Jewishness, and diversity, on the Supreme Court

by on May 13, 2009 27

I heard hardworking Nina Totenberg on NPR's All Things Considered this afternoon discussing the possible Supreme Court nominees. She went through a bunch of women's names, a few men. She made gender distinctions, and racial ones too, indicating that Obama would factor in these matters: Puerto Rican, Hispanic, and black.
She didn't mention my favorite subdivision of the human family: Jews. I believe Elena Kagan is Jewish. Does Obama think about these things? Of course. If he nominates Kagan, that will mean that the last three Justices nominated by Democratic presidents, in fact all the Justices nominated by Dems, will have been Jews: Breyer, Ginsburg, Kagan. (sorry about the tenses there, I know they're wrong). Is that bad? On the face of it, I confess I'd be against it, on diversity grounds. I want the prestige passed around a little more. I didn't like it when WASPs were everywhere in the Establishment either.

About Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of Mondoweiss.net.
Posted in US Politics

{ 27 comments... read them below or add one }

  1. DICKERSON3870 says:
    May 14, 2009 at 1:34 am

    RE: "all the Justices nominated by Dems, will have been Jews: Breyer, Ginsburg, Kagan." MY COMMENT: It would not bother me in the short run, since Jews are well represented both in the legal community and the Democratic Party. Of course, I think Breyer and Ginsberg are excellent jurists and that is what is most important. Over the long run, I might hope to see a bit more variety.

  2. ThorsProvoni says:
    May 14, 2009 at 1:39 am

    Kagan has protected Dershowitz from charges of defamation and of plagiarism. She does not have much of a sense of ethics.

  3. rykart says:
    May 14, 2009 at 4:44 am

    Diversity! Hasn't the election cured us of THAT perverse preoccupation? Diversity—ok, fine. But what KIND of diversity?? Let's have a Jew in office! (like Elliot Abrams?) A woman (Like the insufferable Nancy Pelosi or Nancy Reagan or the female terrorist Tzipi Livni or the career criminal Hillary Clinton?) How about a BLACK WOMAN (like the murderous blood fluke who was our last Secretary of State??) Diversity–a ridiculous con game, I'm afraid to say. Yeah–real diverse to elect another LAWYER and his LAWYER wife. Hard to choose though with so much DIVERSITY around. I liked his opponent, the Wal Mart LAWYER Hillary Clinton, too! Diversity! Absurd!

  4. RowanBerkeley says:
    May 14, 2009 at 6:12 am

    As his declaration of the month of May as "Jewish American Heritage Month" also illustrates, Obama is very fond of the shmalzy pop myth of 'the Jews' as great lovers of 'justice.' Perhaps the enormous quantity of propaganda generated by orthodox Jewish legalists claiming that the halachic Jewish system of law is superior to that of the USA has also impacted him.

  5. askme says:
    May 14, 2009 at 9:37 am

    Like what? How long a run?

  6. Citizen says:
    May 14, 2009 at 9:51 am

    She is defined as Jewish in wiki–let's watch and see how long that description stays there if she's Obama's pick. As a Dean of Harvard she supported banning US military recruiters from campus. I guess she likes the current custom of only loosing the recruiters in lower class communities to furnish blood for our volunteer soldiers. She also favors open-end detention of people suspected of aiding Al Quaida no matter where found, that is, treating them like suspects found in and around battlefields. Her ivy credentials are close to Obama's.

  7. Mike says:
    May 14, 2009 at 10:14 am

    Doesn't the self-hating Jew who writes this stupid blog know that he is basically giving a forum to anti-Semites? (the problem is that most of those anti-Semites, unlike Weiss, are not actually Jewish themselves). Hey. Guess what. There are currently FIVE Catholics on the Supreme Court. 2 Protestants and 2 Jews. Isn't 5 Catholics too much? More than the population's percentage. It would seem to be a conspiracy. Let's write a blog about it, and another blog, and another one, and accuse all Catholics of conspiring together and working for the Pope. Hey, didn't Reagan appoint one of those Catholics? You know, his father was Catholic. Hmmm… Bush, Jr. appointed 2. You know his brother married a Catholic and converted to Catholicism. The pieces are falling together!

