An ideological quota on the Court?

A reader writes:

The criticism of George W. Bush for nominating John Roberts to the Supreme Court is appropriate. Roberts is a poor choice, because he will likely maintain, not change, the diversity of the Court.

The real bow was to “ideological diversity”—i.e., the idea that standards should be different depending on which judge is retiring. The Democrats (and some RINOs like Arlen Specter) were threatening a filibuster if George Bush did not “pick a mainstream conservative to replace a swing vote” like O’Connor. The implication is that a sure fire Constitutionalist like Edith Jones would have been acceptable replacement for William Rehnquist (and I still believe she will get that nomination), but not for O’Connor. This is the most invidious form of diversity—the idea that the Court should have only three judges that respect the Constitution, effectively a pre-set quota for ideology.

How sad. We now have institutions (like higher education) that exalt physical diversity where ideological diversity is needed, and an institution that worships ideological diversity precisely where it is not needed. A further irony is that when George Bush nominates Edith Jones to replace William Rehnquist, because she is the best candidtae for the job, he will be accused of trying to pander to diversity. But that is what he gets for choosing to avoid the fight this time around.

This strikes me as a new and disturbing insight. Of course, everyone’s noticed that the libs push for a “moderate” to replace Sandra D, but the idea that there is actually an “ideological diversity” quota at work is a new one.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at July 22, 2005 05:23 PM | Send