A Discussion About Diversity and The Supreme Court, or, Pot Calls Kettle White

On Cspan over the weekend, I happened to catch a women's rights groups panel discussion Justice For Women - Changes in the Supreme Court, on the impending Supreme Court nominations, John Roberts and a "Justice to be named later". And to think I used to watch college football.

No free transcript available, but there is a link below to a page where you can purchase the video for $ 60. (If you act now, you get a melonballer thrown in for free).

But put your checkbook away, I'll give you the lowdown right here for half that price. (Email me for the address to send your check to.)

Interesting takeaway - while the panel officially opposed his nomination, there seemed to be a consensus that John Roberts was the "best possible outcome" of the recent vacancy, and that his approval was a fait accompli. Roberts was acknowledged as very intelligent, and even a "moderate" conservative. The discussion, and the concern, focused on the next nomination, with the fear that President Bush would put up a "Scalia type".

None of this is groundbreaking news, but it seems that the Roberts nomination may have taken a little of the anger out of the rhetoric from the left.

(But just a little. There is still a fair amount of anger manifesting itself as unhinged nuttiness. During the audience Q&A to the panel, one woman commented:

"I hope I'm not the only conspiratorial-minded one here, but I think the bastards did Renquist in while the country is focused on the Hurricane".

Yikes.

To her credit, panelist Eleanor Smeal could be seen shaking her head during this comment, but no one on the panel addressed or dismissed it - it was just ignored, and the woman's real question was then answered. I was too dumbfounded by the comment to remember her question.

Sigh.)

Anyway, back to the panel.

Much time was spent pointing to the "lack of diversity" on the current court.

"America does not look like the court", in that the SC is dominated by (late) middle aged white men. Nominating a woman, preferably a minority woman, would help rectify this imbalance.

Fair enough. This is what Democracy is about - groups and constituencies trying to push their particular agenda, in this case, the "protection of women's rights". No different than trial lawyers or doctors or unions wanting to keep an eye on the nominees.

But wait...

IRONY ALERT! (I'm too nice to call it a HYPOCRISY ALERT!)

As I watched and listened to this discussion, I found it interesting that the panel - possibly three of most influential feminists in the country, calling for greater diversity on the Supreme Court - were, all of them, white and (late) middle aged.

Here they are. A fine looking group, but a little pale, no?

This got me thinking, so I looked into the people "behind the scenes". One of one of the organizations represented on the panel was the ubiquitous People for the American Way.

Ralph Neas and Norman Lear, (yes, that Norman Lear), are both pictured on the main web page for the group. Hmm. Well, I guess there is a little more diversity here. One is a middle aged white man, and the other is a late middle aged white man.

Here, courtesy of Google Images, are pictures of the rest of the staff.

Margery F. Baker, Chief of Staff
Carol Blum, Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer
Nick Ucci, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
Elliot Mincberg Senior Vice President, General Counsel and Legal Director
Mary Jean Collins, Senior Vice President/National Political Director
Andrew McGuire, Vice President for Institutional Development
Jeffrey Berman, Western Regional Director

About as diverse as an Upper West Side High School debate team. Whiter than the front row of a Neil Sedaka concert.

Pot, meet kettle. Gander, meet goose.

Now wouldn't a little diversity be in order here?

Shouldn't the staff of an organization demanding a more diverse Supreme Court be more diverse than the Court itself?

Maybe I'll put a panel together to discuss and debate.

Or better yet, we could all just start to look past surface differences and judge people exclusively "by the content of their character".


(But wait, is there an exception to the diversity rule?)