By Arturo Mora, Kansas City Star Midwest Voices columnist 2009
Of course he should, if she’s qualified. How about a black man or woman? A white woman? A white man? Yes, yes and yes, if the person is qualified.
If, as is very possible, he ends up picking a woman or minority, is that “identity politics?” Is it high level affirmative action? Is it fair? Yes, yes, and most importantly yes, if done right.
In America we have always been hyper aware of “identity” when choosing Supreme Court justices, even if we never realized it. We were not color or gender blind when the only choices were white males. For almost two centuries the “identity politics” was, women or minorities need not apply.
I believe in affirmative action as a benefit to a fair society, but I don’t believe in quotas. They are not the same thing. Specifically, I believe in a responsible effort to gather a diverse and qualified pool of nominees. It does not mean choosing someone only because of their race or gender.
Is all that fair? With only nine justices, every pick is magnified. One black, one Latina, four or five women, seems fair in comparison to our population, but that sounds like quotas. And where’s the Asian, the Jew, the Native American? How do we walk that fine line, fairness to all groups without quotas?
Full commentary: http://voices.kansascity.com/node/4463
No comments:
Post a Comment