|
Buchanan never suggested the SC nominees should be solely white males. Unless something was said off air, Madow widely missed the point. It's one thing to disagree with Buchanan and think race should be a factor, it's quite another thing to assert Buchanan was advocating the selection of only white male supreme court justices. That's not what he said. He made it pretty clear that he thinks race shouldn't be a factor - that's it!
Madow's repeated use of the 108/110 (whites) ratio was pretty weak. 108 of 110 justices were white because for the most part, white men were those who were qualified to sit on the bench. Although Buchanan's response was extremely weak (because 100% of the men who wrote the constitution were white doesn't indicate who is qualified to interpret the constitution, etc....). When law schools were pumping out 0 black, 0 latino, 0 asian, and few female lawyers how could any group other than white males be qualified? While certainly a societal issue, the discrimination that occurred at the law school admissions level is quite distinct from discrimination in the selection of qualified justices. The unfortunate truth is that for a very long time, only white men were qualified. So, when she asked whether white men were deserving of those position, the answer is an unequivocal yes. Maybe not because of any innate abilities of white men, but because there were no qualified candidiates who were non-white males. Today, white men are only a component of qualified candidate pool, and race shouldn't be a factor. That, it appears, was the point Buchanan so ineloquently asserted.
Madow is just as stupid as Hannity. I guess i was wrong in one of my other posts when i said liberal commentators tend to use logic. She had a clear lapse in logic in that discussion. She made an extraordinary leap connecting 1) buchanan disagreeing with the sotomayor nomination on the basis of race, and 2) buchanan thinking only white men deserve to sit on the SC.
|
