The push for the faux idea of equality among the sexes will not disappear. For some, more is never enough. And those certain people spotlight the things which aren’t discrimination and turn them into that serious crime. The feminist movement is obsessed with the superficial but claim the opposite. While they pretend to despise the idea of making assumptions based on looks, they do the exact same thing to other groups.
Even with the liberal wins the Supreme Court has experienced recently (and even not so recently), discussion about the diversity of the Justices remains. This discussion isn’t limited to those in the audience, but the members of the Court as well. As Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the darling of the Left, said to NPR last year as reported by Salon:
…she is often asked how many women on the Supreme Court would be “enough.”
Her answer? “When there are nine.”
The Notorious RBG, as she is nauseatingly called on a Tumblr tribute page, is clearly sexist herself in her response to a sexist question. How many would be enough? I was unaware that the qualifications for SCOTUS depended upon the gender you were born with and something in which you had absolutely no control over. And why should we even talk about gender in the first place in terms of employment? Apparently the section covering discrimination in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 only pertains to poor, wretched females, and not the male population.
TIME magazine complained of the diversity of the Justices on Women’s Equality Day by stating that a reason we still needed such a day was because only three of the nine on the bench were women. As if equality of opportunity results in equality of outcome? They are obsessed.
Now Slate is upset that men of the white variety are the major players in “feeding” the court, and have been for too long. After all, it’s an impressive starting point. As Slate says in their article:
…“No other internship program in the history of the United States has produced as impressive and diverse a collection of individuals as the U.S. Supreme Court law clerk corps.” Law firms offer recent Supreme Court clerks bonuses of more than $300,000, and the pool of lawyers who file appeals at the high court is composed principally of former Supreme Court clerks. Three current justices are former clerks: Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Elena Kagan and Stephen Breyer. So were Justice John Paul Stevens and Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist. Also: A Supreme Court clerkship gives 36 young lawyers each year a chance to leave their fingerprints all over constitutional law.
A study undertaken by Tony Mauro in 1998 found that “fewer than 2 percent of the 394 clerks hired by the current justices during their respective tenures were African-American, and even fewer were Hispanic. About 5 percent were Asian. Women represent an increasing proportion of clerks, but they still amount to only one-fourth of the total.” Those numbers haven’t improved all that much in the past 17 years, despite discussion and debate.
As Supreme Court clerkships become the golden ticket to all kinds of legal superstardom—and indeed more and more the ticket to a seat at the court itself—it’s hard not to be saddened by the ways in which women and minorities aren’t making a whole lot of progress toward parity in golden tickets and by the fact that a handful of mostly white men are still the ones handing them out.
The secret plan by the white man to make sure the white man is involved with the court along with other white men is complete! And the vicious cycle of discrimination continues. Because it’s too difficult to believe the Justices might select clerks which are, I don’t know, qualified for the job? Last I checked, law school, and college in general, is open to all – if you meet the qualifications.
The Left is bent on finding that dreaded discrimination even in places where there is not actual proof of it. If it exists, then there is still some life left to the romanticized causes of the past. To the Left, “proof” of gender discrimination is anything that doesn’t show a perfect 50-50% split along gender lines. So using that criteria, they will always find a cause for concern, all the while rejecting the equality of opportunity that those figures represent.