Of Course, I'm Disappointed

The phone didn't ring all weekend. President Bush did not call, and he has not nominated me to be the next Justice on the Supreme Court, replacing the retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. This is a bitter blow. I may need to take a moment here.

...

OK, I'm back. I'm fine. Really.

I want to talk about something I saw on TV this morning. Some news show, I can't recall which one, was interviewing some White House flak about President Bush's nomination, Judge John Roberts Jr. The reporter asked the flak if President Bush shouldn't have considered nominating a woman or a minority (which many pundits had suggested he might do) so that the nominee would go towards building a Supreme Court that "looks like America."

I'm a little unclear on this "looks like America" stuff. I mean, I recall when former President Clinton famously vowed to create a cabinet that looked like America.

I presumed that this was election-year hyperbole. Sure, I understood, as most Americans probably did, that he was saying he would go out of his way to try to make sure that people of color and women would be equally represented in his cabinet - and bully for him, being fair is good and I'm in favor of it in general.

To be honest, I also thought that President Clinton meant that his cabinet appointments would embody the ideals of the American citizen - honest, decent, hard-working, a believer in fair play, and one who cared about his or her Creator, family, nation, and neighbors - in more or less that order. That would truly be a cabinet that 'looked like America', don't you think?

I did NOT think that President Clinton meant he would staff his cabinet with people of color and women in order to suit some supposed ratio, so that there would the appearance that his cabinet looked like a cross-section of America only seen in census data. What would be the point of that? Whom would it serve? Not the American public, surely. Not the President. He would want to staff his cabinet with the best minds he could find that agreed more or less with his policies, ideology, and goals (fair enough that a president should want to do that, despite any disagreement I might have).

So, years go by and President Clinton is gone, and I truly don't recall if his cabinet looked like America in terms of ratio or in terms of 'American Ideals'. I'll leave that be, since I don't feel like looking it up right now.

But here comes the question again. And it sounds like the old statement that President Clinton made, doesn't it? But I think it presents a more sinister idea, and worse, it presents it under the rubric of fairness, which all decent Americans believe in.

Do we Americans want a Supreme Court that "looks like America?"

Does that mean that some should be smokers and some not? Some wife beaters and some not? Some high-school dropouts and some not? Adulterers, anyone (nevermind, they run for the Senate)? Some have been sent to prison and some not? Do we determine the ratios of those things and then appoint new Justices to keep the ratios correct and in synch with what Americans are by percentage points?

I doubt that the reporter meant that. No. Funny, but no.

Did the reporter mean to ask why the President didn't nominate the person he felt was best for the job - regardless of race, gender, or any other qualifications than those of discerning mind and temperament (and yes, agreement with what the President believes to be true)?

Well, I think we can answer that question also - no. If the reporter felt that was the real question, then there was no need to ask it - the President made his nomination, and I must presume that he applied a great deal of thought to the issue and made the choice he felt was the correct one. If anything, I could respect a President who didn't bow to great political pressure to do something he fundamentally disagreed with.

I think the question, then, is obvious. The question was NOT why the President didn't nominate someone who "looks like America." The question was, why didn't the President nominate a person of color or a female?

The answer would be - the person he felt was most highly qualified for the job did not happen to be either of these. That's how things go sometimes.

Yes, people can be influenced by prejudice and racism and sexism - and use rationalizations to avoid choosing to advance those minorities and women most suited for promotion or recognition because of those tendencies. I would say that President Bush, for all his faults, has not come across like a racist or a sexist. He has had his chance, surely. He kept Colin Powell, and Condy Rice - I suspect because he felt they were best for the jobs he wanted them for, not because they made his cabinet one that "looks like America." So now, he chooses a white male for the job of Supreme Court Justice and he's suddenly a racist or a sexist?

Well, no, frankly. I think it is clear that the reporter didn't mean that, either. It would not do to just nominate a woman or a minority to the position - it would also have to be one that would not vote in a conservative manner - and possibly overturn important decisions like Row v Wade, and end legal abortion in this country. THAT'S what the reporter meant - why didn't the President nominate someone who would swing strongly to the Left?

Um, because he doesn't want that to happen? That would be my guess.

But the reporter (and the political hacks, flaks, and shills who will follow and grab onto this catch-phrase like it means something) can't simply say that they're upset that the President didn't nominate a liberal to the Supreme Court. So it is back to the saw about a nomination that makes the Supreme Court that "looks like America."

So.

Do we want - what do LIBERALS want - a Supreme Court that has all the trappings of equality - but one in which that equality is only as far as your eyes can take note of? That sex and skin color are the prerequisites, rather than ability? Is this what we want? Are we officially saying that we prefer the appearance of equality over the genuine article?

Well? I'm waiting.

DO WE WANT A SUPREME COURT THAT USES QUOTAS TO APPEAR TO PROMOTE EQUALITY, AND TO HELL WITH REALITY?

Yes, I typed that in all caps - I'm shouting. I like to shout.

Is it more important to APPEAR to be right - instead of actually BEING RIGHT?

Well, perhaps I am missing the point here. Let me think.

OK, I have to admit it - I do want a Supreme Court that "looks like America."

In my America, people are judged, as Martin Luther King said best, "Not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character." This would be the America that I would want my Supreme Court to represent. The best that Americans can be - when we try really hard - when we put away our childish hatreds and greed and stop coveting for a moment. That would be lovely - a Supreme Court that believed in fair play, honesty, decency towards their fellow human beings. That, my friends, would be a Supreme Court that "looks like America."

The best part of America.

Now that that is settled, let's talk about a Supreme Court that smells like America. Personally, I don't mind the Pacific Northwest, but I really would prefer not to have a Supreme Court that smelled like, say, Newark.

Just kind of a guideline for me.

Glad we got to talk about this!

Smooches,

Wiggy