Antonin Scalia (1936-2016): Legacy Includes Anti Black Sentiment and Elitism in the Selection of His Law Clerks

Associate Justice Antonin Scalia died on February 13, 2016. He was 79.

A quote from Reverend Thomas Merton’s book, “Seeds of Destruction (Letters to a White Liberal),” page 19-20:

We have been willing to grant the Negro rights on paper, even in the South. But the laws have been framed in such a way that in every case their execution has depended on the good will of white society, and the white man has not failed, when left to himself, to block, obstruct, or simply forget the necessary action without which the rights of the Negro cannot be enjoyed in fact. Hence, when laws have been passed, then contested, dragged through all of the courts, and finally upheld, the Negro is still in no position to benefit by them without, in each case, entering into further interminable lawsuits every time he wants to exercise a right guaranteed to him by law.

(Justice Scalia’s work on the Supreme Court fits well within this description.)

The blog has covered Justice Scalia rarely. But the blog’s attention was drawn to the Fisher v. University of Texas due to the commonality of conservative affiliations by Edward Blum (see also http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/04/08/ny-times-misses-link-between-anti-civil-rights/198784) and Justice Scalia, who mentioned Richard Sanders’ anti black “mismatch” theory during oral argument.

The connection of these men contributed to the unfair, destructive and unjust attack on black citizens from a government forum (that is, Scalia’s “questions” during oral argument and the cultivation of the Fisher case on the docket by Blum).

(Author’s note: The sight of a high-ranking white male justice forming an argument to justify the exclusion of black students, masked by transferring black students to “slower” schools was exasperating and offensive. I will not forget this profound insult.)

CO5qHH8U8AAE0RD
Virginia Slave Law, 1705

In addition, Scalia made it clear that students from non-elite law schools could not become one of his law clerks, despite speaking at a law school that was not in his elite group–American University in Washington, D.C.

 

Document or Quote Blog Post
Fisher v University of Texas (2015 oral argument), pages 67-8 https://alexwdc.wordpress.com/2015/12/11/federal-reserve-board-walter-t-charlton-counsel-for-cynthia-artis-artis-v-bernanke-on-c-span-in-2002-a-note-onjohn-roberts-and-antonin-scalia/
(Selection from blog author’s post (for context). Justice Scalia’s quote is at the end.)

 

It seems that only graduates of “elite” legal education institutions (Harvard, Yale, Stanford) can apply to be law clerks for Justice Antonin Scalia.  Justice  Scalia spoke at American University’s Washington College of Law in May 2009.

 

A student at the event asked what a student that does not go to an “elite” law school needs to do to be successful as a future practicing lawyer. Justice Scalia responded, “Just work hard and be very good.” Fair enough, I suppose.

 

But this advice is not at all sufficient for a non-“elite” law school graduate to be a candidate for a Supreme Court law clerk position in his chambers. Nothing trumps an “elite” law school diploma.

 

‘By and large’, he said, ‘I’m going to be picking from the law schools that basically are the hardest to get into. They admit the best and the brightest, and they may not teach very well, but you can’t make a sow’s ear out of a silk purse. If they come in the best and the brightest, they’re probably going to leave the best and the brightest, O.K.?’

 

 

https://alexwdc.wordpress.com/2009/06/07/supreme-court-for-law-clerk-positions-only-elite-law-school-grads-in-general-need-apply/
Advertisements

DCPS: A Comment on Chancellor Michelle Rhee and Her Private Foundation Supporters

The Washington Post reports that Chancellor Michelle Rhee seems to have secret benefactors who are willing to pay public school teachers extremely generous pay increases unknown in the educational field. While teachers rightfully deserve that money for the vital job that they do, one always must consider the reasons for the magnificent generosity from private donors. This is especially true for donors seeking anonymity.

This secrecy is problematic. In some of my other posts, I covered some of Ward Connerly’s initiative fights. He too has secret benefactors. The secrecy demands result from the need to protect the business interests and the reputation of the benefactor from the backlash of supporting politically unpopular proposals. The Equal Justice Society published a report on a lawsuit against Connerly that required him to disclose his donors behind his Proposition 209 effort in California [Note: For more about Ward Connerly’s money sources, see the website bigmoneyconnerly.com (link in blogroll in left column)].

Rhee’s donors suspiciously have the same request, which leads me to presume that the source of her largess is from the same conservative foundations seeking to undermine public education for charter schools. An example of my concern is the presence of the Walton Family Foundation.

The Walton Family Foundation, created in 1987 by the late Sam Walton, founder of Wal-Mart, has invested heavily in nonunion charter schools, and critics say many of its contributions reflect an agenda that promotes privatization of public education. Blew told Education Week that the foundation is “totally agnostic” about whether a school is public, private or charter, as long as it is effective.

Chancellor Rhee’s actions with these foundations must be carefully monitored.

Relevant foundations to keep an eye on: Bradley Foundation (articles here,) and the DeVos Foundation.

Post script

For more information, consider these articles here, and here.

For more information on the publicly known foundations [Note: no connection implied with the conservative foundations described in the post above], see the following:

Gates Foundation

Eli Broad

Dell Foundation

Robertson Foundation.