Roberts nomination betrays women?

Is the Roberts nomination more than just a shitty choice? Is it a betrayal?

Ruben Navarrette Jr. at the San Diego Union-Tribune says
that women and minorities have the right to feel “sucker-punched” by Roberts’ nomination:
Not because President Bush, in selecting a replacement for the retiring Sandra Day O’Connor, didn’t nominate a woman or a minority, but because of the giddy response to the nomination by conservatives and some members of the media. People are acting as if, after years of trying to diversify once all-white and all-male institutions, the Holy Grail of meritocracy has been restored.
It used to be that we waited until a Supreme Court nominee faced off with senators before discussing his or her views on affirmative action. Now, it’s the physical characteristics of the nominee that prompt us to discuss our own view of affirmative action.
New York Times columnist David Brooks commended Bush for moving beyond the “tokenism of identity politics.” In an op-ed article for the Los Angeles Times, a contributor insisted Bush sent women and minorities a message by nominating a “garden-variety” white male: There are no set-asides on the high court. And a caller to “The Rush Limbaugh Show” gushed that what he liked most about the Roberts nomination was that Bush withstood the pressure — even from his own wife, Laura, who said she hoped he would choose a woman — and he had just picked “the most qualified person he could find.” I’m hearing that line over and over again from pundits and television commentators.
This whole line of thinking is offensive…

I tend to agree. The collective sigh of relief from far right organizations over the nomination did seem to be followed by a scary enthusiasm that had nothing to with Roberts’ record.
Navarrette goes on about the nomination being nothing less than a betrayal, noting that women and minorities “still have to put up with the fact that the next time they work their way into a plum assignment or achieve some great personal goal, it might just be chalked up to affirmative action or tokenism or identity politics.
Any thoughts?

and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

3 Comments

  1. Iguana
    Posted July 28, 2005 at 2:39 pm | Permalink

    “….it might just be chalked up to affirmative action or tokenism or identity politics.”
    Wow – you have the problem staring you right in the face. You even state it in writing entirely on your own. And, you still do not seem to comprehend it.
    Amazing.

  2. feistyredhead
    Posted July 28, 2005 at 5:04 pm | Permalink

    Roberts isn’t a qualified person – he’s only been a judge for two or three years. He was chosen because he stands right in line with the politics of the Bush administration – mainly corporate bias and restriction of civil rights.

  3. ColleenKelly
    Posted July 28, 2005 at 5:09 pm | Permalink

    The very best Supreme Court judges historically hadn’t been judges at all before they were appointed. I’m not suggesting I like this Robert’s guy, though I suspect he’s better than we might have gotten (THEY won the election, we shouldn’t be shocked that a conservative president who says during the campaign that if reelected he’ll nominate conservatives for the supreme court and then does it should we???).
    Many democrats were actually calling for a nominee with NO experience as a judge (you know, practicing attorneys) arguing that some of the best justices historically hadn’t been judges and that the court sometimes needs the breath of fresh air an attorney from outside the judicial world can bring.
    Look, there’s no stopping Robert’s. It clear the Dems are caving (what can they do? they don’t have the votes to stop him anyway). Roe will die in the next session or two of the Supreme Court and then the issue will be returned to the states. Some will have abortion rights and some won’t. At last count I though about 20 states would have it.
    California and NY State BOTH have solidly liberal legislatures and BOTH have passed abortion laws to go into effect immediately if Roe is overturned. Radical feminists won’t like either bill though, both limit abortion to the first trimester and both emphatically require women under 19 to have parental consent or go to a judicial bypass. California in their bill restricts women to one abortion in one year and allows no more than 2 abortions in a woman’s lifetime.
    It’s going to get interesting folks, we have to be preparted to fight!

161 queries. 0.622 seconds