Perfect, not a woman

Leave it to Senator John McCain to get it exactly wrong once again.

Since the announcement of Roberts nomination, the merits and demerits of his conservative credentials have been given wide discussion in Republican circles.  The likes of David Souter and Anthony Kennedy certainly give credence to the worries of conservatives like Ann Coulter and Pat Buchanan about another 'stealth' candidate. Nixon, Ford, Reagan, and G. H. Bush have all been burned by wishful thinking and bad appointments. Even Ike, in a life filled with momentous decisions, made what he called his 'greatest mistake' by selecting for the court the Republican Governor of California, Earl Warren. From the 'strict—constructionist' standpoint, Bush's nominee may or may not be a good one. Only time will tell.

But Bush's selection is an unqualified triumph in one important aspect. In fact, it is downright courageous. As O'Connor inanely blurted out upon learning of the nominee, '[Roberts] is just about perfect, except he is not a woman.'

Yes, George W. had the audacity to select someone based on his qualifications and abilities.

Despite the desires of his lovely wife and the expectations of the mainstream press, the President, in one swift stroke, curtailed one of the most dangerous and troubling trends in American life, the habit of discriminating against people because of things they have no control over.

The civil rights ideal which for years was based on the righteous pursuit of a color—blind society and of a fair playing field for all where the content of character was paramount and no regard could be given to race, relgion or gender, has, of course, turned into a fraudulent game of race—based policies that even a South Afrikaner would regard with distaste.

The cheerleaders of 'diversity' inadvertently echo and emphasize the beliefs of the worst racist.

The same people, who would recoil at the notion that a black woman might behave or think in a certain way, insist that a black woman be placed in a certain position because of the unique way that a black woman would behave or think. Jury selections are only the most glaring and obvious cases of this type of thinking. In its starkest formulation of the new 'civil rights' approach, a person can be counted on to think or behave based on their skin color, religion, or gender. How the mind reels at plain speaking! But the obviousness of their approach somehow never dawns on the liberal mind. They are doing good! Don't confuse them with things like thought, consistency, and simple fairness.

Bush should be given plaudits for eschewing the approach of continuing a 'seat' for any group or type. No longer need there be a 'Jewish' seat, a 'Black' seat, a 'Woman's' seat. Some liberal pundits following this trend were even going so far to expectantly reserve seats based on degrees of approved right—left ratios; thus O'Connor must be replaced by a middle of the roader 'who would bring us together.' There was no doubt soon to be the 'consensus, light—weight, quasi—conservative, tea—leaves in India seat' (Kennedy), the 'hard—ass conservative seat'(Scalia), 'the clueless Liberal fossil seat' (Stevens), etc.

The frustration in listening to liberals, (and even some conservatives,) discuss things like court appointments, foreign policy, economic issues and so forth, is not simply the dearth of even rudimentary knowledge and lack of grasp of things like facts, it is the unserious prattle, it is the childish, school—yard approach. Schumer and companies talking points bring a new low to the meaning of the word 'nonsense.'

So regardless of how Roberts votes over the next forty or so years, Bush has gotten one thing deliciously right.

To top off the beauty of the thing, McCain spoke this weekend about the need for Bush to appoint a woman to the next available Supreme Court vacancy. Mr. Straight—talk really has a knack. Doesn't he?

Andrew Sumereau is a frequent contributor

Leave it to Senator John McCain to get it exactly wrong once again.

Since the announcement of Roberts nomination, the merits and demerits of his conservative credentials have been given wide discussion in Republican circles.  The likes of David Souter and Anthony Kennedy certainly give credence to the worries of conservatives like Ann Coulter and Pat Buchanan about another 'stealth' candidate. Nixon, Ford, Reagan, and G. H. Bush have all been burned by wishful thinking and bad appointments. Even Ike, in a life filled with momentous decisions, made what he called his 'greatest mistake' by selecting for the court the Republican Governor of California, Earl Warren. From the 'strict—constructionist' standpoint, Bush's nominee may or may not be a good one. Only time will tell.

But Bush's selection is an unqualified triumph in one important aspect. In fact, it is downright courageous. As O'Connor inanely blurted out upon learning of the nominee, '[Roberts] is just about perfect, except he is not a woman.'

Yes, George W. had the audacity to select someone based on his qualifications and abilities.

Despite the desires of his lovely wife and the expectations of the mainstream press, the President, in one swift stroke, curtailed one of the most dangerous and troubling trends in American life, the habit of discriminating against people because of things they have no control over.

The civil rights ideal which for years was based on the righteous pursuit of a color—blind society and of a fair playing field for all where the content of character was paramount and no regard could be given to race, relgion or gender, has, of course, turned into a fraudulent game of race—based policies that even a South Afrikaner would regard with distaste.

The cheerleaders of 'diversity' inadvertently echo and emphasize the beliefs of the worst racist.

The same people, who would recoil at the notion that a black woman might behave or think in a certain way, insist that a black woman be placed in a certain position because of the unique way that a black woman would behave or think. Jury selections are only the most glaring and obvious cases of this type of thinking. In its starkest formulation of the new 'civil rights' approach, a person can be counted on to think or behave based on their skin color, religion, or gender. How the mind reels at plain speaking! But the obviousness of their approach somehow never dawns on the liberal mind. They are doing good! Don't confuse them with things like thought, consistency, and simple fairness.

Bush should be given plaudits for eschewing the approach of continuing a 'seat' for any group or type. No longer need there be a 'Jewish' seat, a 'Black' seat, a 'Woman's' seat. Some liberal pundits following this trend were even going so far to expectantly reserve seats based on degrees of approved right—left ratios; thus O'Connor must be replaced by a middle of the roader 'who would bring us together.' There was no doubt soon to be the 'consensus, light—weight, quasi—conservative, tea—leaves in India seat' (Kennedy), the 'hard—ass conservative seat'(Scalia), 'the clueless Liberal fossil seat' (Stevens), etc.

The frustration in listening to liberals, (and even some conservatives,) discuss things like court appointments, foreign policy, economic issues and so forth, is not simply the dearth of even rudimentary knowledge and lack of grasp of things like facts, it is the unserious prattle, it is the childish, school—yard approach. Schumer and companies talking points bring a new low to the meaning of the word 'nonsense.'

So regardless of how Roberts votes over the next forty or so years, Bush has gotten one thing deliciously right.

To top off the beauty of the thing, McCain spoke this weekend about the need for Bush to appoint a woman to the next available Supreme Court vacancy. Mr. Straight—talk really has a knack. Doesn't he?

Andrew Sumereau is a frequent contributor