[Recently by Henry McCulloch: Barone Admits (Unintentionally?) That A Real America Preceded The "Nation Of Immigrants"]
Recently, two Beverly Hills lawyers (as distinct from Beverly Hills Cops, I suppose) exposed in an Investor's Business Daily Op Ed the discrepancy between what federal circuit judge and Barack Hussein Obama's first Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor says about "Latina" wisdom and whom she actually hires as law clerks.
What the Beverly Hills lawyers show only reinforces the conclusion many of us have already reached: if the U.S. Senate confirms Sotomayor's appointment to the Supreme Court, she will proceed to vote to impose racial and sexual bean-counting quotas on the rest of us that she and our new ruling order have no intention of observing themselves.
Attorneys Joseph Evanns and Egon Mittelmann reviewed a letter [PDF] (extremely laudatory) from La Sotomayor's former clerks to Senate leaders in favor of her confirmation. They commented:
"[O]f the 45 signatory names appearing, only three surnames, or 6.23%, are even arguably 'Latina/Latino.'
"Of the remaining 42 surnames, 22 appear to be Jewish, four to five appear to be Asian, 14 or 15 appear to be non-Jewish and non-'Latina.' "[Judge Sotomayor's Latina Hiring Wisdom, June 11, 2009]
Latin Americans do seem to be under-represented among La Sotomayor's clerks. Which strongly suggest that in the recesses of her own heart, La Sotomayor knows that most "Latinas"—maybe including herself—really are not up to the headwork of being a Second Circuit judge's clerk.
¡Que lástima!—for them.
Good catch—and an interesting and damaging column overall. As Evanns and Mittelmann say: "[T]he nominee appears to subscribe to the liberal rule of law applying differently to the ruling elite and the non-elite ruled, believing in 'do as I say, not as I do'."
Nevertheless, there is another conclusion one can draw from the data, one that Evanns and Mittelmann do not mention.
Looking at the data another way, of the 45 signatories, seven or eight appear to be obvious protected minorities (Latin American and Asian) while 36 or 37 appear to be some variety of white.
Of those 36 or 37 former clerks, it is very likely that several are in fact black, something not always obvious from surnames. Still, let's assume that all of the people Evanns and Mittlemann tag as "non-Jewish and non-'Latina'" are actually white Americans—a best-case guess for the white guys, which I'm willing to bet is a material overcount. The disparity that jumps out: among those 36 or 37 "possibly-whites", 14 or 15 might conceivably be white, non-Jewish Americans—while a full 22 appear to be Jewish.
The Census Bureau's 2008 estimate of the ethnic composition of the population of the United States in 2010 (not all actually Americans, to be sure) puts the "Not Hispanic" white percentage of the population at 65% (a disastrous percentage decrease over recent decades that the Census happily predicts will only continue) "Hispanics", however the feds define that, are at 16%; and blacks are at 13%—bad news indeed for black Americans, and a role-reversal just within this decade.
Since several of the 14 or 15 possibly-white non-Jewish clerks are very likely black, white Americans are probably under-represented in percentage terms among La Sotomayor's clerks.
Let's dig a little deeper. The Census does not separate Jews as a subset among whites, but reasonable estimates put the Jewish percentage of the U.S. population at approximately 2%. One should note, however, that, with essentially unrestricted Jewish immigration from the now-defunct Soviet Union and other Warsaw Pact countries from when the Jackson-Vanik Amendment became law in 1975 through the Soviet collapse in 1991 and from Russia and elsewhere in Eastern Europe ever since—curiously, Jackson-Vanik remains law even though the Evil Empire is no more—plus from Israel since her independence in 1948, by no means are all Jews in the United States in fact Americans.
But even counting all of the 15 questionables as non-Jewish whites—very unlikely, see above—Jews appear to make up a minimum of 60% of La Sotomayor's white clerks, and nearly half overall.
Of course, it's true that Sotomayor's federal appeals court, the Second Circuit, covers Connecticut, Vermont and New York (which utterly dominates the circuit) and there are heavily Jewish areas in New York City and its suburbs. Still, this is an astonishing disparity.
So, yes, there certainly is a glaring double standard at work in Sonia Sotomayor's selection of law clerks. It matches precisely the double standard applied to choose who among America's qualified white applicants will be permitted to attend the law schools from which La Sotomayor no doubt picks her clerks. Yale, Harvard and Columbia—all universities originally founded by Colonial English-stock Americans to propagate the Christian religion—head the list. All operate effective quota systems to ensure that enough minorities get in. But some white Americans, apparently, are more equal than others.
Sotomayor's clerks are more evidence, as if we need any, of the ongoing dispossession of "non-Jewish" white Americans from every important institution they founded in the country they settled and whose independence they won.
So I salute Evanns and Mittelmann for calling out Sonia Sotomayor for her hypocrisy and double standards
But also I must call them out too, for sitting on a more important story. A real case of double standards and dispossession is staring them in the face. Apparently, they cannot bring themselves to mention it.
It might be instructive to ponder why that is so—and to ask what those dispossessed Americans, while they remain a majority, should do about their plight.
We may be absolutely sure that, when they do try to do anything about it, all the anti-discrimination bureaucracy of "their" federal government will close ranks against them.
