INSULTING EVERYONE: A popular argument by the media is that President Bush ought to replace Sandra Day O'Connor's seat with another woman (even though it was filled by white males for the entire history of the country prior to O'Connor) or with an Hispanic (and by Hispanic, they mean Alberto Gonzales, not Emilio Garza. See "Gonzo for Gonzales").

This idea that the seat must be filled by a woman because only women can understand women's problems is truly insulting, not to mention inconsistent with the liberals' views on other topics. Aren't women and men the same anyway?

But the Hispanic argument is more baffling. Why must the Court have an Hispanic? Just because they represent a significant portion of the population? By that rationale, why not appoint an Asian-American, or a Native American? How about a homosexual? We have three Northeasterners on the Court, aren't they a little over-represented?

By singling out Hispanics, the media insult Hispanics by implying that they need "one of their own" on the Court to understand them. At the same time, this insults every other classification of people by implying that they don't deserve the same level of representation that Hispanics requires.

Rather than trying to fill quotas on the Court, how about our president and the senate think outside the box a little and just try nominating and confirming a highly qualified legal scholar without regard to his/her skin color or gender? Or is that unreasonable?

Comments: Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Click Here  View My Public Stats on MyBlogLog.com Subscribe in NewsGator Online Subscribe with Bloglines This site is certified 78% GOOD by the Gematriculator