What’s Wrong with the World

The men signed of the cross of Christ go gaily in the dark.

About

What’s Wrong with the World is dedicated to the defense of what remains of Christendom, the civilization made by the men of the Cross of Christ. Athwart two hostile Powers we stand: the Jihad and Liberalism...read more

Who Needs Orwell...

...when you've got the AP? which "reports":

Next justice should have wide experience:

"Obama's search to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice David Souter should extend beyond the current roster of federal judges, senators from both political parties said Sunday.

"'I would like to see more people from outside the judicial monastery, somebody who has had some real-life experience, not just as a judge,' said Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee that will hold hearings when Obama makes his nomination.

"Noting that all nine justices came directly from the federal appeals court, senators on the committee said someone with a wider breadth of experience would be a plus..."

Well, ummm, yeah, so what's your point, Senator Leahy? What's this "wider breadth of experience" you're after? Might it possibly be...

...might it just possibly be...

...minority status?

Oh! Yes! It is!:

"I would like to see, certainly, more women on the court. Having only one woman on the Supreme Court does not reflect the makeup of the United States. I think we should have more women. We should have more minorities," Leahy said.

And (can it be? is it possible?) Arlen Specter (I mean, he used to be a "Republican" - right?) agrees:

"'I would like to see somebody with broader experience,' Specter said. 'We have a very diverse country. We need more people to express a woman's point of view or a minority point of view, Hispanic or African American ... somebody who's done something more than wear a black robe for most of their lives.'" [sic]

So there you have it. "Wide Experience" = being non-white &/or non-male. (Ideally, of course, both at the same time).

Not that we all didn't already know that.

* * * * *

You know, it's funny, in a way. I used to think that this sort of stuff was so obviously silly that it just couldn't last long.

But now I know that it will outlive me.

It concentrates the mind, wonderfully.

Comments (20)

Specter's quote doesn't even make sense. How in the world does being a white male judge indicate that you have done nothing more than wear a black robe all of your life while being a female judge or a non-white judge indicates that you have a great deal more experience in areas outside of your judicial career?

I guess with that rationale we ought to look for someone with ZERO legal background. That way they can bring a fresh and diverse view based in complete judicial ignorance. That would certainly stir things up a bit and may fairly represent a portion of our society.

We need more people to express a woman's point of view or a minority point of view, Hispanic or African American ...

I am not a citizen of your country, or a jurist in any capacity, but is it not the case that your Supreme Court Justices are meant to express your Constitution's point of view? That is, to interpret novel information and circumstance in light of your country's founding document, thereby determining what the constitutional response to said information and circumstance is to be?

If this is indeed the case, of what possible value could "a woman's point of view or a minority point of view" or any "point of view" of this sort actually be? In what sense would such an approach do anything but obstruct the actual function of the Supreme Court?

And if that is the case, how are these apparently experienced and well-regarded legislators able to get away with saying such ridiculous things?

The answer to these questions is probably "yeah, that's precisely why those comments are stupid," but I figured it's best to ask anyway given my distance from the affair.

I guess with that rationale we ought to look for someone with ZERO legal background.

Or even better yet, someone with no intellectual background of any kind at all. Since the majority of Americans have no real academic background, and since we want to make sure that America is fairly represented in it's broad spectrum, perhaps the president should nominate a local union rep, a city bus driver, or a community organizer. Such a person, having no paper trail of any kind, should pass confirmation rather easily.

I may be remembering incorrectly, but wasn't everyone wringing their hands when Bush put forward one of his aides (Harriet Miers), who had no judicial experience whatsoever? And wasn't the reason ostensibly that they were uncomfortable with the idea of someone who had never been a judge before?

Also, what is that smell? I'm getting old and I smoke...it's getting hard to tell the difference between bacon and hypocrisy.

Why don't they just cut to the chase and throw Barney Frank up there and have done?

That's where this train is heading. And if anybody were to vote against him, well it would be clear, clear, QED, that whoever did so lacked "empathy."

And God knows, what could be worse than lacking "empathy." Of course "empathy" should now be understood as being mentally sloppy.

But there you have it.

There was a time when the United States Supreme Court was the jewel within all of Anglo-American jurisprudence.

But now?

Now we've got dingbats like Ginsburg, and saw the disgrace of Sandra Day O'Connor sticking her finger into the wind, trying to gauge how the winds blew from the establishment. Then having the affrontery to try to shill her behavior as judicial.

Whatever.

We're on the fast track to Weimar.

I can see it now: Supreme Court opinions in rap format.

"Specter's quote doesn't even make sense."

That's not a bug, that's a feature. Politics is more like drama than philosophy. The inner conflicts of characters, including their conflicted reasoning, advance the action.

