...on being qualified

President Obama has just nominated Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme court. I don't know much about her, other than she appears to have an inspirational, Horatio Alger-type story. I'm not writing to address her qualifications. In fact, my concern is that her nomination has little to do with her judicial qualifications.

This morning, news headlines proclaimed, "Obama picks Latina." Sounds like a politically savvy choice. NBC news questions, "Would Republicans dare vote against first Hispanic Woman?" Probably not in significant numbers (not that it would matter)--they can't afford to further alienate the Latino vote.

But I have a few questions about the nomination (if not the nominee). First, what does being a Hispanic woman have to do with being qualified to be a Supreme Court justice? What does being any gender from any race have to do with being qualified? President Obama said he would nominate somebody with "empathy and understanding." Admirable traits, but what do they have to do with dispassionately applying the law? I'd like to think that the answer to each of these questions is, absolutely nothing. Now, Sotomayor may in fact be the most qualified person President Obama could have nominated, but anybody would be hard-pressed to make the case that Obama's decision was based on her qualifications and not her race and gender.

I also can't help wondering if Ms. Sotomayor feels that her appointment has been cheapened by being based on marketing, political correctness and voter-getting rather than judicial excellence. Obviously, nobody is going to come out and say that she was only selected because she's a "Latina", but would she have gotten the nod had she been a white male? And if not, isn't that racism? Ms. Sotomayor isn't stupid and can't be naive to this line of reasoning.

Here's how I look at this and other quality vs. equality issues: If I'm on an airplane who's only pilot suddenly dies of a heart attack, the attendant asks if anybody in the plane has any kind of flying experience and four people raise their hands, I hope the attendant ascertains the skill and experience of the four, then selects the best pilot. If the attendant selects the new pilot based on gender, race, sexual preference, political affiliation, friendship, financial favors or any other reason, I'll be looking for a parachute and the nearest exit.

...on being confused

First off, let me admit that there is much about this topic that I don't understand, but it appears to me that a) the gay rights movement has an agenda, and b) it's confusing.

Take for example a recent Politico article:

"But gay rights groups — disappointed that Obama didn't pick an openly gay man or woman for his Cabinet — are pushing him to put the first openly gay justice on the Supreme Court.

"Within hours of word of Souter's departure, the Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund was hailing the candidacy of a First Amendment scholar and former dean of Stanford Law School, Kathleen Sullivan. 'Out lesbian a contender for Supreme Court,' one of the group's web sites declared."

To me, this seems to clash with what I thought was the gay rights agenda, namely indiscriminant equality. So when it comes to marriage, we mustn't discriminate, but when it comes to the President's cabinet, we suddenly should? When it's a local school teacher, sexual preference is irrelevant, but when it's a supreme court justice, it's vital? Must the supreme court nominee also be, as the Politico quote suggests, an "openly" gay person, or is being discretely gay sufficient? What are the rules here? What is the criteria? How is a person supposed to be politically correct? Even if one wanted to color within the lines, they couldn't because the lines keep shifting!

Look, I'm not making any moral, right or wrong arguments here (that's another rant), I'm just pointing out what appears to be multiple standards and multiple agendas. And I'm saying that it's confusing. At best. At worst, it's disingenuous and makes "indiscriminant equality" look like bait.