The Supreme Court, alas, is not immune from the diversity dilemma that afflicts colleges and universities: how much is enough, especially when some are still “excluded”?
Unsurprisingly, the diversity talk regarding the next appointment always revolves around “minority and female candidates,” as in this typical article. It seems to me that both minorities and women should be offended at the idea that they are fungible.
And who are “minorities” anyway, and how many are necessary for “diversity”? Even with O’Connor gone there will still be a woman on the court; according to what criteria does the court need more gender “diversity” than Justice Ginsburg provides?
If one believes that color and ethnicity automatically bestow diversity-enhancing qualities then certainly adding an Hispanic to the court would increase its diversity, but nominating another black would seem to add considerably less. And what of Asians, the invisible minority? There are and have been no more Asian Supreme Court justices, after all, than there are and have been Hispanic justices. Why do none of the great mentioners ever mention them?
At least the president can be confident that the advocates of “diversity” don’t really favor diversity. If they did, they’d call for (or at least support) the nomination of Janice Rogers Brown.
UPDATE [25 Sept.]
According to an article in the Washington Post today, “Bush Faces Pressure to Diversify Supreme Court.”
Hector Flores, president of the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), said the Hispanic vote helped reelect Bush in November and that there could be political consequences for the Republicans if Bush twice passes over Hispanic judges in his first two court nominations.
“If the Republican Party wants to continue attracting voters to them, they’re also going to have to deliver on the most crucial and important position in this country, which is the next vacancy,” he said.
Laura Bush wants a woman to replace O’Connor. Why? The court already has a woman. How does adding another one when so many groups — you know, groups, which determine our identity — are “unrepresented.” When did the court become a representative body?
Hispanics want a Hispanic. Blacks no doubt want a black, and if anyone ever bothered to ask Asian-Americans they would probably say they want an Asian-American, the first, named to the Court. Did I leave out anyone? Of course I did. Don’t Native Americans deserve recognition? After all, they’ve been here longer than any of us, and thus have gone the longest without one of their own on the court. And then there’s our new, and growing, Muslim minority. The task of diversity-balancers is never done….
According to the WaPo article,
Gonzales has been gauging possible support within the Hispanic community….
[He] has been told, however, that apparent efforts to make himself more acceptable to conservative groups could compromise support among more liberal Latino groups.
Well of course it would. That’s because “Hispanic” doesn’t mean Hispanic any more than “black” means black or “woman” means woman. “Woman or minority” means liberal, pro-preference woman or minority.
With Bush poised to make another nomination as soon as this week, he is hearing growing demands to name a woman or minority to the vacancy created by the pending retirement of Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, Republican political and legal strategists said
Sometimes, all this just strikes me as too silly.
“Did you get a good look at who robbed the store?
“Yes, officer. It was a woman or minority.”
Unfortunately, many who are for the perpetuation of the racial and gender spoils system are lining their pockets through it.
These ‘diversity consultants’ have made a small fortune writing articles, giving lectures, conducting workshops, etc. They’re like the person who wanders around a neighborhood at night breaking windows only to show up the next morning offering to fix them — for a fee, of course.
A Clarence Thomas or Janice Rogers Brown does not appeal to them, since these jurists are against the racial/gender preference shenanigans surrounding the ‘diversity’ movement.
The reason they don’t want Janice Rogers Brown on the court is because she wouldn’t bring *intellectual* diversity to an already rabidly conservative Court.
Guess that’s not right. They’ve never worried about intellectual diversity before….
In which parallel universe is it that Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer, Souter, and Kennedy (a majority of the Court) are “rabidly conservative?”