RALEIGH — With the nomination of Samuel Alito some liberals are
bemoaning the choice of another “white male” by President Bush for
the Supreme Court, but in doing so they’ve revealed their own
ideological and racial biases.
Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid criticized the pick because he
said adding Alito “would leave the Supreme Court looking less like
America and more like an old boys’ club.” He also griped because
the president “for the third time…has declined to make history by
nominating the first Hispanic to the court.”
Nelson Castillo, president of the Hispanic National Bar
Association, said, “In this land of immigrants, it is crucial that
America’s highest court reflect the rich diversity of its
citizens.”
And Washington Post columnist Ruth Marcus said the
court as presently constituted — with only one female, one
African-American, and no Hispanic — wasn’t much better than an
all-white, all-male Supreme Court.
Like the aforementioned few, most who complained about Alito for
diversity reasons were bothered that the president declined to
nominate a Latino, and to a lesser degree a woman. However, some
Hispanics like the choice of Alito.
“He has a reputation as a brilliant jurist from the many
opinions issued in his 15 years as a United States Circuit Judge,”
said Florida Sen. Mel Martinez, a Republican.
“His brilliance and judicial temperament are complemented by a
depth and breadth of experience unparalleled in recent history,”
said Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart, R-Miami, to the South Florida
Sun Sentinel. So who do we believe?
And in contrast to Ms. Marcus, women like Republican Sens.
Elizabeth Dole of North Carolina and Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas
also approved of the Alito choice. Undoubtedly many more American
women agree.
But even if we grant that the diversity advocates’ concerns are
legitimate, can they really complain that Alito’s background
doesn’t fit their vision? For example, what if the president
did choose one of the two most-often mentioned Latino
prospects for the Court: Attorney General Alberto Gonzales or Fifth
Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Emilio Garza. Is their ancestry
significantly different from Alito’s?
Both men are Mexican-Americans, but were born in…San Antonio,
Texas. Meanwhile two of those dreaded “white males” for the Court
— Alito and current Justice Antonin Scalia — are
Italian-Americans born in Trenton, N.J., but whose fathers
emigrated from their home country. So is the diversity issue about
when your preceding kin reached the U.S., or about which direction
they came from? And which of those four is more qualified than the
others to represent an ethnically diverse perspective?
The answer is none of them, because the diversifiers’ argument
is a facade for the real complaint that they have, which is
ideology. The proof is in recent news events.
One example is the filibuster threat earlier this year that
Democrats held over two Bush nominees for the appeals courts:
Janice Rogers Brown, who is black, and Priscilla Owen (who is not).
Despite offering the potential to advance diversity, the president
was so browbeaten by Democrats about the two women that he ignored
them for the Supreme Court. That proved that the diversifiers’ top
priority isn’t race or gender.
But it would have been a fascinating test if Brown had
been the nominee, especially after a Milwaukee
Journal-Sentinel editorial this week, which said Justice
Clarence Thomas “deserves an asterisk because he arguably does not
represent the views of mainstream black America.” Would Brown have
faced similar barbs?
Lest you think that is an aberration, consider the nasty attacks
by black Democrats in Maryland against Lt. Gov. Michael Steele,
also black and running for U.S. Senate as a Republican. He has been
pelted with Oreo cookies and called an “Uncle Tom” at campaign
appearances. A liberal website depicted Steele as a black-faced
minstrel with a headline that said, “Simple Sambo wants to move to
the big house,” according to a Washington Times report.
“Party trumps race, especially on the national level,” said
state Sen. Lisa Gladden, a black Baltimore Democrat who justified
the malice towards Steele.
After this behavior, conservatives can all have a good chuckle
next time someone like Reid or Gladden cries “white guy” and blames
“the radical right wing of the Republican Party” over a nominee
they don’t like. Diversity means nothing to them if it isn’t
accompanied by liberal ideology.
The president shouldn’t have bothered to try satisfying them in
the first place. They are beyond gratification.
