As The Daily Caller reported on Thursday, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) stated on Wednesday that he would not vote for a judicial nominee because of the color of his skin. The Trump nominee, Marvin Quattlebaum, is white. This, according to Schumer, is absolutely unacceptable. Schumer fumed:
The nomination of Marvin Quattlebaum speaks to the overall lack of diversity in President Trump’s selections for the federal judiciary. Quattlebaum replaces not one, but two scuttled Obama nominees who were African American. As of February 14th, 83 percent of the President Trump’s confirmed nominees were male, 92 percent were white. That represents the lowest share of non-white candidates in three decades. It’s long past time that the judiciary starts looking a lot more like the America it represents. Having a diversity of views and experiences on the federal bench is necessary for the equal administration of justice.
It’s become tedious to remind Democrats that if they reversed the races here, they’d see just how racist they’ve become — if Schumer were to claim that there were simply too many black judicial nominees, and therefore a white nominee had to be selected, he’d be Bull Connor. But this sort of rhetoric has become commonplace for Democrats.
That’s because Democrats have embraced a philosophy of intersectionality, wherein identity trumps perspective. We are supposed to judge people according to their level of victimization in American society, which can be determined only by group identity, not actual individual victimization. Thus, black judges have a “black view” of the law that can never be understood by white judges. Justice Sonia Sotomayor made precisely this argument in 2001 when she stated, “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”
This belief system runs in direct contravention of the historic American commitment to the rule of law, not of men — meaning that the arbitrary feelings and life experiences of judges aren’t supposed to decide the meaning of the law. But according to Schumer and Democrats, we can determine exactly who’s fit to be a judge by looking at them.