  8. Mike says:
    May 14, 2009 at 10:14 am

    The reason that Totenberg or whatever her name was didn't mention that Kagan was Jewish is that being Jewish is no longer, and has not been for a while, a special and exotic distinction. Plenty of Jews, as you say, have already been on the Supreme Court, and plenty of Jews have filled any and every position in the country except for, I have to begrudingly admit, the Presidency and Vice Presidency. Random people being Jewish is a perfectly normal and every-day part of American life out there (well, I speak only of regular Americans here, not conspiracy bloggers). Oh yeah, and to "RowanBerkeley" up there – Jewish American History Month was actually first established by George W. Bush in 2006, and has been celebrated in some obscure way every year since. I hope it doesn't intrude on your life too much. I apologize for any inconvenience. (Oh! the horror! not a month that acknowledges the incredible over-representation of Jews in the area of positive contributions to the U.S. Anything but that!)

  9. ThorsProvoni says:
    May 14, 2009 at 10:32 am

    Here are percentages as of 2001. 52% of Americans identified themselves as Protestant. 24.5% are Roman Catholic. 1.3% are Jewish. 0.5% are Muslim, followers of Islam. Obviously, the Jewish percentage is way out of line, and Jewish support for the IDF rampage in Gaza ran at 80% — an indication that the vast majority of Jews have perverted concepts of right and of wrong in comparison with the rest of the American population. A lot of cases in the next few years will deal with issues of Zionism, equal protection of the law, and the impunity under the law that Jews serving in the government have conferred on Jewish Zionists in numerous areas of civil and criminal code enforcement. Kagan's Jewishness and support for Zionism are definite issues in determining whether the USA will be a Rechtstaat or Judenstaat.

  10. Tike says:
    May 14, 2009 at 11:55 am

    Christians do not define themselves by the blood line of their mothers. Christianity does not depend on the accident of birth mother. It is universal, an exclusive big tent faith. In no sense do Christians view themselves as part of a tribe. No Christian holiday focuses on the history of any particular people, reminding of victimhood, celebrating military conquest, etc. No atheist ever self-identifies also as Christian. No Communist ever self-identifies also as a Christian. Don't bother to tell us that if a non-Jew jumps through a thousand hoops, they may get to convert to Judaism–converts are too miniscule a proportion of the Jewish community over all of history.

  11. Mooser says:
    May 14, 2009 at 3:30 pm

    "She didn't mention my favorite subdivision of the human family: Jews." Weiss, or Wiess, or whatever you call yourself these days, that's ridiculous! Any Jew considered for the Supremes Court long ago moved out of a subdivision to an exclusive gated community or fancy condo. Subdivisions? Next you'll put us back in ghettoes!

  12. Ed says:
    May 14, 2009 at 3:32 pm

    The Democratic Party and Jewish Zionism are becoming synonymous. 95% of the 45 Jewish Zionists serving in Congress are Democrats (and 45 Jewish Zionists means 13.5% of Congress is Jewish Zionist, whereas Jews only comprise, according to Joachim’s statistic, 1.3% of the American population.) So obviously, the Democratic Party goes out of its way to see to it that Jewish Zionists are elected to federal office. Why?

  13. Mooser says:
    May 14, 2009 at 3:33 pm

    "Jews have filled any and every position in the country except for, I have to begrudingly admit, the Presidency and Vice Presidency." And Joe Biden woke up this morning and screamed: "Oy Gevalt, what's happened to my schvantz ?" Schvantz of course, is Yiddish for schlong. And don't think Joe Biden doesn't know it!

  14. Ed says:
    May 14, 2009 at 3:48 pm

    To Mike, The question isn't whether or not someone is a Jew, or a Catholic or any other religion, the question is whether they conflate their religious or ethnic nationalist agenda with an anti-freedom, anti-American political ideology. I would expect Muslim Islamists, who also conflate their religion and politics, to be similarly scrutinized, and deemed hostile to American values. Similarly, I would hope that any Jewish Zionist who was nominated or elected to any office would have their Zionist views closely scrutinized and widely discussed in the media to determine how far outside traditional American values their Zionism has taken them, to determine whether they will put their Jewish nationalism above American interests, and to educate their constituency to the fullest extent possible about their politics. (Never forget, all of those in federal positions work for the American taxpayer, not the other way around.)

