Let’s recall that the Washington Post endorsed then-federal judge Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme Court. During her confirmation hearings it came to light that Sotomayor regularly gave some version of the following quote in her speeches:It takes an impressive amount of discipline to avoid noticing that, if a Supreme Court Justice openly congratulates herself for making decisions based on her race, Donald Trump has every reason to be concerned about the impartiality of a professional Mexican like U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel.
"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would, more often than not, reach a better conclusion."
Got that? Sotomayor was explicitly saying that her view of judicial decision-making was related not to the law and the Constitution but her ethnic/racial heritage as a “wise Latina.”
And yet? And yet the Washington Post endorsed that, in this editorial headlined: "Confirm Sonia Sotomayor."
VDARE.com has long argued that, given the U.S. now has legislating judges, they should be compelled to face elections i.e. impeachment. If you follow that link, you will see that a high proportion of the legislating judges we have exposed have been various sorts of minorities. (There is the occasional honorable exception).
Diversity is not strength, and it above all is not an impartial judiciary. That requires a degree of cultural consensus that post-1965 immigration policy has destroyed.