Posted on 02/01/2022 6:09:27 AM PST by Kaslin
What if all nine Supreme Court justices were white women? Or black men? What if they were Hispanic? Or Asian American? Or Jewish? Would that rightly reflect our nation? Would it even feel right? Of course, if the only qualified justices were all white women or black men or Hispanic or Asian American or Jewish, we would have no choice. But assuming that was not the case, by our design and our intent, how diverse should the Supreme Court be?
Speaking in favor of resident Biden’s promise to nominate a black female justice to the Court, Senator Lindsay Graham said on CBS News’ Face The Nation, “Put me in the camp of making sure the court and other institutions look like America. You know, we make a real effort as Republicans to recruit women and people of color to make the party look more like America.”
But that is how our court systems work?
Last week, incoming Georgetown law professor Ilya Shapiro created a firestorm of controversy when he tweeted, “Objectively best pick for Biden is Sri Srinivasan, who is solid [progressive] and [very] smart. Even has identity politics benefit of being first Asian (Indian) American. But alas doesn’t fit into last intersectionality hierarchy so we’ll get lesser black woman. Thank heaven for small favors?”
He added, “Because Biden said he’s only consider [sic] black women for SCOTUS, his nominee will always have an asterisk attached. Fitting that the Court takes up affirmative action next term.”
Was Shapiro demeaning black women as “lesser”? Obviously not, although, as he admitted, his tweet was poorly worded.
His point was that, objectively speaking, given Biden’s values and vision, Sri Srinivasan would be the best available candidate.
But what if the composition of the court was terribly imbalanced? What if a significant sector of the population had never been represented on the Court? And what if someone from this sector was highly qualified? Would it be wrong to nominate that judge for the purpose of having a more diverse Court? And could such a nomination be called “affirmative action”?
Republican Senator Roger Wicker came under attack when he said, “The irony is the Supreme Court, at the very same time, is hearing cases about this sort of affirmative racial discrimination and while adding someone who is the beneficiary of this sort of quota. The majority of the court might be saying, writ large, it’s unconstitutional. We’ll see how that irony works out.”
Graham, for his part, disagreed, saying, “You know, we make a real effort as Republicans to recruit women and people of color to make the party look more like America. Affirmative action is picking somebody not as well qualified for past wrongs.”
In that sense, without a doubt, affirmative action has no place in nominating justices to the highest court in the land. The very thought of it is frightening. What would happen if unqualified justices had the power to make generation-impacting, landmark decisions? (Some would argue that some of our current justices are not truly qualified, but that’s another discussion.)
In my view, as a complete layman when it comes to legal matters, Biden’s great error was in drastically limiting his pool up front, saying that he wanted to nominate a black woman.
It would have been far better had he said, “We will carefully review the most qualified candidates available. And if one of those is a black woman, I would consider it a privilege to put her forward for consideration.”
That would have been far less controversial or objectionable, since all of us know that gender or ethnicity have come into play when nominating previous justices. Not only so, but there are always a number of potential candidates, each of them reflecting different judicial philosophies and having different unique qualifications.
And so, there was purpose in selecting a first black justice (or female justice or Hispanic justice), and that purpose was welcomed and affirmed by others.
Not only so, but President Trump promised to nominate a female justice to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg. To quote him exactly, “It will be a woman.”
And President Reagan promised to nominate our first female Supreme Court justice. To quote him directly, he said, “I am announcing today that one of the first Supreme Court vacancies in my administration will be filled by the most qualified woman I can possibly find. … It is time for a woman to sit among the highest jurists.”
Why, then, was this OK, but Biden’s pledge, first made during a presidential debate, is not OK?
The answer, again, would be that he drew much too small of a circle, thereby prejudicing his choices in an unfair and potentially discriminatory manner.
But the idea that the Supreme Court should be diverse and representative of our nation is a positive concept and, in and of itself, hardly controversial anymore.
Affirmative action has a place in putting unqualified people in important positions which degrades society.
Imagine the outrage if Trump had said...
“I will only nominate a white male to the supreme court.”
That has no place in a merit based society.
African Americans such as Justice Thomas (to give but one exampe) have proven that even given their mistreatment, they can rise far above the average. Our job is to make sure that they all have the same opportunity
AA AA has destroyed the Afro Heritage minority by providing false and unearned equality.
Part of the plan to expand the court to more than nine. Every race on the planet must be represented.
The celebrate diversity crowd will only divide us further.
Rainbow unicorn court.
2 of 9 is 10% more than their percentage of the US.
This pro abortion guy Shapiro teaches law ( or his opinions) at Georgetown which ostensibly is a Catholic institution. The Jesuits have devolved into an agnostic joke.
It’s insulting!
Anyone who is nominated for their skin color, religion or ancestry should decline and say that is why...................
The simple answer is.... NO.
We already have the intellectual lightweight Sotomajor. Isn’t that enough?
Don’t forget that she will always have an asterisk next to her name and record. Asterisks need a job, too!
Not only will a pedo joe nomination be a token and have an EEO asterisk on her name and every ruling for her entire career, she will also be a reminder that is all sotomayor is - a token EEO hire.
SCOTUS should not represent the population, a justice should not represent their identity. As far as representation of the land, SCOTUS should represent one and one only component.
SCOTUS represents the Constitution.
Any deviation from that is the path towards tyranny.
Period. End of Story.
It’s more than enough.
America was moving steadily to unite all Americans through the gradual elimination of racial discrimination and advancing opportunity and equality.
Then that progress was abruptly reversed when democrats, beginning with LBJ, decided to implement a racist strategy to gain political power by dividing us by skin color and creating envy, hate and fear between whites, blacks and browns.
In doing so they have destroyed our civil society, our government and our national unity and have brought America to the precipice.
Could there be a more racist act for an American president than to select a person for the Supreme court or for anything at all based primarily on skin color?
“What if a significant sector of the population had never been represented on the Court? “
Define “sector”?
SCOTUS interprets the Constititution, and how the case before them meets or exceeds Constitutional muster.
That’s it.
They shouldn’t MAKE law.
Maybe “Sector” should be Constitution respecting Citizens, instead of the Clown Car of the currently arranged categories.
Wow, talk about closing the barn door after all the animals have fled!
If you think race and sex haven’t been used as the demoncrats’ chief qualifications for SCOTUS nominees in the past, I have a bridge I’d like to sell you.
It’s just that they’ve never had a POTUS before who was stupid enough to say it out loud.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.