I like white guys, but I think you're understating the problem.

You don't have to want the world to look like a Thin Mints box before bemoaning the lack of diversity in government authority. It's not just social, or even merely intellectual... These people are inbred.

I suppose we're supposed to be grateful that he's from Chicago.

Like Hillary.

And that other guy.

He appointed two women, one of them Hispanic, and we're supposed to fault him for nominating a white male?

Uh, white males do still exist here, and are still entitled to representation.

Patrick, representation doesn't come from skin color matching.

And again, it's not about who he's recommending -- I'm with Crid on these points -- it's about the whining that he recommended a white guy instead of a black lesbian who's missing an arm.

There are too many Ivy Leaguers on the court. It's time for more intellectual diversity, Make that intellectual capacity.

Start with someone who understands English - unlike the "it's a tax but not a tax and it's OK that it didn't originate in the House" Chief Justice. Someone who understands "Congress shall make no law."

It would be interesting to see employers and even Presidents make their first cuts simply by reviewing their resume with name, race, gender redacted.

Just to see who ends up at the top.

Oh, right, white male privilege.

I'm with Crid on the New Eastern Establishment thing. Of course, the left's concept of "diversity" has always been about nose-counting; underneath, they expect everyone to think and act the same. I'm starting to think that the reason that they have picked the groups that they have to be the Other -- white males, Jews, Far East Asians, a few others -- is because these are the groups that they have found by experience are most likely to resist the Left's philosophy.

I've been told by people who have experienced it that diversity hiring is subject to perversions within its perversions. One example that comes up is when a company decides (or the government decides for it) that it is deficient in a particular identity group, and it needs to make that up immediately. So if, say, HR has decided that Indian/Pakistani women are the diversity flavor of the day, and you walk in the door as a Latina, you aren't getting the job that day.

Obama's pick seems perfectly qualified, but the best? There is one best that we can determine objectively?

Problem is, this is self-reinforcing. In academia, Ivy League (and MIT/Caltech) grads get professor positions and perpetuate the belief that they are somehow better than grads from lesser schools. (This is not actually true.) They then give preference to the next group on the way up.

I have a colleague who is killing it. As research scientist he was publishing more papers, bringing in more money, and advising more students than anyone else in the department, faculty included. So when one of the professors said "maybe we could get someone better" when it came to hiring, I knew that in his mind, that meant someone who went to Princeton. (The Princeton folks are the worst. They really do think they are a chosen people.)

There was that Princeton dude, named Albert-something...

Lots of people assume they are worth something because of who they know...

Here's what I said a month ago:

Call it a hunch, but since Obama certainly wants the Democrats to win the election, *I* suspect he'll choose someone he doesn't agree with very much - someone whom no one would call a liberal. (A moderate, maybe.) Otherwise, Trump and Cruz will get even more voter support than they already have.

(end)

Well, I don't know how much they agree on things, but Garland HAS been called a moderate - and at any rate, he has a record Of Republican support.

The thing is, the GOP has already laid down the marker and said there will be no hearings. (Which I think is a tactically smart decision... if they hold hearings, they will be getting excoriated by above-the-fold headlines in the NYT for months. "Today, nothing continued to happen" will fall out of the news cycle pretty quickly, regardless of the circumstances.) If the Republican leadership goes back on that promise now, it just drives that much more of their voting base into the Trump camp.

Lenona,

He is moderate . . . for an Obama pick. He has a long history of labor union support and clearly looks favorably on unlimited government regulation.

Call in the Swedish Chef and Bork away I say.

Goddammit, can't we get someone on the Supreme Court to support every decision that destroys the working class and get this country down the toilet and completely into the hands of the 1% already?

Jesus. This is taking FOREVER. I thought once we destroyed the unions and shipped out the jobs we could just turn it over to the Koch brothers and the born-again anti-science folks and end this charade of "democracy".

"Goddammit, can't we get someone on the Supreme Court to support every decision that destroys the working class and get this country down the toilet and completely into the hands of the 1% already?"

Do you think this is new?