Conservatives Complain About The Oppression Of White Men On The Bench.
Dave Weigel reports that the conservative Committee for Justice is complaining in the aftermath of the nomination of one Latino and one African American to the federal bench, that President Obama's judicial nominees aren't diverse enough because there aren't enough southern white men among them.
Does President Obama or his advisors believe that southern white men are likely to be bigoted, making them unfit to serve on the second most powerful court in the land? We hope not and readily concede that it is difficult to know if any such stereotype lurks in the White House. The absence of southern white male circuit nominees could, instead, be an innocent coincidence or the not-so-innocent byproduct of a judicial selection process dominated by racial and gender preferences.
But regardless of the reason for the pattern we noted in 2007 and again now, even the appearance that Democrats are biased against southern white men is a potential problem for the party generally, and for President Obama’s goal of transcending old racial divisions.
Just to put this in perspective, a whopping 18 percent of judges on the federal bench are people of color. But in the eyes of this conservative group, assigning more white men to the federal bench "transcends racial divisions," and that doing otherwise reflects a selection process "dominated by racial and gender preferences." Conservatives regularly try to cast affirmative action as racially discriminatory, but rarely does someone openly admit that their only issue with the process is simply who is being discriminated against.
There's something to be said for considering diversity of life and professional experience in picking judges, but some conservatives often don't seem too concerned about such things unless -- as in this case -- they're making the argument on behalf of white men.
-- A. Serwer
Feeds: 


COMMENTS (22)
Don't forget that new appointees should include a proportionate number of racist southern white men. Fourteenth amendment and all that.
Posted by: Ralph | November 6, 2009 11:00 AM
In the Republican's world view, only white males are really qualified for any non-menial job. Thus, only white males are qualified to be judges - and any nominees that are not white males are only being hired due to "quotas."
(Alternatively, it's the Karl Rove set-up of accusing your opponent of doing the same wron gful acts as the Rovian Candidate.)
Posted by: RepubAnon | November 6, 2009 11:08 AM
Not just the coloreds, there are way too many Jews, Yankees, and above all, Papists.
Keith Bardwell is available, Obama should appoint him to something.
Or maybe Morris Dees. They'd make a good team.
Posted by: John Emerson | November 6, 2009 11:09 AM
Not just any old white men. Southern white men.
They're ethnically purer.
Posted by: barry | November 6, 2009 11:09 AM
If I were Obama or someone on his staff, I'd respond to this by issuing a public apology for this terrible lapse in southern white man appointments. And then I'd invite the "Committee for Justice" to a public ceremony covered live by the press, promising to right this tragic error.
At which ceremony, I would present and nominate several openly gay and/or proudly liberal (or avowedly socialist, muslim, etc.) southern white men. Which of course, the Committe for Justice folks would be more than happy to support and endorse, on live TV, right?
(Of course, in reality neither Obama nor any of his staff have the balls to do something like this.)
Posted by: cereal | November 6, 2009 11:18 AM
As a Southern white man, I'm deeply offended to think anyone sane would fall for this crapola. We're not a socially or politically monolithic group, by the way, as Bill Clinton and Al Gore can attest.
Posted by: BrklynLibrul | November 6, 2009 11:26 AM
you're telling me that 82% of the bench is 8/8ths white?
after all, 1/8th is all it takes... for that sort of man to judge.
Posted by: mdh | November 6, 2009 11:38 AM
"but rarely does someone openly admit that their only issue with the process is simply who is being discriminated against."
That's not accurate. As you point out, those dumbasses are very open and have been about discrimination against whites, just as you, another race baiter, are perfectly happy to promote racism for blacks, latinos, women.
Perhaps you are just projecting your own hesitancy.
You will eagerly jump on any bandwagon that discriminates against any white male, but you are afraid to state that straight out.
Perhaps you are the one that's just a race baiting sneak.
Many people, we're out there, say no race based, gender based, discrimination, period. End of story.
Posted by: anon | November 6, 2009 11:50 AM
Why is it that Dave Weigel wrote at Reason for years and you never wrote of him once. Now he somehow claims to be "Washington Independent" at everyone links to him.
I wonder how much Weigel has changed. I wonder how much you judge books on their covers.
Odd.
Posted by: anon | November 6, 2009 11:52 AM
Anon would be a Supreme Court Justice by now, except for the discrimination. You can tell that by the sharp way he writes. That's such a terrible waste of acuity.
Posted by: Anon 2 | November 6, 2009 12:03 PM
I hear John Edwards is available. Surely the Committee for Justice would welcome the diversity demonstrated by appointing such a southern, white, male lawyer to the bench.
Posted by: Opie Curious | November 6, 2009 12:35 PM
even the appearance that Democrats are biased against southern white men is a potential problem for the party generally
...while the reality that Republicans are biased against non-whites and females is not a problem for the GOP. Indded, it's a feature, not a bug.
Ladies and gentlemen, your 21st-century Whigs.
Posted by: commie atheist | November 6, 2009 1:21 PM
This is what comes of not electing Strom Thurmond President in 1948. That's why we have so many problems today.
Posted by: Michael Berube | November 6, 2009 1:38 PM
Wow, the sense of entitlement that southern white men have is truly breathtaking. Plus, as a western white man, I must have missed the part where I personally ceded my "ethnic" representation to them.
Posted by: matt | November 6, 2009 1:41 PM
I agree with WND. Appoint William Jefferson Clinton to the Supreme Court. Get to it Barack!!! Prove that you are a uniter, by appointing a Southern White man to the Supreme Court. I dare you.
Posted by: horatius | November 6, 2009 3:11 PM
just let the assholes secede.
Posted by: elbrucce | November 6, 2009 3:23 PM
Once again Michael Berube nails it.
h/t Trent Lott
Posted by: mjshep | November 6, 2009 3:41 PM
Well, the mainstream corporate media tells us all the time that all the states north of the Mason-Dixon line and west of Texas (except Nebraska and Utah) don't really count as the "real America", so Obama'a choice of Yankees and colored people really is a serious problem. I say no judges except from rural Mississippi, South Carolina, Alabama, Arkansas, Tennessee, and Texas districts, for the next 3 1/2 years. That'll balance things out, don't you think?
Posted by: Katrina | November 7, 2009 1:06 AM
I read this on the DailyKos, with its usual slant on the subject. I find it ironic that the Markos would stoop to stereotyping White Southerners as racists. That's like me assuming he spends his off hours penis-gazing in the men's room because he's gay.
Posted by: Matt | November 7, 2009 6:12 AM
Ah, the warm happy place of bigots, "Oh Yeah! Calling me a bigot is bigotry!"
Is Cowards acceptable?
Cuz, we can call y'all that if like?
Posted by: owlbear1 | November 7, 2009 11:00 AM
Somebody doesn't remember Dixiecrats of the 40s and 50s. Southern White Men ran the lynchings and Jim Crow and white only restaurants and separated schools. Yes, I think we know exactly why they are not trusted. They had their chance and showed their hatred, bigotry and stupidity. No thank you. We will choose to move forward with the teabaggers.
Posted by: James Martin | November 9, 2009 8:40 PM
That is "without" the teabaggers or birthers or Glenn Becks or Rushs. Sorry.
Posted by: James Martin | November 9, 2009 8:42 PM