Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Toobin: Diversity Considerations "nearly as old as the Court itself"
I probably know less about Sonia Sotomayor's judicial record than even the Senate Majority Leader, but I found this Jeffrey Toobin observation about cultural tokenism on the Supreme Court to be an interesting bit of historical context:
In the early days of the republic, when regional disputes were the foremost conflict of the era, nominees were generally defined by their home turfs. So Presidents came to honor an informal tradition of preserving a New England seat, a Virginia seat, a Pennsylvania seat, and a New York seat on the Court. In the nineteenth century, as a torrent of European immigrants transformed American society, religious differences took on a new significance, and Presidents used Supreme Court appointments to recognize the new arrivals’ growing power. In 1836, Andrew Jackson made Roger B. Taney the first occupant of what became known as the Catholic seat on the Court, and that tradition carried forward intermittently for more than a century, with Edward White, Joseph McKenna, Pierce Butler, Frank Murphy, and William J. Brennan, Jr., occupying the chair. In 1916, Woodrow Wilson nominated Louis D. Brandeis, establishing the Jewish seat, which later went, with brief overlapping periods, to Benjamin N. Cardozo, Felix Frankfurter, and Abe Fortas.
Damon Root on Sotomayor here.
dhex|6.4.09 @ 9:32AM|#
it was an interesting piece.
we also got to find out that the score is 6-3 in favor of the
papist conspiracy. :)
The Magic Latina|6.4.09 @ 9:38AM|#
"Toobin: Diversity Considerations "nearly as old as the Court
itself""
Toobin: The Right Skin and Genitalia Considerations "nearly as old
as the Court itself"
FTFY
Some Guy|6.4.09 @ 9:42AM|#
But as long as we're going to play that game, was she really the best female Hispanic they could find? If you're going to rule out 85% of the population off the top, you better pick the very best of what's left over.
|6.4.09 @ 9:44AM|#
The Right Skin and Genitalia Considerations "nearly as old
as the Court itself"
That wasn't what the article said at all. But you knew that.
Matt Welch|6.4.09 @ 9:55AM|#
John-David -- Fixed, thanks, and sorry. Though you do have to admit that the panther story was pretty cool.
Fascitis Necrotizante|6.4.09 @ 9:58AM|#
Dammit, can you re-link the panther story? I'd actually click through for that.
MNG|6.4.09 @ 10:05AM|#
Will they go ahead and put this fucking woman up for
confirmation so people will stop talking about it?
It's funny I think that if the right were not attacking her so much
maybe more liberals would realize that she's certainly nothing to
get enthusiastic about. Obama could have picked a liberal Scalia
but instead went with a liberal O'Connor...
The Magic Latina|6.4.09 @ 10:17AM|#
"That wasn't what the article said at all. But you knew
that.
Bullshit. The article is saying that identity politics has
historically played a role, so skin and pussy is the just next
logical step.
The Magic Latina|6.4.09 @ 10:19AM|#
"It's funny I think that if the right were not attacking her so
much maybe more liberals would realize that she's certainly nothing
to get enthusiastic about."
No. That's a strawman beaten 24/7 by the likes of Ed Schultz on
MSNBC. No one has attacted her in several days. Gingrich even
formally apoplogized for calling her now famous quote proof that
she's a racist.
|6.4.09 @ 10:21AM|#
MNG,
How come no one on the left is complaining that she was originally
a Bush 41 appointee? I would think the left has a lot more to lose
with this appointment than the right does. crocadile tears,
methinks...
MNG|6.4.09 @ 10:22AM|#
"No one has attacted her in several days."
Holy shit is that stupid. If they ever need a retard on the bench
they could look to you.
If you can figure out how to work your computer go to any major
conservative website (NRO, Weekly Standard, etc.) and see how
"noone has attacted [sic] her in several days."
Retard.
MNG|6.4.09 @ 10:24AM|#
domo
The left is praising her for the same reason it did Clinton when
the right hated him so much. It's stupid for sure. It's the "enemy
of my enemy is my friend" thing I guess.
What I would say to liberals is: what do you like about her? What
about her judicial philosophy as revealed in her rulings do you
like?
The Magic Latina|6.4.09 @ 10:27AM|#
"If you can figure out how to work your computer go to any major
conservative website (NRO, Weekly Standard, etc.) and see how
"noone [sic] has attacted [sic] her in several days.""
Discussion and opinions on websites are not "attacks".
The Magic Latina|6.4.09 @ 10:32AM|#
"What I would say to liberals is: what do you like about her?
What about her judicial philosophy as revealed in her rulings do
you like?"
You might as well ask a sack of bolts. They have no idea
either.
MNG|6.4.09 @ 10:32AM|#
Latina, with that last comment you are officially crowned King of Retards. Hail your Majesty! Now go play with something shiny and let the people with mental ages over 9 have a conversation.
Hambone|6.4.09 @ 10:39AM|#
"Yes I am. And you, my friend, are not.
In other news, the sky is blue!"
You might consider halving your asshole meds.
I'm inclined to agree that a good deal of the MSM is manufacturing
outrage over any scrap they can find. They have to. It's what they
do.
|6.4.09 @ 10:52AM|#
You might consider halving your asshole meds.
wouldn't asshole meds prevent one being an asshole? wouldn't
doubling them be more what you meant? discuss.
Hambone|6.4.09 @ 10:59AM|#
"Don't tease the retards. They are deceptively strong."
Retards plural? Better a retard than a misanthrope.
MNG|6.4.09 @ 11:00AM|#
Hambone
You obviously missed the gist of the 10:44 post, but retards often
are like that.
