There are some political themes that are repeated so much that even if they have some validity they become truly painful arguments to hear — and as welcome to hear as a dentist announcing you need three root canals.
Diversity is a valid concern, when advocated in situations where there is a glaring deficiency or proveable need. But, no we don’t agree one iota with Anita Hill who suggests that just because Bush appointed Roberts (who is a white male, in case you haven’t noticed) means his next appointee(s) (and he will have more during his term) will be cut from the same mold.
But Hill, in a reasoned, thoughtful, not at all virtrioic but ultimately flawed analysis, basically argues that Sandra Day O’Connor just HAD to be replaced by someone who was a minority or a woman. First she argues:
But was John Roberts chosen because he’s the best choice for the court or because he may easily be confirmed? And why not choose a woman to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, the first woman on the Supreme Court? Or use this as an opportunity to nominate the first Latino to the court?
Not surprisingly, the answer to these questions has to do with the politics of confirmability. One thing is certain: If nominees are selected based on the very narrow and elite credentials that brought us John Roberts, a wide range of equally qualified, more diverse candidates will never even be considered.
Who ever said that George Bush or ANY other President is considering to use the same criteria as was used on Roberts?
And where does she get her info that he was picked strictly because (or largely because) of ” very narrow and elite credentials.” Bush clearly had a bunch of other factors: teeny-weenie things like his overall belief system, track record on the bench and perhaps his service to the GOP and GOP administrations.
We never read anywhere that Bush sat down and said: “Let’s see. Who has the most narrow and elite credentials? Why, that heart-throb John Roberts, that’s who! Karl: crawl out from under that desk, since the reporters are gone now, and get Roberts on the phone!”
Hill is arguing about something that is strictly HER assumption. No proof that this is what is going to happen except her gut feeling. And then there’s this:
We don’t know much about Roberts’ political ideology, but we do know that his career has been built on membership in increasingly elitist institutions that include few women and Latinos or other ethnic minorities. From his education at Harvard University and Harvard Law School to his role as chief of a D.C. firm’s appellate practice, Roberts placed himself in increasingly distinguished but exclusive circles.
We never realized that our friends who went to Harvard and didn’t have a life for so many years while they studied and researched so hard are now carrying a liability in consideration for future positions: they are members of an ELITIST group — something Ms. Hill suggests is a negative.
Oh.
(FOOTNOTE: This writer is NOT pitching or UNPITCHING Roberts. He is asking questions — and just KNOWS he’ll get comments like “you’re no moderate — you’re a liberal! You’re no moderate! You’re a member of the conservative cheerleading squad.” For your information, Mr. and Ms. Weisenheimers, I can’t even fit into that dress.)
Had these “extraordinary” credentials set the standard for judicial nominations in 1982, Sandra Day O’Connor would never have been appointed. She never clerked. She never worked for a president. She never served as a federal judge.
Ideology notwithstanding, even Circuit Judge Edith Clement, whose name surfaced as the front-runner prior to Bush’s official announcement, would not survive this standard, despite the fact that she has more judicial experience than Roberts. The first Latino U.S. attorney general, Alberto Gonzales, was also rumored to be a potential nominee. But like O’Connor’s, his resume is missing a clerkship and his judicial experience was state, not federal.
WRONG. As even someone living on Mars with Dennis Kucinich or who has a condo on Ann Coulter’s Adam’s Apple knows, Gonzales was adamantly opposed by GOP social conservatives who made their opposition known in no uncertain terms to the White House.
The White House later put out the word not to worry — that Gonzales was out. They didn’t oppose him because of his experience but because they didn’t trust him on the hot-button conservative issues. It had nothing to do with his experience or his ethnicity. And this:
The nomination process may have become so politicized that the only secure nomination is someone who is an ultimate Washington insider, liked by both sides. If so, it misses a chance to reflect the experiences of the vast majority of Americans. Moreover, a gold standard for judicial selection based on exclusivity appears to contradict the values of ever-expanding opportunities we espouse.
Roberts’ professional endeavors represent very limited legal experiences that do not appear to be balanced by other life experiences. I hope the Judiciary Committee members will try to determine whether Roberts has the breadth of experience that will help him understand the law beyond what is sometimes a very narrow text.
That’s great. But the chances of Roberts being rejected on the grounds that he doesn’t have “the breadth of experience that will help him understand the law beyond what is sometimes a very narrow text” is about as great as Osama bin Laden getting bar mitzvahed.
Joe Gandelman is a former fulltime journalist who freelanced in India, Spain, Bangladesh and Cypress writing for publications such as the Christian Science Monitor and Newsweek. He also did radio reports from Madrid for NPR’s All Things Considered. He has worked on two U.S. newspapers and quit the news biz in 1990 to go into entertainment. He also has written for The Week and several online publications, did a column for Cagle Cartoons Syndicate and has appeared on CNN.