SEARCH BLOG: SPECIAL INTERESTS
It just seems peculiar.... From The Washington Post:
A chorus of black commentators and civic leaders has begun expressing frustration over Kagan's hiring record as Harvard dean. From 2003 to 2009, 29 faculty members were hired: 28 were white and one was Asian American.
CNN pundit Roland Martin posted a column slamming Kagan's record on diversity as one that a "white Republican U.S. president" would be criticized for. "There would be widespread condemnations of Republicans having no concern for the non-white males in America," he wrote.
Black civic leaders discussed their concerns Tuesday with White House officials, including senior adviser Valerie Jarrett. Afterward, the Rev. Al Sharpton said Jarrett had described the role civil rights groups could play in supporting future nominees for solicitor general and district and appellate court judges.
Kagan's nomination, Sharpton said, "is already made and most of us are inclined to support it."
On Sunday, members of a coalition of black women sent a letter to President Obama expressing both their concerns about Kagan, now U.S. solicitor general, and disappointment that a black woman was not chosen for the nation's highest court. [read more]
Photo: API can appreciate their focus... as voices of an immature viewpoint. Why immature? A mature perspective would argue that merit... legal knowledge, judicial experience, and judicial respect by peers... should be more important than gender or ethnicity. After all, this is about selecting someone who has the ability to judge based on the letter and logic of the law... not how they were treated by some other ethnic group vying for neighborhood supremacy.
Given the fact that blacks represent a small minority of the U.S. population and have a smaller percentage of their percentage advancing through the rigors of law schools... or any other college curriculum... than most other racial/ethnic groups, is it unreasonable that, based on merit as defined above, the choice of a black woman to the Supreme Court would likely be on some other basis than merit? And is that desirable? This is not the 9th Circuit Court where law is loosely interpreted. This is the Supreme Court of the United States of America.
The argument for blatantly racial and gender bias shows the immaturity of the black voices who are supposed to be representing the viewpoints of their racial/ethnic brethren. If they are indeed representative, then one must conclude there exists a basic immaturity of reasoning associated with that group.
I find it easier to conclude that those so-called "representative voices" are simply children who have aged physically.That said, it should be interesting to see how Ms. Kagan stands the test of merit.
It is unfortunate that it seems a Supreme Court candidate has to be a black-Hispanic, lesbian, with "experiences" rather than a supremely knowledgeable scholar of Constitutional law in order to satisfy the mindless yammering of those who believe "representation" is the proper criterion for that high court.
Perhaps they are confusing the process with Dancing With The Stars where you get to vote for your favorite... so the really klutzy one can stick around because he or she is "your klutzy one."