Round-Up
The discussion regarding the diversity of Supreme Court clerks continues with this Slate article from Dahlia Lithwick and with this Concurring Opinions post by Dan Filler.
In addition, the Community Rights Council has compiled the petitioer’s and amicus briefs in the upcoming case regarding the EPA’s role in regulating CO2 emissions, Massachusetts v. EPA. They can be found here.
Will these number games never end? If next year’s clerks turn out to be 75% female, isn’t it possible that they were the best for that year as perceived by the Justices? Why is that a problem? Would those upset by the 2006 group be cheering for the 75% female group, or move on to dissecting according to race, color, religion, or national origin?
Comment by Tobetheman — September 1, 2006 @ 12:30 pm
The answer to your rhetorical question, Tobetheman, is no, but only for sex and race. But one wonders, if diversity is the goal why stop at those classifications? Where is the cry for more diversity in hiring obese, ugly, short, physically handicapped, or just plain dumb clerks? If the underlying premise of diversity or the lack thereof regarding females is that justices are discriminating against them, one could make a much stronger argument for including others in the diversity sweepstakes. I would proffer that being grossly overweight is a huge hindrance to a successful career in any field, especially for women. If there is a large pool of obese women who cannot control their condition, should a special effort be made to hire more of them? Ditto for very short men. So I implore Linda Greenhouse and her similarly minded salon set to take up the cause of the fat and ugly whose minds are trapped in bodies that cause others to perceive them as undesirable. Fat chance (no pun intended)
Comment by Dennis Bedard — September 2, 2006 @ 8:24 am