What Color Is Your Legal Ability?
I was disgusted by talk I heard on CNN and elsewhere by people who say President Obama should appoint a "person of color" or a woman to the Supreme Court. Shockingly, I think he should appoint the best legal mind for the job, and look for that person in a totally color-blind and vagina-blind way. Charlie Savage writes for The New York Times of past presidential pandering:
When President Ronald Reagan decided to appoint a woman to the Supreme Court in 1981, he had to turn to Sandra Day O'Connor, an obscure state judge.When President Bill Clinton decided to add a second woman to the court, he confronted a world in which women were just beginning to climb the ranks of big law firms and ranking female judges, like Ruth Bader Ginsburg, were still scarce.
As goes the meritocracy, so goes the country.
Robert at May 2, 2009 11:00 AM
Affirmative action and its gender ilk, apart from being stupid and damaging in other ways, also have the opposite of their alleged intended effect: By 100% artificially raising the demand (and therefore the price) for black or female labor, they literally directly cause the price of the otherwise *equivalent* white male labor to be *cheaper* ... this provides organisations (by they government or private) with a lovely 100% artificially created incentive to *prefer* white male labor, where no such incentive existed previously. I'm an employer in South Africa where AA is heavily pushed and mandated everywhere, and one simple, obvious outcome of this is that the equivalent white labor is *far* cheaper to hire, i.e. white males will do the same job for literally far *less* money than their exact equivalent (skills-wise) black or female employee - and that is thanks to government-enforced AA inflating the price of black labor. The effect is so dramatic that I estimate we can typically pay a white male literally *half* the price than his black counterpart would be able to demand for literally the *exact same work*. Any sane and rational employer is naturally going to put their money where they get the skills for a lower price.
Of course, these laws are discrimination against white males, and it is of course unjust to artificially force a group of people to do the same work for less money based on their color or gender. It's also another reason why we also have a huge brain drain of our most skilled people, further damaging job creation and thus further directly harming the very people AA purports to assist. But hey, that's what the voters seem to want.
What's most saddening is that people's jaws don't drop to the floor aghast at the absurdity of saying you should hire somebody for an important job because they have a vagina ... the fact that we just blithely regard these kinds of calls as 'normal', without even blinking, is extremely worrying.
DavidJ at May 2, 2009 11:45 AM
Call me silly, but it's cool with me that we have a sister or two up there, and maybe a brother.
Wouldn't it be funny if he nominated Harriet Miers? Ok, you're right, it wouldn't.
Fate seems to have eliminated both the wretched Clintons from consideration. For that we can be grateful.
Middle age warps one's appreciation of the passage of time: I'd still thought of Souter as a new kid.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at May 2, 2009 1:10 PM
This shouldn't be a surprise. The President had, and has, fewer credentials than the man who replaced him.
Radwaste at May 2, 2009 1:55 PM
Ruth Bader Ginsburg has a vagina? Who knew? I pity the poor fool in the Supreme Court HR department who was assigned gender verification.
Man, between this and the manicotti, I can see some bad, crazy dreams coming tonight.
Dave Lincoln at May 2, 2009 3:02 PM
President Obama has already said that he won't pick the most qualified person for the job:
That's from one of the primary debates. If we're lucky he was just pandering; it boggles the mind that a constitutional law professor could get the role of the court so wrong.
Pseudonym at May 2, 2009 4:00 PM
Fate seems to have eliminated both the wretched Clintons from consideration.
Hillary's still in the running. The Democrats only have one viable presidential candidate for 2012 other than Barry.
And he appointed her Secretary of State, thereby strengthening her resume and position as a presidential contender.
If Barry's ship is foundering, she bails and plays Ted Kennedy to Barry's Jimmy Carter in 2012, spoiling his re-election chances. He can' afford to have her as a rival in 2012.
If he appoints her to the Supreme Court, however, she's out of contention and the Democrats are stuck with Barry in 2012.
Roberts is young enough that she can't really hold out for Chief Justice.
Conan the Grammarian at May 2, 2009 4:16 PM
Shockingly, I think he should appoint the best legal mind for the job, and look for that person in a totally color-blind and vagina-blind way.
Best comment on this topic I have heard all week.
Suki at May 2, 2009 4:50 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/05/02/what_color_is_y_2.html#comment-1646074">comment from SukiThank you -- please spread the word, especially on leftypolitick websites!
Amy Alkon at May 2, 2009 5:31 PM
Amy,
If they would peek at John and my blog they would see it at the top right now!
Suki at May 2, 2009 5:43 PM
> The Democrats only have one viable
> presidential candidate for 2012
> other than Barry.
