The Hill’s article really focuses on Slick Willie’s assertion that the Republicans won’t retake either the House of Representative or the Senate, but what I think is important is a few paragraphs into the story.

Clinton ruled himself or his wife, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, out of accepting an appointment to the Supreme Court but he offered some advice to Obama about a prospective nominee.

“My advice to him would be to, first of all, see what the court’s missing. Does it matter if he puts a Catholic or a Jewish person or someone of another faith on a court, there might — there would be no Protestants on the Supreme Court. … Does there need to be another woman on the court?”

To the left, it’s all about identity politics.

No mention from the former president about experience. No mention about education. No mention about Constitutional philosophy.

It all about race, creed and gender.

As I noted before, Slate made the same argument.

What if, just to get out my crazy stick and beat my right wing nutcase drum for a second, but what if we judged candidates, not by genitalia or skin color or church affiliation, but by their merits. What if we looked at a candidates rulings and asked, “Does this person understand the Constitution? Has their performance in the past shown good judgement?”

I know, it’s crazy. But it just might work.

Facebook Comments

comments