« How will Ohio's lethal injection review impact other state execution protocols? | Main | "The High Cost of Empty Prisons" »

October 12, 2009

A partially justified(?) celebration of "Diversity on the federal bench"

Carl Tobias has this new op-ed in the National Law Journal, which is headlined "Diversity on the federal bench: The Obama administration deserves credit for nominating large numbers and percentages of highly qualified, diverse candidates."  Here is a snippet:

Obama has adopted measures that will increase ethnic and gender diversity, as manifested in his judicial nominations to date.  Justice Sonia Sotomayor is the classic example.  Moreover, his 10 appeals court nominees include three African-Americans, one Asian-American and four women, while his 10 district court nominees include four African-Americans, three Asian-Americans, one Latino and four women.

Two African-American circuit nominees, highly regarded sitting district judges Andre Davis and Joseph Greenaway, earned well-qualified American Bar Association ratings, the organization's highest ranking.  The third, well-respected Rhode Island Superior Court Associate Justice O. Rogeriee Thompson, was nominated last week and has yet to receive an ABA ranking.  The four Asian-American nominees would increase by 36% the number of Asian-American judges.  They include Southern District of New York Judge Denny Chin, who would be the first Asian-American judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2d Circuit; California Superior Court Judge Jacqueline Nguyen, who would be the first Vietnamese-American district judge; and Magistrate Judge Edward Chen, who would be the first Asian-American member of the Northern District of California. 

I share the sentiment that President Obama should be credited for impressive ethnic and gender diversity in his early judicial nominations.  But, as this brief snippet highlights, the Obama nominees are remarkable for a profound lack of diversity concerning their pre-nomination positions: nearly all of Obama's federal judicial nominees have involved persons who are already judges.

As I have said in prior posts, I suspect that Obama's remarkable affinity for nominating persons who are already judges to the federal bench is mostly a reflections of his Administration's interest in playing matters relatively safe with early judicial nominees.  Nevertheless, I hope before too long that the chief criteria being used for selecting Obama judicial nominees soon extends beyond the apparent requirement that the prosepctive nominee is already a judge.

Some related new and old posts:

October 12, 2009 at 06:16 PM | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451574769e20120a634ac73970c

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference A partially justified(?) celebration of "Diversity on the federal bench":

Comments

"Nevertheless, I hope before too long that the chief criteria being used for selecting Obama judicial nominees soon extends beyond the apparent requirement that the prosepctive nominee is already a judge."

And ideally not even a lawyer.

Posted by: Daniel | Oct 12, 2009 8:05:24 PM

I bet there is no diversity in the love of the criminal, the hatred of our country, and the bias favoring pure evil. Why? Evil generates lawyer jobs, and pays its fee. Obama is a lawyer, although he gave up his license long ago.

Obama would never nominate an immigrant loyal to this country and who appreciates the high privileges he enjoyed. I await the nomination by Obama of an immigrant jihadist to a high bench, sworn to the eradication of our nation. If the Republicans retake the Congress, all should be purged by impeachment. There should be zero tolerance for disloyalty to the country.

Dan is correct. No lawyer should be allowed to sit on any bench, in any legislative seat, nor in any responsible policy position in the executive. The lawyer should be excluded by statute or Amendment, as a convicted felon might. The lawyer is by definition a member of a criminal cult enterprise. The Bar card is per se evidence of criminality and insurrection against the Constitution.

My hair cutter had more training and took a more difficult licensing exam than any incompetent who becomes a judge in this country. The incompetence of the lawyer to make decisions about technical subjects, including the forensics of the criminal law, makes all judicial acts invalid. They have the validity of two year olds' throwing things around a room and show less intelligence. The law is in utter failure because of its Medieval doctrines and methods, and because the decision makers are incompetents. The only validation for most judicial decisions comes at the point of a gun. Army Airborne will enforce them. Otherwise, the overwhelming majority are incompetent garbage.

Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Oct 12, 2009 9:39:04 PM

Post a comment

In the body of your email, please indicate if you are a professor, student, prosecutor, defense attorney, etc. so I can gain a sense of who is reading my blog. Thank you, DAB