The nominee must not have more experience than the president. That must be a standard. And the nominee must have a law-clerk equivalent of the teleprompter. This law-clerk must tell the nominee how to rule and the social policy to enact. This law-clerk must report to whomever authors the teleprompter material. That t.p. author will also write and pass-along to NPR/NYTime's reporters the facts on the court's rulings, which will be published accordingly, else their reputation ruined.

You know, with the increasing unemployment rate, we really need someone to represent all the unemployed people out there. It would be best to have someone who has never held a job in their life, because obviously they best know the experience of being unemployed.

Also, it would reduce the unemployment rate. Win-win-win!

Lesbian hispanic judges are about to be in very high demand.

What I find funny is how these guys are talking about training and relevant work experience as if it were a bad thing.

Imagine the same dynamic at work in other professions, like, say, the medical field:

"Well, Dr. Anthony, your training and knowledge are impeccable, your success rate exemplary, and you have excellent reviews from your patients. But, that's not really what we're looking for to fill our Head Of Neurosurgery position. We'd like someone with broader experience that they could bring to the job, to inform their decisions. Like, say, a Hispanic bus driver."

But when it comes to interpreting Constitutional law, and making major legal decisions that will affect every single American, we don't want somebody from the "judicial monastery" who has demonstrated qualifications and know what they're doing. Being a good federal judge is apparently a task similar to choosing your favorite color. What we need is a person with broad "life experiences" who can feel their way to an empathetic decision.

Exactly, Deuce. And interestingly, those are _obviously_ the sorts of things the advise and consent provision of the constitution is asking the Senate to bring into play. And equally obviously, if Bush had appointed somebody formally unqualified and tried to say that this was for purposes of "wider experience," the Left would have howled with outrage about the unqualified candidate.

In any event, we're clearly looking here at a trial balloon for Obama's appointing somebody totally unqualified, even in the bare formal sense, who meets some PC goal. I wonder who it is. Shakur Tupac? (sp?)

Don't trust lesbian hispanic jurists who try to sell you a taco.

Would somebody kindly excise the seemingly lewd remarks the above interlocutor seems bent on explicitly expressing across various threads?

I'm not against Jack Frost expressing his own opinions on the threads; so long as it doesn't detract from the gravity of the topics discussed and descend into utter obscenity.

Shakur Tupac? (sp?)

Tupac Shakur. Right spelling, wrong order. And he's deceased, GRHS. When Chesterton spoke of the "democracy of the dead" I don't think that's what he had in mind.

"What I find funny is how these guys are talking about training and relevant work experience as if it were a bad thing."

It reminds me of "Christian" filmmaking and music where piety is apparently considered a substitute for competence.

Some pieties are more equal than others...

I kinda like how Nick, an admitted foreigner to the U.S is better informed about what ought to be the foremost goal/aim of the judge. The people are blind I say. By this time, many of the earlier home schooled kids like my oldest daughter [27] are getting into their lives and professions in earnest. My hope is that they'll be the guiding light in their generation and bring wisdom to counter the anti-wisdom prevalent today that prompts Steve to say:

"You know, it's funny, in a way. I used to think that this sort of stuff was so obviously silly that it just couldn't last long.

But now I know that it will outlive me."

Exactly, Mr Milne.

In any event, we're clearly looking here at a trial balloon for Obama's appointing somebody totally unqualified, even in the bare formal sense, who meets some PC goal. I wonder who it is. Shakur Tupac? (sp?)

Are you intending to imply that all black judicial nominees will be as ill-qualified as Tupac Shakur?

No, Phil. Obviously not. For example, I wouldn't insult Justice Thomas (appointed by a Republican against many Democratic protests) with any such implication. I'm talking about all the talk like this: "Hey, what do we want? We want something different. We don't want somebody who's been a _judge_ all his life. We want somebody with _different_ experience. And oh, by the way, it has to be a minority." If that isn't a trial balloon for appointing somebody formally unqualified, minority, and radical, I don't know what is. They want to break the paradigms, you know. Someone like Thomas is an _oreo_. We have to have something totally different, somebody who really _represents_ Black America.

Hence, my semi-joking reference to a rap artist.

Post a comment


Bold Italic Underline Quote

Note: In order to limit duplicate comments, please submit a comment only once. A comment may take a few minutes to appear beneath the article.

Although this site does not actively hold comments for moderation, some comments are automatically held by the blog system. For best results, limit the number of links (including links in your signature line to your own website) to under 3 per comment as all comments with a large number of links will be automatically held. If your comment is held for any reason, please be patient and an author or administrator will approve it. Do not resubmit the same comment as subsequent submissions of the same comment will be held as well.