According to a dramatic Charlie Savage article in the New York Times a few days ago (dramatic in part because it was in the New York Times),
The American Bar Association has secretly declared a significant number of President Obama’s potential judicial nominees “not qualified,” slowing White House efforts to fill vacant judgeships — and nearly all of the prospects given poor ratings were women or members of a minority group, according to interviews.
The ABA has found “14 of the roughly 185” potential nominees “not qualified,” a number that
already exceeds the total number opposed by the group during the eight-year administrations of Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush; the rejection rate is more than three and a half times as high as it was under either of the previous two presidencies….
…. It has rejected about 7.5 percent of his prospects, compared with about 2 percent of the potential judges under each of the two previous presidents.
The “demographic composition” of the 14 rejected prospects has proved, in Savage’s delicate word, “awkward.”
A person familiar with the ratings said nine are women — five of whom are white, two black, and two Hispanic. Of the five men, one is white, two are black, and two are Hispanic.
The bar association is also said to have deemed at least two other potential minority or female judicial nominees “not qualified,” but upgraded them to “qualified” after the White House asked it to take a second look.
I’m sure the administration and its supporters find it “awkward” that only one of the 14 rejects is a white male, but at this late date neither they nor anyone else can be surprised when affirmative action produces less qualified selections.
And about the concerted affirmative action effort there can be no doubt. “Mr. Obama has made it a policy goal,” Savage writes, “to diversify the bench in terms of race, gender and life experiences.” And Sheldon Goldman, a political science professor at U. Mass Amherst who studies judicial appointments, is quoted celebrating the fact that the Obama administration’s “diversity record is unparalleled.”
No doubt. But it would be helpful if someone would explain exactly how the administration and like-minded diversiphiles believe “diversity” contributes to the professional work and ability of a federal district court judge. Perhaps they agree with the famous assertion of one of their earlier sterling appointments, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, that “a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”
If President Obama and his judicial selection team agree with Justice Sotomayor, they should fess up and just say so. But if they don’t, they should explain what role they do believe “diversity” plays in judging. Regarding university admissions, it is obviously the non-diverse white and Asian students who are deemed to benefit from their exposure to “diverse” classmates, but who benefits, and how, from exposure to a “diverse” judge?
