Latest Threads
Latest
Greatest Threads
Greatest
Lobby
Lobby
Journals
Journals
Search
Search
Options
Options
Help
Help
Login
Login
Home » Discuss » Journals » Sparkly » Read entry Donate to DU
Advertise Liberally! The Liberal Blog Advertising Network
Advertise on more than 70 progressive blogs!
Sparkly's Journal
Posted by Sparkly in General Discussion
Sun May 03rd 2009, 12:26 PM
I was miffed to hear this point of view on Scarborough the other morning, but I guess it's a wider stance than I realized. (So to speak.)

The idea is that Republicans have an advantage in making fair, "best-person-for-the-job" judicial appointments, because they aren't saddled with the limitations of diversity. That's right, diversity means limitations. It's always been complete coincidence, or a fact of natural superiority, that tends to put white men in such positions so often -- nothing to do with "identity politics" or "limitations!"

Here is Benjamin Wittes in WaPo today:
While both parties feel pressure to keep the bench diverse, Democrats have less latitude for bucking these expectations in judicial nominations than Republicans do. The core constituency that Republicans must satisfy in high court nominations is the party's social conservative base, which fundamentally cares about issues, not diversity, and has accepted white men who practice the judging it admires. By contrast, identity-oriented groups are part of the core Democratic coalition, so it's not enough for a Democrat to appoint a liberal. At least some of the time, it will have to be a liberal who also satisfies certain diversity categories.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...

Now it's "bucking" something to nominate white men. Conservatives supposedly don't "care" about diversity, which means they "care about issues" (especially, as it just so happens, about issues negatively affecting women and minorities)!

No group is monolithic, of course -- Clarence Thomas, Phyllis Schlafly... But there's not a thing wrong with taking life experience into account, and race and gender matter. If there were a fantastic minority lesbian deaf atheist potential judge out there, wouldn't either party be "limited" by excluding her?

There's not just one easy, obvious "best person" who's a white male -- that's a strawman -- nor is there a big pool of "the best" who are white males yet somewhere beneath them a "diversity" candidate is picked. That's the image being pushed here, and I for one say it's BS.
Discuss (20 comments) | Recommend (+1 votes)
Greatest Threads
The ten most recommended threads posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums in the last 24 hours.
StarStarStarStarStar
Today I was prevented from saving a life
155 recs : By Pab Sungenis
StarStarStarStar
Who Knew I Was Not the Father?
55 recs : By XemaSab
Damn right I'm a socialist.
52 recs : By SmileyRose
Dick Durbin: Moments Ago
40 recs : By firedupdem
Visitor Tools
Use the tools below to keep track of updates to this Journal.
 
Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals  |  Campaigns  |  Links  |  Store  |  Donate
About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy
Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.