No Diversity for WASPs
(The American Conservative) -- by Patrick J. Buchanan --
“A chorus of black commentators and civic leaders has begun expressing frustration over (Elena) Kagan’s hiring record as Harvard dean. From 2003 to 2009, 29 faculty members were hired: 28 were white and one was Asian American.”
CNN pundit Roland Martin slammed “Kagan’s record on diversity as one that a ‘white Republican U.S. president’ would be criticized for.”
This is an excerpt from the Washington Post about the rising anger in a black community, which voted 24-1 for Obama, that one of their own was once again passed over for the Supreme Court.
Not since Thurgood Marshall, 43 years ago, has a Democratic president chosen an African-American. The lone sitting black justice is Clarence Thomas, nominated by George H. W. Bush. And Thomas was made to run a gauntlet by Senate liberals.
Indeed, of the last seven justices nominated by Democrats JFK, LBJ, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, one was black, Marshall; one was Puerto Rican, Sonia Sotomayor. The other five were Jews: Arthur Goldberg, Abe Fortas, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan.
If Kagan is confirmed, Jews, who represent less than 2 percent of the U.S. population, will have 33 percent of the Supreme Court seats.
Is this the Democrats’ idea of diversity?
But while leaders in the black community may be upset, the folks who look more like the real targets of liberal bias are white Protestants and Catholics, who still constitute well over half of the U.S. population.
Not in living memory has a Democratic president nominated an Irish, Italian or Polish Catholic, though these ethnic communities once gave the party its greatest victories in the cities and states of the North.
What happened to the party of the Daleys, Rizzos and Rostenkowskis?...
If Kagan is confirmed, the Court will consist of three Jews and six Catholics (who represent not quite a fourth of the country), but not a single Protestant, though Protestants remain half the nation and our founding faith.
If Kagan is confirmed, three of the four justices nominated by Democratic presidents will be from New York City: Kagan from the Upper West Side, Sotomayor from the Bronx, Ruth Bader Ginsburg from Brooklyn. Breyer is from San Francisco.
What kind of diversity is this — either in geography or life experience?
While Sotomayor went to Yale Law School, the other three liberals went to Harvard, though Ruth Bader Ginsburg graduated from Columbia. Seems a fairly narrow range for a party that once claimed to be America’s party.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg tied for first in her class at Columbia, but neither Obama nominee is academically distinguished. Sotomayor called herself an “affirmative action baby” who, at Princeton, was urged to read children’s books in the summer to improve her reading and writing skills. Kagan never served as a judge, never litigated a case before being named solicitor general, never wrote a book or anything else anyone has turned up that manifests real legal scholarship.
From her Princeton thesis on the sad demise of 20th-century socialism, to her tears at the defeat of the radical liberal Senate candidate Elizabeth Holtzman in 1980, to her hostility to the U.S. military on the Harvard campus while dean of the law school, Kagan has revealed herself to be one more Ivy League leftist anxious to use a lifetime seat on the court, winning the plaudits of her peers by imposing her ideology on a nation that has never voted for it.
Conservatives will not soon get another opportunity like this to take down Ivy League pretensions to represent and rule America...MORE...LINK
Buchanan: “If Kagan is confirmed, Jews, who represent less than 2 percent of the U.S. population, will have 33 percent of the Supreme Court seats.”
Chris Moore comments:
Roland Martin and the African American community have every right to be angry with the disproportionately Jewish limousine liberal Democratic Party elite.
In the 111th Congress, there are a total of 257 Democrats in the House. Thirty-one of them are Jewish (all Congressional Jews are Democrats except for Eric Cantor, the only Jewish Republican). That's nearly 12%. (Again, Jews comprise less than 2% of the country).
And the ratio is even more out of balance in the Senate, where there are a total of 57 Democrats, plus two "Independents" that caucus with the Democrats. Of that total of 59 Senators, 13 are Jewish -- an astounding 22%.
How many black U.S. Senators are there? Only one: Roland Burris, the only black in the entire Senate, even though African-Americans comprise over 12% of the country (and a lot higher percentage than that of loyal Democratic Party voters).
Put all of that together with wars in the Middle East that the Democrats have rubber stamped and are even escalating -- wars that disproportionately rely upon lower middle class and underclass U.S. soldiers, and that Walt and Mearsheimer have strongly argued are largely for the Jewish state of Israel, and were in part instigated by the Israel lobby; add in the Democrat Party support for Wall Street bailouts that threw billions of dollars at firms like Goldman Sachs; and suddenly, the Democrats no longer look like the party of the underdog, the blue collar Joe or the pink collar Jane, but rather the party owned and operated by a wealthy cosmopolitan elite FOR a wealthy cosmopolitan elite.
In fact, excluding the Ron Paulites, both parties are literally at war with the vast majority of the American people at the behest of the corrupt political class and its State-enriched cronies. The evidence at this point is overwhelming.
Given that white male Protestants wrote the Constitution, and what we have come to think of as traditionally "American" is largely a function of the Protestant vision of inclusiveness, one would think Protestants would get a bit more respect in terms of consideration for the S.C., particularly given that its primary job is to interpret the Constitution.
Will a Protestant and a Jew interpret the Constitution differently based on background faith? IMO, absolutely, because the post-tribalism that characterizes America's founding documents (“All men are created equal” and “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights…”) took a leap of faith that started from a Protestant jumping point.
Thus, I think Jews are far more likely to be sympathetic to the kind of identity-politics tribalism that the Left panders to which IMO is completely out of alignment with what it means to be "American."
That said, so is Stevens, so perhaps liberal Protestants have leapt so far from their roots that they've completely lost sight of the religion that they were supposed to be building from. No wonder they’ve drifted now for so long in a kind of ether completely un-tethered from any kind of firm principles -- and today are finally crashing on the rocks below.
The Catholics seem more grounded -- at least the non-liberal ones.
FOR LIBERTARIAN NATIONALISM: ANTI-CORPORATIST, ANTI-COMMUNIST, ANTI-GLOBALIST...PRO-SOVEREIGNTY, PRO-POPULIST, PRO-FREE ENTERPRISE