I generally disagree with Darren Hutchinson but you can be sure he will give you not only an honest argument but a reasoned one. He does so again today on the subject of identity politics and the court:
Although Obama relied upon identity politics for his electoral success, the White House is instructing GLBT, Latino and women’s groups to kill the identity talk. Several GLBT, Latino and women’s civil rights groups have urged the president to pick a candidate who will enhance the Court’s diversity. No openly gay or Latino person has ever sat on the Supreme Court. Only two women (both white) have occupied a seat on the Court. And two black men have also served on the Court.
I agree that the candidate should not look like a “token” hire, but there are many persons of color, women, and GLBT lawyers who would make excellent Supreme Court justices.
Now of course who I would like to see on the court and who Professor Hutchinson would like to see are likely as night and day philosophically but like the professor I think a token hire is a bad idea. However the professor also says this:
White House is doing its best to toss aside the very identity-based movements and politics that won the election for Obama. Press Secretary Robert Gibbs says that: “I don’t think that the lobbying of interest groups will help. . . .I think in many ways lobbying can – and will –be counterproductive.” Of course, Gibbs never identifies the dangers the groups create by stating their preference for diversity. Also, it seems odd that Gibbs would disparage “special interest” groups, when labor, civil rights, feminist, pro-choice, anti-war, glbt, and many other “interest groups” are essential components of the Democratic Party. Without their support, neither Obama nor Gibbs would have a job at the White House.
That may be so but it’s not relevant. You don’t want to end up with a “Black” seat or the “Asian” seat or the “Latino” seat etc etc etc.
Of course among equally qualified candidates race is irrelevant as long as the candidate is well qualified all the other stuff is moot.
The whitehouse is doing the right thing in de-emphasizing identity. Not only is it patronizing but once you have a quota established then it becomes an entitlement and that will divide us even further.
The disagreement is about a principle since of course the president will almost certainly make an identity choice. Unless there is an old Chicago debt (a la Abe Fortis) to pay back I can’t imagine that either of us will be disappointed with at least the qualifications of the selection.
Update: Somehow missed the word “like” in a sentence above.
Da Techguy's (no longer backup) Blog 
Hi. Thanks so much for the post. I do not believe that considering diversity among evenly qualified candidates creates a “token” position or a “quota.” The United States has more attorneys than any other country. Only nine lawyers can sit on the Court at any given time. Accordingly, many exceptionally qualified individuals will simply not get the job for reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with merit.
If the selection process never yields diversity, despite the existence of qualified women, persons of color, etc., then persons in those groups will have a rational basis for feeling slighted. Thinking of diversity does not give them a quota; instead, it lets them know that they are not being subject to something worse than a quota: a de facto rule that says they cannot sit on the Supreme Court.
There is one other important use of “diversity” and that is providing an example for someone to strive for. The “You can be this” argument that was one of the advantages of President Obama’s election.
Again it is almost certain that this president will make a “diverse” selection but if the primary duty is a competent and qualified judge. I actually think considering the pool of talent out there it would be a tough thing to pick a non-qualified judge.
[…] nice problem By datechguy Picking up on the post yesterday concerning the supreme court something hit me this […]