Baseball v. The Supreme Court

baseballIt is interesting to note that whenever you hear a sports fan talk about something as important as whom they would like to be in their starting lineup, no one mentions “diversity”.

Yankee fans, for example, don’t look at a shortstop who’s hitting .235 in the minors and say, “That guy is gay. We’ve got to get him to replace him Derek Jeter. Think of the diversity that will give us!” Baseball general managers did not look at Alex Rodriquez when he was a free agent and say “Sure he’s great, but he’s Dominican. Don’t we already have enough Dominicans on our team? Can’t we sign a Filipino or something?”

Diversity is simply not a factor when it comes to the important things in life, like the lineups of our teams. However  when it comes to filling a vacancy on something relatively trivial, like the Supreme Court for example, we have the luxury of calculating diversity into the equation.

Look at the list of favorites for the Supreme Court. The names are not the same names as would be on a list of those considered to be most qualified to be on the Supreme Court. They all have spectacular résumés, of course, and they are all smart, but they are not considered to be the Who’s Who of the legal world. That is because this list is not intended to reflect who is the best of the best.

They are the names of women:  Gov. Granholm, Gov. Gregoire, Elena Kagan, Pamela Karlan, Leah Sears, Sonia Sotamayor, Kathleen Sullivan, Kim Wardlaw, and Diane Wood. Of these women, the ones considered to be the favorites are Sotomayor and Wardlaw, both of whom are not only female but have the advantage over the others to be Hispanic as well.

One question I found particularly interesting was posed to a senator recently, in reference to whom President Obama should pick to replace Souter; “Shouldn’t the next Supreme Court nominee be gay?” I am not opposed to a homosexual being picked to the Supreme Court, but I question the relevancy of someone’s sexual orientation for such an important job.

Ironically, the nomination of a person to the most important legal assemblage in the world seems based on a series of questions not even legal to ask an applicant of almost any other job. No human resources manager would ask me if I were gay, would they?  Nor would they be basing the hiring decision on my ethnicity, political leanings, or gender – at least not if they were interested in hiring the best possible person for the job.

When asked about the criteria he would use to pick the next Supreme Court nominee, Senator Obama said he would like someone with “the heart…the empathy to recognize what it’s like to be a young teenage mom, the empathy to understand what it’s like to be poor or African-American or gay or disabled or old.”  While it may be arguable that those are all fine things to consider when voting for a political candidate who would be in the position to write laws affecting ‘the poor or African-Americans or gay or disabled or old’ it is not the role of a jurist to write such laws. It is the role of the jurist to interpret those laws.

The jurist is, to paraphrase the Chief Justice of Supreme Court, like a baseball umpire. His or her only function is to interpret ball and strikes, who is safe or out, according to the rules of the game. A baseball umpire would not call a pitch a strike based upon his or her empathy for whatever ethnic group, or based on whether the umpire was male, or gay, or a Democrat, but rather on where the pitch crosses the plate.  A judge should do the same.

It is incumbent upon baseball officials to pick umpires based on the umpire’s demonstrated ability to fairly and accurately enforce the rules of baseball on the field, just as it is incumbent upon a baseball general manager to hire players based not on “diversity,” but rather on talent. I argue that a Supreme Court jurist should be picked based on this criteria, not based on some diversity checklist.

–DK

About DarkKnight3565

A graduate of Rutgers University, DK enjoys music, movies, comic books, and political discourse. Follow him on Twitter at @DarkKnight3565.
This entry was posted in Supreme Court and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.
Join the discussion!
Brad says:

First, I would like to express my appreciation for your fantastic articulation of your thoughts. Conservatism is Nutritious:)

Oddly enough, I stumbled upon your website while Google searching Carrie Prejean. I can’t remember why I Googled her, but I am glad I did. Otherwise I wouldn’t have stumbled upon this. Anyways, thank you for the reading. I enjoyed your free-speech video as well. I look forward to visiting frequently. Brad

Thank you so much for your kind words, Brad, and for your support!

[quote]the empathy to recognize what it’s like to be a young teenage mom, the empathy to understand what it’s like to be poor or African-American or *** or disabled or old.[/quote]

This type of rationale ticks me off….as a Black man.

I recall a few years ago listening to the local “Speak Truth To Power” talk radio station. They had a White male liberal attorney formerly of the US Justice Department Civil Rights division on the show. In reaming against the Bush Administration and its voting rights protection he made the list of the invalids stating that “the poor, the elderly, the handicapped and racial minorities will be harmed by this legislation”. (Talking about photo voter id).

He saw his job as protecting those who were on his list of the “invalids”. Thus he argued that since Bush was in office fewer “Civil Rights complaints” had been prosecuted.

This got me mad enough to call in to challenge him. By the time I got though the interview was over. I asked the talk show host if Black people would accept the argument “since our drug prosecutions are at an all time high we have the drug problem in check?”. Clearly the same people who bought his argument that since civil rights violation claims were not acted upon is proof of an uncaring administration would REJECT the claim from an administration that increased drug prosecutions is evidence of an administration that is agreeable with their interests. In fact many of these people would be the protesters claiming that too many Black people have been locked up.

Obama’s use of the “victims list” is as equally disturbing. It serves to redirect the question about our community leadership’s failures to address those issues facing the poor and single mothers and instead makes it all a matter of a lack of justice that they face from society.

Thanks so much for sharing your great insights with us!