Tax Lawyer's Blog

Race and gender hustlers have done an excellent job over the years of convincing minorities that only government officials who share their countenance and culture will treat them fairly.

For example, the idea that a white police officer might be just as inclined as a black officer to treat a black citizen with dignity and respect is foreign to them. And the idea that a male judge might be just as inclined as a female judge to protect the civil rights of women is likewise alien.

These folks do not see humans beings as individuals, but as members of groups – groups that have been assigned values based on the alleged level of their historic victimization by the white male majority.

So, naturally, when there is a vacancy on the Supreme Court we always find these identity politics buzzards circling overhead.

Here’s the latest from Mark Leibovich of the New York Times:

Among court watchers and women’s judicial advocates, the significance of Ms. Kagan’s nomination can be boiled down to basic math: in a small and rarefied population of nine, the difference between two and three women can make a significant impact on the culture of the court.

“Any practitioner of diversity will tell you that you can’t bring in a few token people and get a real diversity of viewpoint,” said Pamela Harris, the executive director of the Supreme Court Institute at the Georgetown Law Center.

Ms. Harris said having three women on the court could also be a powerful “optic” that could potentially change the makeup of the lawyers who argue before it.

“If clients are visualizing the court as a predominantly male entity, they are going to want a lawyer who looks like the people on the bench,” she said. “I think this could also be a critical moment in terms of women arguing before the Supreme Court.”

Ay, dios mio.

I wonder what Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor might say about being called mere “tokens?” That’s an awfully disrespectful thing to call two highly accomplished women, isn’t it?

And what the hell is a powerful “optic” for heaven’s sake? I think she’s just making shit up.

Finally, if Ms. Harris were a true “practitioner of diversity” – whatever the beejeebers that is – wouldn’t she be demanding the appointment of a member of a wholly unrepresented group rather than the appointment of yet another woman?

Here’s a partial list of groups which currently have no representation on the Supreme Court:

• Asian Americans
• Homosexual Americans
• Native Indian Americans
• Muslims
• Quakers
• Mormons
• Handicapped Americans
• Arab Americans
• Buddhists
• Hindus
• Transexuals
• Hermaphrodites

That there are no Supreme Court Justices that look like members of any one of these groups is, as Ms. Harris might put it, optically unfair. After all, who in his right mind is going to hire an hermaphroditic lawyer when nobody on the bench looks like a hermaphrodite?

Anyone who accepts the insidious and divisive premise that only someone who looks, acts and thinks precisely the way you do is capable of treating you fairly and in accordance with the law, has no choice but to conclude that there are not enough slots on the U.S. Supreme Court to ensure that members of all minority groups get a fair shake.

Perhaps we should just expand the court sufficiently so that every nationality, sexual preference, race and religion will be represented.

I think 2,489 Justices should do it.

Bookmark & Share: