In the midst of Sotomayormania, we’ve been hearing a little about Frank Ricci. His name is on Ricci v. DeStefano — a race-preferences case. In a recent column, Charles Krauthammer summarized his “story” (a word that is very much in vogue):
Ricci is a New Haven firefighter stationed seven blocks from where Sotomayor went to law school (Yale). Raised in blue-collar Wallingford, Conn., Ricci struggled as a C and D student in public schools ill-prepared to address his serious learning disabilities. Nonetheless he persevered, becoming a junior firefighter and Connecticut’s youngest certified EMT.
After studying fire science at a community college, he became a New Haven “truckie,” the guy who puts up ladders and breaks holes in burning buildings. When his department announced exams for promotions, he spent $1,000 on books, quit his second job so he could study eight to 13 hours a day and, because of his dyslexia, hired someone to read him the material.
He placed sixth on the lieutenant’s exam, which qualified him for promotion. Except that the exams were thrown out by the city, and all promotions denied, because no blacks had scored high enough to be promoted.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
ADVERTISEMENT
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Okay, here’s my question: Why are not black Americans insulted and outraged? Perhaps many are, and I have merely been unaware of it. But I would expect an outcry that goes something like, “Don’t you dare inflict injustice on others for my sake. Don’t you dare discriminate so grossly in my name.”
Indeed, I believe that race preferences at large will come to an end when that happens. When the preponderance of black opinion says, “Enough. Not for our sake; not in our name. Commit injustices if you must — but not for our benefit, thank you very much. Look to the individual, of whatever color. The time for ‘compensatory discrimination’ has passed.”
A lot of people have been saying, “You can’t be an impartial judge. We are all full of biases. There is no such thing as impartiality in judging. This is just an impossible ideal.” People say the same thing about journalism, too: “Bias is baked in the cake. You can do nothing about it. You gotta be who you are. It’s just human nature.” Baloney. I think that the problem is not ability — the ability to be fair, neutral, objective. I think the problem is volition: Too many people just don’t want to be fair, neutral, and objective. They make no effort.
Let me tell you a story — which takes place at an Upper East Side dinner party. This was a few years ago, and I was with some nice New York liberals. The Texas sodomy ruling had just come down from the Supreme Court. And everyone was pleased as punch that the Texas anti-sodomy law was struck down.
I said I admired Justice Thomas’s dissent. He said, in brief, that, if he were a Texas legislator, he would oppose that law, and vote to rescind it. But he was a justice of the Supreme Court. And his job was to determine whether the Constitution permitted a state to make such a law. He found that it did — so . . . His personal opinion of the Texas law had nothing to do with it.
And the people in the room looked at me like I was from outer space. It’s not that they disagreed with me; it’s not that they were hostile to me. They were just stunned by what I had to say. Why, if you’ve got power, you’ve got to use it for good! You’ve got to strike down bad laws! You’ve got to get the desired result! What’s the point of getting the appointment and donning the black robe if you’re not going to strike blows for justice?
They could not conceive that an impartial, disinterested reading of the Constitution is justice. Process, in general, is trashed in contemporary America.
By the way, I am an opinion journalist (as you know), and have always worked for opinion journals. I have never been employed as a just-the-facts-ma’am reporter. But I have done such reporting — and, you know, it’s not very hard. You just have to want to do it.
One great question for conservatives and Republicans is, What should be our standard? What should be our standard in confirming or rejecting Supreme Court nominations? The Republican practice has been clear: We just wave ’em through. A Stephen Breyer comes up, a Ruth Bader Ginsburg — she was general counsel to the ACLU! And we just wave ’em through.
Barack Obama and many other Democrats think differently: If a conservative comes up, they vote against him — because he is a conservative. Obama did this with John Roberts and Samuel Alito. He admitted that they were perfectly qualified to serve on the Court. At the same time, they were not qualified — they were unfit — because they were, in a word, conservatives.
Should conservative senators vote against liberal Supreme Court nominees on the Obama principle — on an ideological basis? Should the standard be tit-for-tat, in this realm? That is the question. And I’m not yet sure of the answer. All I know is: Liberal nominees are lucky that conservative and Republican senators don’t operate on the Obama principle.
