Judges Michael Luttig and J. Harvie Wilkinson both currently serve on the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, and both appeal to conservatives. Luttig has made virtually all, and Wilkinson some, of the various unofficial short lists of Supreme Court lists that are currently being circulated. Luttig is a bit younger and appeals strongly to movement conservatives. Wilkinson has a more imposing resume but with its inevitable longer paper trail, including some books, but he also has a more genteel, Lewis Powell-like personality that some observers find more appealing than Luttig’s Texas-born brashness.
I hope President Bush picks one of them, for a reason that has nothing to do with their qualifications (though let me hasten to add that I would not take this position if I did not believe either of them to be the equal, if not better, than anyone else on the short lists).
As I’ve mentioned here several times, Jerry Kilgore, the Republican (and conservative) candidate for governor in Virginia’s upcoming election, is in a close race; the latest polls show him slightly behind. Nominating either of these fine Virginia judges would energize Virginia Republicans, and the predictable opposition to either would put Democrat Timothy Kaine on the defensive and remind Virginia voters why they usually prefer conservatives.
“Nominating either of these fine Virginia judges would energize Virginia Republicans, and the predictable opposition to either would put Democrat Timothy Kaine on the defensive and remind Virginia voters why they usually prefer conservatives.”
Kilgore has also been avoiding dubya. So it may backfire to have dubya and Kilgore being linked.
What’s the word on Bush’s latest nominee, Samuel Alito? Is he as anti-preference as Thomas and Scalia? Any evidence of his leanings on AA would be appreciated.
“What’s the word on Bush’s latest nominee, Samuel Alito? Is he as anti-preference as Thomas and Scalia? Any evidence of his leanings on AA would be appreciated.”
He’s pro discriminations, it seems:
ALITO WOULD ALLOW RACE-BASED DISCRIMINATION: Alito dissented from a decision in favor of a Marriott Hotel manager who said she had been discriminated against on the basis of race. The majority explained that Alito would have protected racist employers by
Actus:
I fail to understand your point — does a judge who adheres to the language of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as well as the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment engage in, in your opinion, “discrimination”?
I guess I’m not fluent in Orwellian “newspeak” that marches under the banner of “equal opportunity” and “civil rights.” So-called ‘moderates’ and ‘progressives’ will only support Supreme Court nominees who believe in a fictitious
‘Special Protection Clause’ and ‘preferential employment opportunity’.
Cicero
“I fail to understand your point — does a judge who adheres to the language of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as well as the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment engage in, in your opinion, “discrimination”?”
The language of the CRA bars discrimination. I don’t know how the 14th Amendment applies to Marriot.
The 14th Amendment applies to the Marriot case in that it provides for EQUAL protection of the laws, not special protection based upon membership in this group or that group.
When does equal mean unequal? Why, when it’s used in “Equal Opportunity Employer”, of course.
“The 14th Amendment applies to the Marriot case in that it provides for EQUAL protection of the laws, not special protection based upon membership in this group or that group.”
Sure. Who has special protection in the Marriot case?
Well, the ‘diverse’ candidate who eventually prevailed in the case, that’s who.
Perhaps the so-called “white male” actually had better qualifications than the woman who allegedly was wronged. Or is that too far-fetched?
‘Well, the ‘diverse’ candidate who eventually prevailed in the case, that’s who. ‘
What makes you say she got special protection? Its a civil rights claim, a discrimination claim. This isn’t an affirmative action case.
Over the last 30+ years, “civil rights” “anti-discrimination” and “affirmative action” have become synonymous.
‘Over the last 30+ years, “civil rights” “anti-discrimination” and “affirmative action” have become synonymous. ‘
the entire point of this blog is that they’re not.
He’s pro discriminations, it seems:
Actually, what it “seems” is that you haven’t read the case.
‘Actually, what it “seems” is that you haven’t read the case.’
Then let us have it then.
‘Over the last 30+ years, “civil rights” “anti-discrimination” and “affirmative action” have become synonymous. ‘
>>the entire point of this blog is that they’re not.
I agree, that is the point of this blog. But to the pro-preference crowd that drives the “civil rights” movement, those terms are indeed synonymous.
I’m not a lawyer but my reading of that case is that it has little (or nothing) to do with affirmative action, and that Alito’s dissent reveals more about his deference to business than his position on civil rights.
A Marriott hotel passed up for promotion a black woman in favor of a white woman. The two candidates were roughly equal in qualifications, though each was superior to the other in certain categories (experience, education, etc.). There was some dispute as to how much weight the hotel had given to each category, and how company policy told it to rank the categories. The hotel was loose in following its internal policies during the interview and decision-making process, though how much it strayed from them was unclear.
The majority felt that the questions added up to enough uncertainty to send the case to trial, while Alito said that inconsistencies and irregularities weren’t enough: for the case to go forward, the plaintiff had to show that Marriott didn’t have a legitimate reason for thinking the promoted woman the more qualified of the two candidates. Alternatively, he said, the plaintiff could show that discrimination was the likely cause behind the hotel’s decision, but her case wasn’t based on that.
I’m sure someone will correct me if I read it wrong.
‘ But to the pro-preference crowd that drives the “civil rights” movement, those terms are indeed synonymous.’
they may be. I was just makign the point as curtly as I could. Read the case and you’ll find, like Nels, that its not an Afirmative Action case.
But it is funny that on the discriminations blog, when someone sees a ‘diverse’ plaintiff, the assumption is that it is.