Diversity Zealot-in-Chief

justice concept, selective focus on nearest part ,lens blur f/x

justice concept, selective focus on nearest part ,lens blur f/x

President Obama would appear to have a singular obsession with diversity, and it is beginning to border on the unhealthy.  From his political appointments to his public statements, Obama appears to consider race and gender as the most important factors in a person’s makeup.

Consider whom President Obama is nominating for lifetime appointments to the federal judiciary.

More than any recent president, Obama has appointed a high number of unqualified individuals from minority groups to the federal bench.  According to the New York Times, the American Bar Association (ABA) has rated 14 out of Obama’s 185 nominees “not qualified” for a seat on the bench.  The Times notes that:

nearly all of the prospects given poor ratings were women or members of a minority group, according to interviews… The number of Obama prospects deemed “not qualified” already exceeds the total number opposed by the group during the eight-year administrations of Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush.

During his tenure, Bush removed the ABA’s role in the nomination process; however, the ABA still evaluated each Bush selection, post-nomination.  Upon assuming the presidency, Obama immediately resumed the ABA’s traditional role in the process.

That Obama is selecting unqualified folks to fill lifetime appointments as federal judges is certainly newsworthy, but what makes the high number all more telling is that – of the 14 “not qualified” individuals – 13 are female and / or a minority.  According to the Times:

the demographic composition of the 14 prospects opposed by the panel has proved to be awkward.  A person familiar with the ratings said nine are women — five of whom are white, two black, and two Hispanic.  Of the five men, one is white, two are black, and two are Hispanic.

The ABA is one of the most liberal organizations in the United States, and it certainly supports diversity in the judiciary.  So one has to wonder just how bad Obama’s nominees are.  They are apparently really bad.  The Times reports:

According to a person familiar with the ratings, in discussions with the administration, the panel cited concerns about experience for six of the 14 candidates found “not qualified.” It also cited concerns over temperament for five, competence for three and ethics for three. (Three potential nominees were said to have been criticized as falling short in more than one of those areas.)

Considering these are lifetime appointments to the federal bench, one would expect the President to make careful choices that would not raise the suspicions of even his admirers as to their experience, temperament, competence and ethics.  But it seems to have come to that, and Obama’s response raises even more concerns.  Rather than accepting the ABA’s decision, the Wall Street Journal reports, “that the White House may be resubmitting some candidates to the committee in hopes that it will rethink its reviews.”

See if you can follow the President’s absurd logic:  Obama reinstates the ABA’s important role in the judicial nomination process.  The ABA declares a record number of Obama’s nominees “not qualified.”  Obama refuses to accept the ABA’s evaluation.  Obama may have the ABA reassess his nominees to presumably come to a more favorable conclusion.

Besides a blind allegiance to his left-wing political agenda, is there anything else about these incompetent, unethical, intemperate and unqualified nominees that Obama sees as qualifying them for a prestigious judicial appointment other than their gender and race?  Is diversity really more important to our President than competent judges who will be in charge of our nation’s laws?

Racists and affirmative action zealots such as Obama have one major characteristic in common.  They both see people first and foremost for their outward appearance.  Personal character and accolades are secondary, if considered at all.

Obama should not resubmit any of the unqualified, incompetent nominees.  He should instead find 14 top-notch jurists who are worthy of a lifetime appointment, regardless of their race or gender.

The National Center for Public Policy Research is a communications and research foundation supportive of a strong national defense and dedicated to providing free market solutions to today’s public policy problems. We believe that the principles of a free market, individual liberty and personal responsibility provide the greatest hope for meeting the challenges facing America in the 21st century.