The Diversity Pool
Just how deep is the diversity pool for Supreme Court nominees? Depending on what you are looking for, it might be pretty shallow...
I'm not sure how big of a problem that is. It really depends on how big of a problem that you let it become. If you are dead set to appoint a minority to the Court simply for the sake of appointing a minority, well then you just made it a big deal. If you are going to appoint the best candidate regardless of skin color or chromosome combo, then it's less of a deal. Of course, you have to be strong enough to stand up to the diversity gurus who will flog you for your non-PC choice.
I don't really know where the president fits in here. The track record is kind of helpful, but far from a definitive statement about future intentions. He put two white males onto the Court. He tried to appoint a female, but we all know how that ended. A lot of people think that the next Bush pick has to be a woman. I certainly understand that point of view. "It's the politics of it all." That attitude makes diversity a big deal, and I hope thinking like that is avoided.
Some names have been on the "list" for two or three Republican administrations: for example, Edith Jones and Emilio M. Garza of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and U.S. District Judge Ricardo H. Hinojosa in Texas.The article goes on to state that this list lacks "great thinkers". It's true. There aren't many Borks in skirts (nice mental image there). There are many more white male legal scholars with conservative judicial philosophies. The real minds in the field happen to be white guys. That's just the way things are right now.
Others have emerged more recently by virtue of their connection to the president himself, either having worked in his administration, for example, former Deputy Attorney General Larry Thompson, now general counsel at PepsiCo Inc., or having been appointed by him to the bench, such as 9th Circuit Judge Consuelo Callahan.
I'm not sure how big of a problem that is. It really depends on how big of a problem that you let it become. If you are dead set to appoint a minority to the Court simply for the sake of appointing a minority, well then you just made it a big deal. If you are going to appoint the best candidate regardless of skin color or chromosome combo, then it's less of a deal. Of course, you have to be strong enough to stand up to the diversity gurus who will flog you for your non-PC choice.
I don't really know where the president fits in here. The track record is kind of helpful, but far from a definitive statement about future intentions. He put two white males onto the Court. He tried to appoint a female, but we all know how that ended. A lot of people think that the next Bush pick has to be a woman. I certainly understand that point of view. "It's the politics of it all." That attitude makes diversity a big deal, and I hope thinking like that is avoided.
YES
NO
I just can't understand any sort of deliberative process in the White House that ends with "Yeah, let's put Connie Callahan on the Supreme Court instead of Frank Easterbrook." It's just absurd to say. I would love to see Bush pound another nail into the PC diversity coffin and appoint Easterbrook, McConnell, or Luttig (check for snowfall in Hell, I know). I hope he's got the guts to do it.
