Republican Oklahoma Senators Coburn and Inhofe object to a native American appointed to the federal bench by Barack Obama. Apparently, a Native American who on paper looks highly qualified.
Why? They won’t say. He’s simply “unacceptable for the position.” In what way is he unacceptable? It could be because he’s a Native American. (Apparently, 8% of Oklahomans are Native American; the highest percentage of any state in the Union except Alaska.)
Of course, it could also be because if Barack Obama nominated Jesus to the federal bench, Coburn and Inhofe would find him “unacceptable”.
But again, they won’t say.
Could it be that they’re simply racists? Sorry. They won’t say.
Read the article in The Atlantic here: “The Mikkanen Nomination and the White Man”, by Andrew Cohen.
(As a total aside: Am I the only one who think that Tom Coburn’s new beard makes him look more than a little like Colonel Sanders, of Kentucky Fried Chicken fame?)
Thinkwing Radio with Mike Honig 
Native American aside – the dude is more than qualified. Yale Law, Dartmouth undergrad, clerkships under two different federal judges, private practice, federal prosecutor, adjunct law professor, tribal court judge, BIA judge, active in the Bar and the community.
More qualified than a lot of judges who get appointed. It would be interesting to see how many were just former politicians and not actual practicing attorneys.
Saw an article that described him as “apolitical” – that would be nice for a change.
LikeLike
Thanks for your comments, David.
“Apolitical” used to be an assumed part of the job description for any serious sitting judge. (I used to consider Federal court judges ‘serious”.)
Now, you have Justice Scalia, who should have recused himself as a friend of one of the plaintiffs in Bush v Gore (i.e., Dick Cheney) and didn’t. Or Justice Scalia, who now gives secret talks which are closed to journalists and recording devices to select groups, and that’s okay because we know he’s impartial and apolitical. Or Justice Thomas, who should have recused himself in Bush v Gore because his wife was an official in the Bush campaign. Or Justice Thomas, who should have at least considered recusing himself in People United because his wife was a lobbyist for conservative causes. (But I’ll give the benefit of the doubt on that one, since it’s a close call, assuming that you believe in your heart that Justice Thomas is apolitical and impartial.
Doesn’t it make you yearn for the days when far left liberal presidents like Eisenhower, Nixon and Reagan were appointing judges?
LikeLike
You forgot to mention Clarence Thomas; he just might be more guilty or just as guilty as Scalia given that his wife, Jenny Thomas, was a paid director of a group that was financed by known conservative contributors and her income was not included in their joint tax return for the last five years.
Their behavior is truly shameful and should be addressed and
any attendance by any member of the Supreme Court at anything that can be construed as political should not be tolerated and should be changed immediately ! ! !
LikeLike
Maobama wouldn’t nominate Jesus to a judgeship – he would only nominate left-wing nut cases. Anyone maobama nominates is going to be unfit for the job, ethnicity has nothing to do with it. The fact that maobama only picks liberal degenerates is the reason this candidate was opposed.
LikeLike
Hey Bob,
Thanks for your comment. I think you perfectly exemplify the thoughtfull, educated, well-informed and articulate branch of conservative thinking that we face in this country today.
I also would like to point out that, by all accounts, Jesus was a Semitic, Middle-Eastern, pacifist liberal extremist.
LikeLike