex discrimination cases, our federal judiciary appears to not treat women equally when there is or there is not a woman on the bench.”
I think you mean: “… appears to not treat women equally when there are no women on the bench.”
And by “treat women equally” I think you mean “decide in a woman’s favor”. Very often they are not the same. Comparable worth is an example.
Dom
“I think you mean: “… appears to not treat women equally when there are no women on the bench.””
well the data shows that appellate courts with a woman on the bench rule for female plaintiff’s more often. So the courts treate women unequally depending on what sex is on the bench.
I don’t know if this if women judges are correcting an improper previous bias or if women judges are improperly adding a bias to what was before a proper result.
“well the data shows that appellate courts with a woman on the bench rule for female plaintiff’s more often. So the courts treate women unequally depending on what sex is on the bench.”
Has anybody ever looked in the opposite direction? Do women on the bench have a history of not ruling for male plantiffs? Can this also be construed as sex discrimination?
I think the best way to solve this “problem” is just to make sure that everyone is objective and will not take gender into account when making descisions. That way, regardless of the sex of the judges, the cases are ruled fairly.
“I think the best way to solve this “problem” is just to make sure that everyone is objective and will not take gender into account when making descisions. ”
wow. nobody would have thought of that.
Hey, nobody seems to like being sensible nowadays. But you can’t deny that sensibility would solve these problems ten-thousand times better than sex discrimination.
Gyp, how would you go about making sure that everyone is objective? Are you capable of being objective? How do you know?
Well, if nobody believed that anybody was capable of being objective, we’d never get anywhere.
You can see if someone is objective by the way that they act and the way that they rule cases…
Sure, I am capable of being objective. How do I know? Because I am capable of making an intellectual decision against what my emotions tell me to do.
Gyp, when you’ve gotten a few more years on you, you will find that your emotions can trick you. People find ways to rationalize and justify doing what they want to do (what their emotions tell them to do) and they usually don’t realize that that is what they’re doing.
In the same way, what appears to be biased to one person (either because it is, or because that person’s emotions tell him it is) appears objective to another (ditto). There’s no objective test for objectivity.
Objectivity doesn’t always have to do with emotions, of course. It can have to do with any kind of conflicting loyalties.
I realize that. But if no one can tell if anyone else is objective, we sure won’t get very far with this sort of thing. I guess we just have to trust people to try their hardest.