I dunno... I hadn't heard of Barry until several months before I voted for him...
And that was a vote against Hillary. SecState is an office that can fuck things up... It wouldn't take too many errors before her negatives were too burdensome to run with. In 2012 she'll have been on the national stage for twenty years, not all of them spent growing in our national affection. Black Dem voters will no longer feel they need for vote for her to get their needs met. (Remember when they used to call Bill "our first black president"?)
I'm not sure she has that much electoral juice left. Consider the people of New York, who welcomed the Chicago girl with zero representative experience to speak for them in the Senate, only to see her cut out a few years later for a more colorful position.
Maybe she'd go for a Scotus job, but the confirmation hearings might be the most political fun of my lifetime. Republicans would toast that woman over a Coleman stove.
Anyway, I don't think it would matter to her whether it was a seat as Chief or Associate justice... You can make plenty of history either way.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at May 2, 2009 10:09 PM
PS- I borrowed a DVD from a friend this weekend: "28 Days Later".
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at May 2, 2009 10:10 PM
I'm not sure she has that much electoral juice left.
A lot of it depends upon how Obama does in his job. If he does well, she is probably finished. If he falters (like Carter), the Dems might toy with the idea of running someone else (like they did in 1980).
The question, however, is can Obama afford to take the chance that he'll face a serious challenge in 2012 or will he decide to neutralize her now?
If he does face a challenge, she'll most likely be the challenge (depending upon her job performance). She did screw up the meeting with the Russians, but the Obama administration has had a few screw ups after that.
In the perception of her job performance, she does have a couple of things going for her.
1. Joe Biden is the vice president.
2. Obama seems to be keeping his Cabinet officers at a distance, preferring to run things through czars and appointments.
Conan the Grammarian at May 2, 2009 10:54 PM
My personal favorite was when Obama said he was first looking for a judge with :empathy". WTF? How does that fit in with their role at all?
I also threw up at CNN's "Obama swagger" blip. All of a sudden it's okay to say "our white cameraman can't swagger" on an actual news show, but of course if we mention a black person's skin color-much less use it as an excuse for why he can't ____-we're racist. Yeah.
Asshats.
momof3 at May 3, 2009 6:22 AM
Can anyone explain, without being sexist, why a woman "should" be appointed, or, without being racist, why a person of color should be considered? What is so "special" about either category of person?
Sexism is required to end sexism? Racism is required to end racism? I get it ....
Jay R at May 3, 2009 1:40 PM
> without being sexist, why a woman
> "should" be appointed
Because half the intelligence on the globe is feminine. Feminine thought is often meaningfully distinguished from masculine thought. The highest court in the finest nation ought to avail itself of the best available representation of it.
> without being racist, why a person
> of color should be considered?
Because the experience of law (or almost any other cultural product) can often vary greatly depending on a person's race, yet with a subtlety difficult to perceive without personal perspective. When held to the highest scholastic and practical standards, all perspectives deserve inclusion.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at May 3, 2009 4:40 PM
"Feminine thought is often meaningfully distinguished from masculine thought." Delightful, Crid. Please explain -- without being sexist.
Ok, Crid, explain, without racism, how the "experience of law" varies according to race, and how that purported different "experience" of law will advantage a SCOTUS justice.
Easy to espouse; difficult to support.
Jay R at May 3, 2009 6:13 PM
Quit saying "explain". If you can't find anything to argue with, concede the point and go home.
> how the "experience of law" varies
> according to race
Just for example... The vast, comically disproportionate-to-population majority of roadside auto detentions by police I've seen in Los Angeles over the last twenty years have been of nonwhite males. If they were driving that badly, they wouldn't have gotten out of their driveways for hitting the mailbox.
> how that purported different
> "experience" of law will advantage
> a SCOTUS justice.
I'd say we're likely to find out, aren't we?
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at May 3, 2009 6:35 PM
I need some help. I did a search through the archives for 'harriet myers' but couldn't find anything.
Could someone point me in the right direction?
Captain Splendid at May 4, 2009 10:18 AM
Miers.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at May 4, 2009 10:31 AM
It seems as though finding the "best" Supreme Court justice is like finding a soulmate: There's no such thing, but there are a number of highly qualified choices. If we get someone who is intelligent, impartial and qualified for that level of responsibility, then I don't see any need for a steel-cage throwdown.
MonicaP at May 4, 2009 11:34 AM
Cheers, crid. I blame my cousins, who use the y instead of the i in their name.
Captain Splendid at May 4, 2009 1:52 PM
Leave a comment