Ideology-blindness? – Democrats oppose color-, ethnicity-, and gender-blindness, but they appear to favor politics-blindness (except, of course, when gerrymandering electoral districts). How else can we interpret the furor from their side of the aisle over the possibility that Miguel Estrada may have asked candidates for a clerkship with Justice Kennedy questions that one of them is said to have viewed as an “ideological litmus test”?
What am I missing here? Has it now become a civil rights violation for a Supreme Court Justice to select clerks he or she believes will be sympathetic to the justice’s interpretive approach and constitutional values?
If it is illegitimate for judges to be concerned with judicial philosophy in the selection of their clerks, why is it legitimate for Sen. Schumer (D, Interest Groups) to flaunt his concern for it in the selection of judges? Or perhaps it was some other New York Senator Charles E. Schumer who issued a press release whose headline is: “SCHUMER SAYS ROLE OF IDEOLOGY IN JUDICIAL CONFIRMATION PROCESS SHOULD BE LEGITIMIZED AND CONSIDERED IN EVALUATION OF JUDICIAL NOMINEES ”
UPDATE – The following appears in what must be that other Senator Schumer’s press release cited above:
For whatever reason, possibly senatorial fears of being labeled partisan, legitimate considerations of ideological beliefs seem to have been driven underground. It’s not that we don’t consider ideology, we just don’t talk about it openly.
And, unfortunately, this unwillingness to openly examine ideology has sometimes led Senators who oppose a nominee to seek out non-ideological disqualifying factors, like small financial improprieties from long ago, to justify their opposition. This in turn has led to an escalating war of gotcha politics that has warped the Senate’s confirmation process and harmed the Senate’s reputation.
And some Senators who are unwilling “to openly examine ideology,” i.e., admit that they would oppose any conservative nominee, have even been known to seek out and make a disqualifying “gotcha” out of the nominee’s openly examining ideology in his role assisting in the selection of, not judges but judges’ clerks!
I indicated yesterday (here) that People for the American Way believes the Supreme Court guilty of discrimination, but I had no idea the problem was as pervasive as Democrats must think it is.
