Democrats Push for More Black Supreme Court Clerks

May 20, 2010 RSS Feed Print
  • Comment (5)

By Paul Bedard, Washington Whispers

Elena Kagan might be a Democratic fave to win the seat on the U.S. Supreme Court being vacated by Justice John Paul Stevens. But if the white, Jewish, Ivy-educated woman were applying for a top court clerk post, like the job she once held with Justice Thurgood Marshall, she might have a much harder time of it. That's because Democrats are pushing the court to hire more black and Hispanic law clerks. The issue got heated at a recent House hearing when Justice Clarence Thomas said, "the reality is that Hispanics and blacks don't show up in any great numbers" in the pool of clerks that justices choose from. California Democratic Rep. Barbara Lee said the court should expand the pool, which Thomas rejected, prompting the lawmaker to suggest that Thomas's conservative decisions have "shut out" black and Hispanics from law school. Thomas didn't react.

Tags:
Elena Kagan,
Clarence Thomas,
Congress,
Supreme Court

Reader Comments Read all comments (5)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

I'm a Hispanic at an Ivy-League law school and I can tell you most of the whites there are not smart enough to get through law school either. They just have a white name and pedigree which counts for a lot in the few elite institutions that feed into Supreme Court clerks positions.

I could get angry and offended that you would say Blacks and Hispanics just "are not smart enough," but you are either beyond ignorant yourself or just like provoking reactions, and either way its not worth the time or effort. Instead I will explain to you why Blacks and Hispanics can't get into elite law schools.

The answer is obvious and you don't need a "superior" white brain to understand it. Blacks and Hispanics have been systematically shut out of the best educational institutions since this country was founded, and letting in a token few through affirmative action over the past 3 decades or so isn't going to change very much very quickly. The problem starts long before college, when the majority of Blacks and Hispanics in this country are attending poor-quality schools in poorer neighborhoods plagued by a vicious cycle of drugs, gangs, and uneducated and/or absentee parents.

If you were born into such a situation you'd find it pretty hard to get into Harvard Law School too (though I'm sure you couldn't anyway, even as a white man in AZ, where you can concentrate on studying b/c you have Mexicans doing all the hard work for you, though you thank them by passing insulting and degrading racial profiling laws in lands that were wrongfully taken from Mexico in the mid-19th Century).

The truth is, Blacks and Hispanics can't get into elite law schools because they aren't supposed too, and the people who own, attend, and perpetuate such institutions would like to keep it that way, despite any rhetoric you may hear otherwise. Go to Wikipedia and look at the category "Law Clerks of the Supreme Court of the United States." You'll find a total of 1 Hispanic and just a few more Blacks. If you still don't get why this is, open a history book, study at least the Civil Rights Movement, and drive to the "wrong side of town" in any city in the U.S. and put two and two together. Segregation never really went away, and if we ever even had "separate but equal" it would've been a million times better than what we have now. But you should "get" all this right Mark? You're an inherently smart person right? I mean, you're white aren't you?

James Gadsen of AZ 11:26PM May 27, 2010

The Court needs at least 21 members & more women than men. I say more women because only females suffer irreversible changes caused by pregnancy & childbirth, and that is where the word "empathy" does have meaning. When males vote to ban abortion, they absolutely lack what it takes to understand why females must have l00% exclusive right to what happens to their bodies. I like the idea of reform Jews in all civil courts, because it seems they do not have fanatical ideas against abortion.

The 2000 presidential election was stolen & given to Bush-Cheney BY THE COURT, not by voters. When Ban-Abortion Reagan was President, he told his Secretary of Health and Welfare not to spend a penny on aiding abortion overseas. Not surprisingly, here come floods of people from overseas & Mexico, who were & are denied abortion at home. Something extremely important happened in l973 when the Court made our civil government stop enforcing church law that bans abortion. That law exists to create, keep & increase church income. If conceptions are aborted, they never live to become believers who will pay the ten per cent lifetime tithe and fees. Suicide is banned for the same reason...corpses can't pay preachers.

aURa dawn veirs of CA 2:25AM May 23, 2010

Both of the above comments must come from narrow minded citizens who for obvious reasons must place their own personal bias on the issues instead of on the issue itself. Yes, changes probably need to be made, but denigrating others is not the way to begin proactive action for change.

Teri Novak of CO 12:20PM May 22, 2010

About this blog

About this blog

Washington Whispers has been featured in U.S. News & World Report since 1933, offering a fun, insider's view of Washington.

advertisement

Latest Videos

advertisement