Jeffrey Toobin has a great Talk of the Town item about how different kinds of diversity have always been an important consideration in Supreme Court appointments. In the earliest days, the main factor was the need for regional and sectional balance. Soon enough the idea of a “Catholic seat” and then a “Jewish seat” emerged. More recently, those kind of regional and sectarian issues have faded, but appointing an African-American justice was part-and-parcel of the civil rights movement and it’s no coincidence that the justice who replaced him is also an African-American.
Beyond the specific history of the Supreme Court, one might just note that this is how government in diverse societies works. Congress—and especially the House—delivers a certain kind of diversity “automatically.” And presidents have always used their cabinet selections as a way of both illustrating the breadth and scope of their political coalition and simultaneously cementing it. Again, originally that meant regional diversity, then it came to mean the inclusion of Catholics and Jews, and more recently it’s come to mean the selection of non-white nominees.
Previous in TP Yglesias
By clicking and submitting a comment I acknowledge the ThinkProgress Privacy Policy and agree to the ThinkProgress Terms of Use. I understand that my comments are also being governed by Facebook, Yahoo, AOL, or Hotmail’s Terms of Use and Privacy Policies as applicable, which can be found here.