Wittes is conflating gender and ethnicity with age (which has nothing to do with diversity).

Tatel's novel "mosaic theory" interpretation of the FOIA was fundamentally dishonest. I agree wholeheartedly with the implications as a matter of policy, but that's not what FOIA says and he butchered the law to get the right policy result.

That alone is disqualifying.

Granholm is not capable. Her reputation far outstrips her ability. She is largely an overrated governor who has done nothing to warrant the high marks people give her.

Live by the identity politics
Die by the identity politics

Here are the ages of the members of the Court:

54
59
60
69
70
72
76
73
89


Anyone in favor of some 30 to 40 year-olds?

When will the white guys ever catch a break?

It's not unthinkable that Obama could get 5 appointments beyond this one, and there are certainly that many women and racial minorities who could get 60 votes in any Democratic Senate. At what point would the bean-counters start demanding a white guy for balance?

Quoted here, with link to the original source.

Cry me a river.

The apotheosis of liberal identity politics: since individuals don't exist except as "representatives" of a group, it doesn't matter whether a white male is discriminated against because other white males were favored in the past.

dmv-- I'm curious, is it your view that strip searching a 13 year old boy would be constitutional, but strip searching a girl is not, because it would cause some special gender-based damage to her psyche?

Judging by your reaction, Jay did catch you, dmv. How about answering the question? I certainly would have found it "humiliating, or worse" if my 13-year-old-boy self had ever been strip-searched in school by teachers or administrators of either gender, and I'm curious whether you think the gender of the student matters. What do you say?

And if you think the Supreme Court doesn't need at least one (if not more) additional woman on it, I invite you to read the transcript of the oral argument in the 13-yo-strip-search case, in which only Justice Ginsburg appeared able to conceive that a strip search of a 13-yo girl would be humiliating or worse. Or see Kennedy's recitation of the "special bond" between a pregnant woman and a fetus as a legitimate ground for regulating abortion.

I don't think that the Supreme Court does not need another woman, but citing this as evidence in support of that is laughable. You offer a few anecdotes. You have no basis for attributing these anecdotes to gender differences, and your anecdotes themselves seem quite arguable.

Also, I have a lot of reservations about the idea that we need diversity on the bench because they will bring a different perspective or be more "sympathetic" to certain parties or viewpoints. That seems very much at odds with the idea of blind justice and equality.

Rather, I think the need for diversity on the bench stems from the American people and their need to identify with leaders. THAT is the reason for diversity, NOT that there will somehow be some deficiency in the jurisprudence without it.

That seems very much at odds with the idea of blind justice and equality.

"We are [legal] realists now."

Except insofar as our realism conflicts with our naive idealism about justice.

As for equality, see RPT's point about our background. I lived for 15 years in Alabama. Trust me when I tell you that racism is very much alive in this country. Or don't trust me, I don't care, but it is alive, and "equality" remains an ideal.

Dr. Weevil, do I think a 13-yo boy is likely to be humiliated by being subject to a strip search? I suppose so. I haven't thought about it enough. Do I think gender should determine the constitutional/legal question? Probably not, no. Why did I bring it up? Because I think the way the male members of the Supreme Court treated the issue says something about them. Consider Breyer's questions / comments (hard to describe what it is Breyer is doing when he opens his mouth at oral argument) about getting dressed for gym, etc. (Kindly ignore his comment about people sticking things in his underwear. Poor Breyer.)

Lani Guiner!

I have no naive idealism about justice. Obviously justices are being selected based on their stance on issues and general political predispositions. I just don't buy the argument that ethnic and gender diversity is needed because only those justices can be sympathetic to their own kind. It's ridiculous.

The apotheosis of liberal identity politics: since individuals don't exist except as "representatives" of a group, it doesn't matter whether a white male is discriminated against because other white males were favored in the past.

White males continued to be favored until at least very recently and probably remain so today. Suggesting that top lawyers and judges who are at least 50 didn't grow up in a world in which being white and male was a very significant privilege is fatuous.