  15. Mike says:
    May 14, 2009 at 6:39 pm

    Well, listen, maybe you're Catholic so it would be uncomfortable for you to do personally, but it's certainly not impossible if you're not, to accuse all Catholics of being in a conspiracy with each other. You may or may not know that pre-1960 that was a fairly common idea – and JFK was frequently smeared before his big religion speech as being a President who's going to answer to the Pope instead of the American people. I know this has kind of disappeared, but if you succeed in driving the Jews out, I'm just saying you can certainly get onto the Catholics next (or at some point). It is not impractical and has been done before, so do not be discouraged just because they're not an ethnic group.

  16. Mike says:
    May 14, 2009 at 6:56 pm

    Did you take a look at this? http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/po... "Sixty-seven percent (67%) of those who say they are following news out of Gaza Very Closely support Israel's military action" Seems like the Americans who follow the news aren't that far off from that Jewish 80% (and most of the the other statistics aren't that far, either, with 56% of men supporting Israel, etc.). And if someone was throwing down rockets from Canada or Mexico onto wherever it is you live, I would support strong military action, too, even to save a doofus like you.

  17. Chris says:
    May 14, 2009 at 7:43 pm

    How about some real "diversity" on the supreme court. Nominate an Irish or German-American candidate. Other than Scalia, "ethnic" European-American Catholics have gotten the shaft from our WASP/Jewish Ruling elites.

  18. Mike says:
    May 14, 2009 at 8:06 pm

    "Other than Scalia"? What about his fellow Italian-American Catholic Samuel Alito? I would assume Justice Kennedy is Irish-American (though he's a Protestant). John Roberts is half Czech.

  19. Tike says:
    May 15, 2009 at 1:36 am

    sorry i mean inclusive not exclusive

  20. Joshua says:
    May 15, 2009 at 1:42 am

    So let's imagine if Sonia Sotomayor, on the short list, receives the nod from Obama. The first Hispanic on the Court. The fourth female. But she is Catholic, and Catholics hold 5 of the 9 seats. Will we see Phil call for Sotomayor's disqualification because of her religion? I doubt it. Phil just doesn't like Jews who've done well. No wait. Phil's not antisemitic. He's just antizionist. For the record: I think Sotomayor would make a splendid Justice. So would Kagan.

  21. Mike says:
    May 15, 2009 at 3:35 am

    Sotomayor (or Kagan of course) would only be the third female, Joshua (but I'm guessing you just made a typo anyway).

  22. Mike says:
    May 15, 2009 at 3:39 am

    Scalia and Alito are BOTH Italian. John Roberts is half Czech. Kenndy is presumably at least somewhat Irish (though he is Protestant). Thomas is of course Black. Souter and Stevens are Colonial English. And you can ask Phil Weiss what Ginsberg and Breyer are, because he'll be the first to tell you. So I'd say there is some diversity in the court, no Greeks or Portuguese perhaps but I think those two groups are decreasing in size in the U.S. anyway (the days of Dukakis-Agnew-Tsongas are probably over). Speaking of Italian, I remember Nixon asking in one of his tapes "Can anyone find me an honest Italian?" (to put on the Supreme Court) Hey Phil, is it OK to have two Italians on the court? Maybe I should be asking a self-hating Italian-American blogger instead.

  23. Mike says:
    May 15, 2009 at 3:51 am

    Eh, I think I confused myself there – Kennedy IS indeed Catholic. Hmm… so that makes two Catholics that Reagan appointed (Robert Bork was Catholic, too, at least before he got "borked"!)

  25. ThorsProvoni says:
    May 15, 2009 at 12:59 pm

    Obviously the sample group was defined in order to increase the Jewish proportion because Jews typically follow the ME news more than other Americans. The Palestinian right to blow up racist, murderous, genocidal Zionist invaders, interlopers and thieves comes straight from Nuremberg Law.

  26. DICKERSON3870 says:
    May 16, 2009 at 1:43 am

    RE: "Like what? How long a run?" FLIPPANT REPLY: Let's say 12 appointments. No, make that a baker's dozen! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker's_dozen SERIOUS ANSWER: I'll only know it when I see it.

  27. DICKERSON3870 says:
    May 16, 2009 at 1:52 am

    RE: "Kagan has protected Dershowitz from charges of defamation and of plagiarism. " & "She also favors open-end detention of people suspected of aiding Al Quaida no matter where found, that is, treating them like suspects found in and around battlefields." MY COMMENT: Well then, she doesn't really sound like 'my cup of tea'.

Leave a Reply