Left is mute on racial double standard in Kagan pick

[boston bean]

If a white Republican president of the United States appointed a white male as his next Supreme Court justice, and upon the inspection of his record, it was discovered that of the 29 full-time tenured or tenured track faculty he hired as dean of Harvard Law, nearly all of them were white men, this would dominate the headlines.

It would be reasonable to conclude that the special interest groups that vigorously fight for diversity -- civil rights organizations, feminist groups and other liberal institutions -- would be up in arms, declaring that this person's records showed him unwilling to diversify academia, and unqualified to consider diverse views as one of nine members of the U.S. Supreme Court. There would be widespread condemnations of Republicans having no concern for the nonwhite males in America.

But what if the choice were made by a black Democratic president, and it was a woman? A white woman? A white Democratic woman?

Some of you may not like the fact that I am focusing on the race of the individual, but when diversity is raised, the person's skin color, gender and background are considered germane to the discussion. And if there is silence from black and female organizations, their race and gender matter as well.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/05/10/Martin.kagan.Supreme.court/index.html

[mucifer]

1. It bothers me that she hired almost all white people. But, I don't believe it would be

an issue during alieto's or robert's confirmation hearings. No one would think about a radical right winger not hiring diverse workers. That's just my opinion.

[boston bean]

3. Roland Martin lays it on the line here:

"The real issue will be reaction from the left. It is shameful and disgusting when civil rights organizations, feminist groups and others lose their conviction and sense of purpose when a Democrat gets in the White House. They need to decide what matters: their principles or their politics; their mission or their liberal money; their convictions or chicken dinners in the White House."

[KharmaTrain]

2. For People Who Say It's Not About Race Or Sex...

They sure make a point about pointing it out. I don't see how her selecting predominately men makes her some kind of sexist beast. Did she tell women they weren't qualified or demoted any to make way for the men? And how would this pertain to the SCOTUS? Are we to assume she'll descriminate against women or minorities?

Oh well...get ready for another fun SCOUTS nomination process. With such scrutiny...much of it taken out of context for partisan purposes...who'd ever want to go this this process???

[EFerrari]

4. Amy reported this and the advice to Clinton on late term abortions

this morning.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

5. She seems like just one more DLC "pragmatist". nt

[zipplewrath]

6. DLC/Triangulation

I know I'm overly sensitive to this, but the initial look appears to be that triangulation is making its way onto the Supreme Court.

[EFerrari]

7. I don't think I understand your post, Phoebe.

Amy is not a Democrat, to my knowledge.

[Better Today]

8. On this ONE issue, I tend to see a silver lining.

Yes, it is bad that she wasn't a more diverse employer. However, since the USSC is made up of mostly white men,I'm thinking that her experience ruling over the same may be a good thing.

That said, I'm not impressed with her as the pick.