Didya see Anita Hill's critique of Roberts? She wants SCOTUS diversity

[bigtree]

Nomination a step back for diversity

If Supreme Court selection process stays narrow and elite, more diverse candidates will never be considered

BY ANITA F. HILL

Anita F. Hill is a professor of social policy, law and women's studies at Brandeis University and the author of "Speaking Truth to Power."

July 22, 2005

In his nomination of John G. Roberts for the Supreme Court, President George W. Bush has put forward a highly regarded lawyer who is reportedly a quite likable individual. Roberts' supporters and independent analysts cite a lifetime of achievement as the reason he should be confirmed.

Roberts worked in both President Ronald Reagan's and the first President George Bush's administrations before going into private practice. Republicans are counting on the fact that Democrats will have a hard time voting against someone with government and private practice experience who is widely recognized within the Beltway as one of the country's top appellate attorneys. As Peter Canellos of the Boston Globe wrote, Roberts' career reads like "a 1950s Boys' Life primer on how to prepare for the Supreme Court."

But was John Roberts chosen because he's the best choice for the court or because he may easily be confirmed? And why not choose a woman to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the first woman on the Supreme Court? Or use this as an opportunity to nominate the first Latino to the court?

Not surprisingly, the answer to these questions has to do with the politics of confirmability. One thing is certain: If nominees are selected based on the very narrow and elite credentials that brought us John Roberts, a wide range of equally qualified, more diverse candidates will never even be considered.

full article: http://my.brandeis.edu/news/item?news_item_id=103939&show_release_dte=1&print_p=1