Colorblind Justice at the Supreme Court?
Not if the Democrats and the NAACP can help it!
Last Updated August 10, 2000

Adversity.Net Special Report

          In an extraordinary assault on the independence and "colorblindness" of the Supreme Court, Congressional democrats, aided by the NAACP and the Congressional Black Caucus, have developed a strategy to force the high court to make more decisions which are favorable to racial quotas and racial preferences:  force the court to hire more minority law clerks!

[ News Articles ]          [ Justice Rehquist's Response ]

(U.S. Supreme Court):   Lack of Qualified Minority Clerks is Presumed Racist (10/04/99)
          "A coalition representing minorities and women’s groups called for greater [racial and gender quota hiring goals] among Supreme Court law clerks as the court opened a new term today.

          "This year’s class of clerks has more black and brown faces than any other in recent memory. Among the new class of 35 law clerks at work for the highest court’s nine justices are five minority clerks — two blacks and three Asian-Americans. Last year’s class included one, a Hispanic. [The flawed implication of the racial lobby is that fewer minority clerks equates to fewer favorable decisions by the high court regarding discriminatory racial quotas and preferences cases before the court.]

          "But at a press conference, NAACP President Kweisi Mfume said the court still sends out the message that "people of color need not apply," for the influential clerkships. [Mfume blithely ignores the fact that there are very few qualified "minority" graduates available from the nation’s law schools. Mfume and his ilk imply that evil, white oppressors prevent persons of color from achieving the requisite legal training.]

          "[Says Mfume] People of good will understand this hypocrisy must end on the Supreme Court," Mfume said. "If the court were a private company, it would have been found guilty long ago of racial discrimination." [Mfume ignores the fact that the NAACP’s federal government allies have unilaterally and undemocratically imposed "racial counting" and "racial profile" requirements upon private companies without any democratic vote by the citizen-voters on this issue.]"  (Associated Press 10/04/99 via ABC News)
[link http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/protest100499.html ]

(U.S. Supreme Court):   Minority Clerk Hiring Dominates Hearing (03/15/99)
          The author of this article for "California Law", Mr. Tony Mauro, displays an exceptional bias in favor of racial quotas and racially preferential hiring policies.  In this article, Mr. Mauro uses sarcasm and racist assumptions to infer that the Supreme Court would issue better race-based decisions if only the justices would submit to "hiring law clerks by the racial numbers". 

          It is clear that author Mauro believes, as does the Congressional Black Caucus and the NAACP, that if the high court is forced to hire minority law clerks -- the work horses of the Supreme Court -- then the presumed racial allegiance of the minority clerks will force the high court to render decisions which are more favorable to discriminatory government policies mandating racial hiring quotas.

          In this article, Mauro writes in part:  "Justices David Souter and Clarence Thomas were grilled [by the House Appropriations Committee, which is dominated by racial quota sympathizers] for a long time about an issue that is distinctly the court's problem -- the dearth of minorities hired as law clerks at the court. The exchange that resulted was extraordinary, not only because Congress so rarely questions the court closely about its internal workings, but because of the justices' tone in reply.

          "Both justices did defend the court briefly and in a general way, asserting that none of the justices discriminates in hiring clerks. 'I must stand by the chief justice,' Thomas said more than once. (See: Rehnquist Letter, below.)

          Tony Mauro continues in his biased reporting:  "But mostly, the justices took the sharp questioning to heart and acknowledged that the low numbers, first reported a year ago by this reporter in USA Today, constitute a problem. Fewer than 2 percent of the clerks hired by the current justices during their tenure on the court -- seven out of 428 -- have been black; roughly 25 percent have been women.

