Trumping the race card
This is something I wrote for Open Source Politics last time Justice Brown got nominated. It's all still valid reasoning, and I present it as an example of how to deal with the inevitable race card.
Of course if you have no patience with that sort of thing you can use the short version:
Q: You mean a Black person isn't allowed to have a conservative viewpoint?
A: No, I mean you're an asshole. You personally.
You mean Justice Brown is Black?
California Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown has been nominated for a U.S.Court of Appeals seat on the D.C Circuit. Her nomination is as widely opposed at that of William Pryor…whose confirmation was just defeated Thursday. According to the vast majority of Conservative spokesmen, the opposition to Pryor was obstructionist, a liberal plot, politically motivated. But the opposition to Brown, according to the vast majority of Conservative spokesmen, has a single reason.
She is being opposed because she is Black.
Normally, when someone plays the race card on me I just ignore them and toddle on my merry way. But sometimes it's played so clumsily that it demands comment.
I mean, have you actually looked at her record or have you relied on pundits? You've probably heard about her being the lone dissent numerous times, but….
In one she said racial slurs are protected speech, even when they rise to the level of harassment and discrimination. Don't you think liberals would oppose a white man who made such a ruling? (That the ruling went against U.S. Supreme Court precedent should worry Conservative opponents of judicial activism and legislation as well). I'm not asking if you agree with her, I'm asking if you recognize that that is a position civil rights organizations would oppose no matter who held it.
And drug testing. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a test must be made to determine its constitutionality in each situation, much as it has ruled as regards "affirmative action" programs. Beyond being established precedent, it just makes sense. If I ask you to make an apple pie from this bucket of fruit, your ability to do so depends on what kind of fruit is in the bucket. Just because it's all fruit doesn't mean it's all the same. Justice Brown's rulings would establish the right for any employer at all to do drug testing (you Libertarians better pay attention, because I know why you're a Libertarian).
Don't you think the ACLU would oppose a candidate who would accept the reduction in the right of privacy that they advocate?
Don't you think liberals (socialist bastards that we are) cringe at the thought of a person who called the increase of liberty we've seen since the 1940s "the triumph of our own socialist revolution" getting that Court of Appeals seat? Do you really think we wouldn't object if only it were a white guy we were talking about?
Isn't is obvious we are going to oppose any person of her record and beliefs?
So why are we being accused of opposing her only because she's Black and Conservative? Even Black Conservatives make that argument.
Read The Leadership Council on Civil Rights' fact sheet. Read the People For the American Way and NAACP joint fact sheet. Read the National Women's Law Center pdf on their position.Read them, not for agreement, but to see what they say. See if they object to her because of her race or because of her history.
And think carefully about who it was that you first heard or read discussing her race. Because THAT is who is playing the race card.
And it wasn't a liberal.