And if you think the Supreme Court doesn't need at least one (if not more) additional woman on it, I invite you to read the transcript of the oral argument in the 13-yo-strip-search case, in which only Justice Ginsburg appeared able to conceive that a strip search of a 13-yo girl would be humiliating or worse.

I can conceive that a strip search of a 13-yo girl would be humiliating or worse. Can you conceive that the existence of my penis thwarts your argument?

"Can you conceive that the existence of my penis thwarts your argument?"

This may be the thread winner of the year....

Elections have consequences. In this case, very welcome ones.

And the Wittes piece is fatuous, because his point of view is hopelessly muddled. I suppose it could be best described as: "despite the fact that demographic diversity is a real necessity on the Court, and despite the admirable qualities of all the potential candidates, I still find it worrisome that several of these men are out of the running." But if these men have to face the indisputable necessity of demographic diversity on the Court, and if they are no more qualified than candidates from underrepresented groups, my question is: what does it really matter? Isn't Wittes basic perspective hopelessly muddled?

And, pace David Nieporent, in this case as in most, liberalism is not about extinguishing the individual light to preserve the dark mass of the group. This is not about using individuals to amend unpleasant demographics. It's about recognizing an important, sometime-conservative idea: there are differences among groups of people, some innate, some cultural. Someone upthread said justice is blind. If we're to trust in a blind justice, don't we want to feel that the people consulted in interpreting as well drafting the law have as full and authentic an understanding as possible of the people whose lives their decisions affect? Blindness isn't absent understanding.

The fact is, selecting people for the bench is about allowing for the best decisions possible. Those decisions can only be the result of a well-chosen court. It's appropriate to consider all aspects of those sitting on the bench -- including race and gender -- in determining what bench will deliver the best, most careful decisions. This doesn't reduce the individual in light of the group; it does no more than acknowledge that different groups exist and ought to be represented, because you can only go so far speaking up in stewardship for someone else's experience.

I'd also reiterate Markfield's point that people being considered began their careers in more discriminatory times, themselves. So we are talking about autonomous individuals here.

Cabranes and Garland are mainstream Democratic judges appointed by Clinton, not the sort of judge who would be appointed by a more ideological president like Obama, who has regretted that the Warren Court didn't "break free of legal constraints" to promote "redistribution of wealth" (and whose $790 billion stimulus package contains provisions that gut welfare reform and largely overturn the 1996 welfare reform signed by Clinton).

Cabranes's rulings keep criminals in jail where they belong, which Obama would probably think doesn't show enough "empathy" to "disadvantaged" criminals with "deprived" childhoods. (Although it does benefit the majority of people of color, many of whom have the misfortune of living in high-crime areas).

"The idea that "diversity" ought to be a relevant consideration in picking people who are supposed to interpret the law is ridiculous (more so than in other contexts)."

For many (most?) of the cases taken up by the Supreme Court, there is no objectively correct interpretation of the law. In such cases, the life experience of the judge can make a big difference.

I clerked for a female judge, and I can tell you firsthand that she sometimes saw things quite differently than I did (I'm male).

For example, a co-clerk (also male) had an appeal from a grant of summary judgment to a defendant in a gender discrimination case with a female plaintiff. After reading the briefs, both he and I thought it should be affirmed.

That was one of the very few cases in which the judge disagreed with us. And when I heard her explain why, I realized she was absolutely right. She saw things in the facts of the case the significance of which my co-clerk and I simply missed -- not because we were stupid or careless, but because we didn't have her experience of being a woman who'd faced situations like that her whole life.

So I'd say you're precisely wrong, and that in this line of work, it is even more important for judges to have diverse backgrounds.

Cornellian:
"What do Merrick Garland, David Tatel and Jose Cabranes have in common? "

They are three people who have never been in my kitchen.

Very clever. I wonder if some of the younger thread contributors knew the Cliff Clavin question/answer?