          "As they [Souter and Thomas] explained the hiring process in detail, however, the justices were suggesting that it was not the court's problem as such. They pointed instead to the feeder system at the law schools and at the appeals courts, which has failed to push qualified minority candidates through the pipeline that ends in Supreme Court clerkships."  (California Law, 03/15/99, by Tony Mauro)
[link http://www.callaw.com/stories/edt0315c.html ]

(U.S. Supreme Court):   Justices Defend Hiring Practices (03/11/99 - dead)
          "Testifying before a congressional committee for the first time since he joined the Supreme Court, Justice Clarence Thomas yesterday defended the hiring practices that have produced a dearth of female and minority law clerks at the nation's highest court.  'There is not a person at the court who would not want to change this,' Thomas said.  But the man who became only the second black justice in history and is a staunch critic of affirmative action added, 'At this level you just can't take chances [with unproven candidates].'

          "Thomas said the justices seek to hire people who held clerkships at lower federal courts and excelled at top law schools -- which traditionally are bastions of white men.  Appearing with [Thomas], Justice David H. Souter said the justices effectively 'rely on the law schools and other courts to make the cut for us.'  [Souter]  said he tells aides who help him screen applicants, 'Get me the cream.' "  (Washington Post, 03/11/99, page A07, by Joan Biskupic)
[former link *http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPlate/1999-03/11/246l-031199-idx.html]

(U.S. Supreme Court):  Justices Defend Hiring Practices (03/10/99 - dead link)
          "Two Supreme Court justices on Wednesday defended the court's record of hiring women and minorities as law clerks but added there's room for improvement.  'I must stand in defense of my colleagues,'' Justice Clarence Thomas, the second black to serve on the nation's highest court, told a House Appropriations subcommittee.  'I do believe that they would love to see more minorities at the Supreme Court in every capacity.'

          "Justice David H. Souter predicted new pressure at law schools to see that more high-achieving minorities and women are among those recommended for clerkships."  (AP, via Fox News, by Lauries Asseo)
[former link: **http://www.foxnews.com/js_index.sml?content=/news/national/0310/d_ap_0310_158.sml]

(U.S. Supreme Court):  NAACP Quota Pushers:  Clarence Thomas, Sandra Day O'Connor are NOT Enough! (Dead Link)
          The NAACP and "racial quota supporters" don't think that Clarence Thomas and Sandra Day O'Connor offer sufficient representation of minorities and women on the High Court!  Nope, the NAACP wants black law clerks with an attitude to influence the Justices' decisions.  19 quota supporters arrested during demonstration.   (Washington Post 10/6/98; link no longer available.)

Text of Justice Wm. H. Rehnquist's Letter:

          Below is the full text of the letter Chief Justice William Rehnquist sent Nov. 17 to the three congressmen who complained to the court about the small number of minorities who are law clerks.  The complaining Congressmen were Reps. Danny Davis of Illinois, Elijah Cummings of Maryland and Gregory Meeks of New York.  Additional pressure was applied by the predominantly black National Bar Association and the National Organization for Women.  Who ever said justice was blind, much less colorblind?

Rehnquist wrote:  "Gentlemen (Davis, Cummings, Meeks)":

          You recently wrote to each member of the court and strongly urged the court to open ''a dialogue with minority bar associations regarding the hiring process for judicial clerks and the development of effective outreach programs.'' We have discussed the contents of your letter among ourselves, and my colleagues have asked me to reply.

          Each of us is satisfied that no person is excluded from consideration for a clerkship because of race, religion, gender, nationality, or for any other impermissible reason. Each justice of course acts independently in deciding whom to employ as law clerks. The importance of preserving this independence makes it inappropriate for the court as an institution to play a role in the selection of law clerks by individual justices. The same interest in preserving the independence and impartiality of the judicial process also makes it inappropriate for any justice, in performing official duties, to seek guidance from special constituencies. That said, all of the justices are pleased to consider recommendations and comments from all segments of the bar with respect to the qualifications and credentials of an applicant.

          We agree that the statistics set forth in your letter identify concerns which all of us share, but you must realize that many factors entirely unrelated to the hiring of law clerks are responsible for this situation. We select as clerks those who have very strong academic backgrounds, and have had previously successful law clerk experience, most often in the federal courts. As the demographic makeup of this pool changes, it seems entirely likely that the underrepresentation of minorities to which you refer in your letter will also change.

Sincerely,

William H. Rehnquist

End Colorblind Justice at the Supreme Court?