Tim Cavanaugh|6.4.09 @ 11:01AM|#
dhex, that was the most stunning takeaway for me. Is American
now 67% Catholic or something? For over-representation in
high-attainment fields relative to population figures, Catholics
are doing almost as well as Jews these days. I may have to go back
to church and get in on the conspiracy.
The other interesting thing about the article (sorry to bust your
balloon, Magic Latina) was the stuff about regional diversity.
Unfortunately Toobin treats regional diversity's fading as an
evolutionary process rather than questioning why it's any less
important now than it was in the early 19th century. Looking at my
red state/blue state maps, I could make a pretty good case that
there still is a lot of diversity of opinion sorted by region in
these here United States. Why shouldn't the court reflect that?
|6.4.09 @ 11:16AM|#
Catholics are also good at engaging in promiscuous behavior that belies the Church values concerning matrimony and sanctity of life. A Catholic upbringing can make one capable of extraordinary feats of cognitive dissonance. Certainly a good attribute for the Surpreme Court.
dhex|6.4.09 @ 11:39AM|#
For over-representation in high-attainment fields relative
to population figures, Catholics are doing almost as well as Jews
these days.
and that is why we've missed you so, mr. cavanaugh.
i thought it was interesting that there used to be a "catholic
seat" just like there was a jewish seat, like our current "woman's
seat" and "black guy seat" situations.
but the regional diversity issue is even more interesting; perhaps
part of the reason it's being treated as a vestigial tail is
because regional differences aren't nearly that important on the
SCOTUS level? the whole thing is usually "racial angle, racial
angle, ABORTION ABORTION ABORTION" but very little about whether a
nominee is a yankee or a hillbilly or a latte-sipping city
slicker.
phalkor|6.4.09 @ 11:43AM|#
region isn't defining anymore. it is clearly possible to be
latte-sipping yankee hillbilly.
i've seen it.
Yosemite Sam|6.4.09 @ 11:54AM|#
MNG | June 4, 2009, 10:05am | #
Will they go ahead and put this fucking woman up for confirmation
so people will stop talking about it?
Shut up shuttin' up.
|6.4.09 @ 12:07PM|#
The glaring omission is the libertarian seat.
Who is in the middle aged male WASP seat?
|6.4.09 @ 12:24PM|#
In the early days of the republic, when regional disputes
were the foremost conflict of the era, nominees were generally
defined by their home turfs.
Am I the only who thinks that there is a fundamental difference
between geographic diversity quotas and racial/ethnic diversity
quotas?
Congress, after all, is filled by geographic region; there are X
reps from State A, Y reps from State B, etc. To me, this is
completely and utterly distinct from saying Congress will have X
reps will be white males, Y reps will be wise Latinas, etc.
Once you get into the religious quota seats, you have an argument.
But geographic "diversity" is just pressing the point too far.
|6.4.09 @ 12:30PM|#
I'm just waiting for the libertarian, skeptic, left-handed,
brown eyed atheist with a congenital heart defect seat to open up.
I know it will happen any day now, because eventually every seat
will apply to one and only one person in the entire country. Then
after breezing through confirmation hearings, every 4th amendment
case will be clothing optional under those hip robes, and mine will
be a plush black terry-cloth.
Benjamin
Edit: Sorry terry-cloth of color.
|6.4.09 @ 1:33PM|#
Our Lord and Savior who Gives Us Hope and Change, is
left-handed. Wait a second are you calling him a gorilla? Why not
just call him a monkey you racist America hater? Of course now that
you have revealed your self as a minority, you too can have a spot
on the Supreme Court.
Benjamin
|6.4.09 @ 1:35PM|#
A gorilla I have no problem with. It's left-handed mutant freaks that give me the creeps.
|6.4.09 @ 1:40PM|#
PL, you're just a closet left-hander. You probably sneak into
airport bathroom stalls just to get some privacy to use your
special left-handed scissors. Just come out of the stall PL!
Benjamin
|6.4.09 @ 1:42PM|#
You freaks don't even live as long as we with the right handedness. Which shows that God himself hates you.
|6.4.09 @ 1:45PM|#
Just so long as the Flying Spaghetti Monster loves me, I'm A-OK with that. I've course being born with a congenital heart defect did kind of tip me off to that biblical epiphany.
|6.4.09 @ 1:55PM|#
Now I'm contrite. You may live, but the rest of the left-handed fiends must leave the Earth.
Mad Max|6.4.09 @ 4:57PM|#
I'll skip over the stimulating discussion of Catholicism and
discuss the 'regional seats.'
In the old days, Supreme Court justices had to spend a lot of time
serving as trial judges. Each Justice was assigned trial duty in a
judicial district which included their home state.
There you have a fairly compelling reason for geographical
diversity. If all the justices were from (say) New Hampshire, they
might not be familiar with judicial procedures in such locales as
South Carolina and Iowa. Bear in mind that federal trial courts
then (as now) borrowed many of their laws and procedures from the
states in which they sat.
Nowadays, Supreme Court justices don't 'ride circuit' (serve as
trial judges), but spend their time mainly in Washington, D.C.
hearing appeals on issues of federal law, where a knowledge of
particular local procedure is not essential.
You can have an all-New York bench, and the lack of regional
diversity would not in itself be a problem (except of course for
the fact that Yankees suck).
MJ|6.5.09 @ 7:27AM|#
"Am I the only who thinks that there is a fundamental difference
between geographic diversity quotas and racial/ethnic diversity
quotas?"
Especially since, originally, SCOTUS duties were part time for the
justices, they also rode their circuit courts which had definite
geographical boundaries.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245