Now Adding To the Richness of Understanding

Ruth Marcus in the Washington Post:

From my (straight, married mother) point of view, a gay justice would be a benefit to the court and the country. To the country because it would speed up the inevitable: acceptance of gay Americans in all walks of life. To the court because — as with any additional perspective — an openly gay justice would add to the richness of the court’s understanding of cases, particularly gay rights cases, that come before it.

So, they would be biased in the gay cases. That is what liberas call “richness of understanding”. Presumably such a justice should recuse herself from such cases.

But more bizarre is the idea that it would add to the richness of understanding in other cases.

It really annoys me that the media constantly call for having this or that on the Supreme court, as if it were a legislature, that needed to have representation from all of the (liberal) approved groups.

Of course, it never adds to richness of understanding to have a business owner on the court, or a conservative, or a woman who has refused to abort a baby, like Sarah Palin. No military men on the court. Shouldn’t there be an ex-general or something? How about ranchers? None of them on the court. How about NRA supporters. After all, the court is expected to get several more gun cases after Heller. Don’t we need their richness of understanding?

No? Somehow when it is an NRA member, that becomes horrible bias.

Come to think of it, Kagan will be the third woman from New York on the court. Shouldn’t that doom her nomination? What is it about Democrats insisting on women from ultra liberal New York?

Does New York have too much representation on the court? After all, Scalia is from New York, too, and that means that there are FOUR New Yorkers on the court. But that is never mentioned.

How about a conservative Hispanic like Alberto Gonzalez, or Miguel Estrada?

No, no, no, no, no, no.

Obviously, I don’t get it.


Comments are closed.