Should race matter when choosing Supreme Court justices?

(Alan Dershowitz, Gatestone Institute, 28 January 2022)With the announced resignation from the Supreme Court of Stephen Breyer, Joe Biden announced he would be appointing a black woman to the post. But is this unconstitutional? One of the most prominent Democrat affiliated constitutional law experts explores this issue.

Actually the author is a bit out of favour with the Democratic mainstream, despite a lifetime affiliation to the party, for going off-script on a number of issues, as when he testified in opposition to the second Trump impeachment trial in 2020.

Now he is doing it again, rejecting the spurious attempt to distinguish between the prohibition of a candidate on racial grounds, and affirmatively preferring someone on that basis. The two are equivalent—restricting a choice to one category effectively excludes all others.

Apart from which, as Dershowitz argues, injecting race and gender as selection criteria is morally odious and retrograde. Among other things, it will undermine the credibility of the successful nominee, who will be seen as the best black woman candidate rather than the best on the merits.

Excerpts   Read the article   Discuss the article   View in graph

Supporters of President Biden's announcement will argue that there is a big difference between prohibiting a person from serving based on religion, race or gender, and affirmatively giving preference based on these criteria. That is sophistry. By limiting his choice to a Black woman, President Biden has disqualified every non-Black woman and man in America. There are a considerable number of highly qualified Black women, and I would applaud the nomination of any one of them. But that is not the issue. The issue is exclusion.

The Supreme Court has a long history of exclusion. For more than a century-and-a-quarter after the religious prohibition was incorporated into the Constitution, presidents excluded all Jewish candidates and most Catholic candidates. The Supreme Court was an institution reserved primarily for white Protestant males. That was wrong and unconstitutional. But two wrongs, even if one of them is a "good" wrong, do not make a constitutional right.

The Black woman who is eventually nominated for the job will suffer reputationally from the president's announcement. She will not be regarded as the most qualified person to be nominated, but only as the most qualified Black woman. That is insulting, even if not intended to be.

RELATED ARTICLESExplain
Readings
Should race matter when choosing Supreme Court justices?
Why Putin is beholden to Stalin's legacy
Russia's surprising military blunders in Ukraine
Why John Mearsheimer blames the U.S. for the crisis in Ukraine
A lesson in energy masochism
NATO members mount huge resupply operation
Regathering of the Russian lands
Vladimir Putin's clash of civilizations
Germany, in historic reversal, abandons pro-Putin Russia policy
The Russian spy boss humiliated by Putin
War propaganda becoming more militaristic, authoritarian and reckless
What's on Putin's mind?
NATO enlargement and Russia: Die-hard myths and real dilemmas
Can Russia actually control Ukraine?
China's Ukraine crisis
Do race academics matter?
How China captured Hollywood
Putin's spiritual destiny
Introducing Race Marxism
The West is sleepwalking into war in Ukraine
Are we closer to Bradbury's dystopia than Orwell's or Huxley's?
Stunning new evidence re Trump spying allegations
Would permanently excluding Ukraine from NATO have satisfied Russia?
How Russia hooked Europe on its oil and gas
Why "anti-racism" should be resisted
Free speech in the UK?
Taking the low road: China's influence in Aust states and territories
The neoliberal war on dissent in the West
Fusion power is coming
The Silencing: a special report on China and the Uyghurs
Is Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez an insider now?
A life that doesn't matter
America's asymmetric civil war
Anomalies in the Chinese Covid data
Australia's surprising Covid excess death count
Biden's budget priorities and the China threat
Big help with a little badmouth
Cancelled New York Times journalist's anti-woke manifesto
China: Friend or Foe? Oxford Union debate
China's sway over Australian universities
Covid and Big Pharma: The debate about cheap generic drugs
CRT in schools— Virginia puts NSW to shame
Data scientist fired from Reuters for questioning BLM
Does the CCP control Extinction Rebellion?
Facebook versus the BMJ: when fact checking goes wrong
Gallant little Lithuania
How Britain became Putin's playground
How feminism ate itself
How our universities became sheep factories
How to deal with the "seditionists"
If you hate the culture wars, blame liberals
Imperial College London cancels Thomas Huxley
Intel's groveling China apology
Johns Hopkins analysis disputes the effectiveness of lockdowns
Killing the Wuhan lab leak theory
Meritocracy's cost
New study says lockdowns don't work. Fact or fiction?
Proposed new terrorism law would exclude jihadists
Reuters: FBI finds scant evidence U.S. Capitol attack was co-ordinated
The CCP and the problem of "elite capture"
The dispensable Mrs Merkel
The end of progressive America?
The failure of "Latinx"
The foolishness of "ugly freedoms"
The Ghost of Jim Crow
The green threat to effective climate policy
The histrionics and melodrama around 1/6
The Law of Group Polarization
The liberal fantasy of the Capitol coup
The Marxist who antagonizes liberals and the Left
Victims of the unvaccinated
Welcome to the end of democracy
What if democracy and climate mitigation are incompatible?
What the Right gets wrong about Ukraine...
White supremacy: The identarian Left's Theory of Everything
Why did scientists suppress the lab-leak theory?
Why is the Right so unattractive?
Yes, there is a counter revolution
Graph of this discussion
Enter the title of your article


Enter a short (max 500 characters) summation of your article
Enter the main body of your article
Lock
+Comments (0)
+Citations (0)
+About
Enter comment

Select article text to quote
welcome text

First name   Last name 

Email

Skip