|
Reagan’s disastrous nomination of a woman to the Supreme Court
A female friend points out a sad irony. For political and symbolic reasons, President Reagan wanted his first nominee to the Supreme Court to be the first woman on the Supreme Court. So he picked Sandra Day O’Connor, who is, of course, no conservative but a mushy liberal centrist who has tilted the Court to the liberal side countless times—as she has in today’s decision that elevates racial proportionality into a constitutional principle. Reagan’s next two nominations after O’Connor were Scalia and Bork, both of them substantive and principled conservatives. This raises the interesting possibility that, though Reagan wanted to pick serious conservatives for the Court and did so when that was possible, nevertheless the pool of qualified female judges was too small to include any conservatives. So, by insisting on the “inclusive” gesture of nominating a woman, Reagan inadvertently helped push the Court, and America, decisively to the left. Posted by Lawrence Auster at June 23, 2003 05:57 PM | Send Comments
Our President issued a statement welcoming the decision. “Diversity is our strength,” he intoned in what is now a ritual chant. Posted by: David on June 23, 2003 6:38 PMThere is a good argument to be made that the federal courts shouldn’t be involved in the admissions policies in Mich. Of course, no one starts from that premise. Posted by: steve jackson on June 23, 2003 6:54 PMLinda Greenhouse in the NY Times: “With today’s ruling, Justice Powell’s solitary view that there is a ‘compelling state interest’ in racial diversity has now been endorsed by five justices and placed on a stronger footing than ever before. Previously, that position had appeared to have been undermined by the court’s subsequent equal-protection decisions in other contexts, and some lower federal courts had boldly repudiated it…. “The result today came as an enormous relief to civil rights groups, as well as to public and private colleges and universities around the country, dozens of which had joined briefs supporting Michigan. Although the constitutional issue applied directly only to public institutions, federal law has given private colleges an equal stake in the outcome by forbidding racial discrimination by educational institutions that receive federal money. “The White House issued a statement praising the court ‘for recognizing the value of diversity on our nation’s campuses.’ “‘Like the court, I look forward to the day when America will truly be a color-blind society,’ President Bush said.” Posted by: Lawrence Auster on June 23, 2003 6:59 PMThe primary fact, which few in the political class would be able to swallow, is that a real dismantling of a racial perference system would mean a dramatic reduction in minorities in coveted positions throughout society. Mainstream conservatives, to the extent that they think clearly enough, would still be appalled at such a development; and the administration certainly would be — therefore it weighed in, with a wink to O’Connor, on the side of Social Engineering. The collision of affirmative action and mass immigration is rarely remarked (excepting the invaluable Steve Sailer http://www.isteve.com/). The whole business made alot more sense when it undertook to recognize the unique history of blacks in America. With huge numbers of immigrants, with no grievance even comparable to blacks, partaking of the largess, the whole system will drag the country into ruin. Posted by: Paul Cella on June 23, 2003 7:38 PMIf it is permissible for the state to take race into consideration for the purposes of promoting diversity, then why is not permissible for the state to take race into consideration for the purposes of, say, protecting Americans against terrorism? The state has a “compelling interest” in promoting “diversity”, but has no compelling interest in stopping terrorism? Besides is there any evidence that diversity benefits a nation, and doesn’t tear it apart? Posted by: Edwin Weller on June 23, 2003 8:24 PMA very astute observation by your friend, Mr. Auster. O’Connor was one of the earlier cases of Republican pandering to a favorite leftist constituency. At least Reagan learned from his mistake (somewhat). I seriously doubt that Bush has a clue. He probably really believes that “diversity” should trump the 14th amendment. We’re still heading for that cliff, and it looks like W’s got the petal to the metal instead of observing the speed limit. Posted by: Carl on June 23, 2003 8:44 PM“If it is permissible for the state to take race into consideration for the purposes of promoting diversity, then why is not permissible for the state to take race into consideration for the purposes of, say, protecting Americans against terrorism?” — Edwin Weller Mr. Weller, apparently (see link below) the Bush Administration’s new racial profiling guidelines for federal agencies do exempt terrorism investigations from restrictions they otherwise place on racial profiling. That’s extremely hypocritical, of course — but it’s better than nothing. (As Steve Sailer implies in the article, we’ll feel less frustrated if we look at it as a glass half-full rather than half-empty. Either way, it’s a good bet this is the best we’ll get out of this administration on this issue.) http://www.vdare.com/sailer/bush_profiling.htm Unadorned, it may get even better. Sandra Day O’Connor may now retire and Mr. Bush will nominate a liberal Hispanic to succeed her. Posted by: David on June 23, 2003 9:51 PM |