Clubbing Judges

Some Republicans are criticizing Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor for belonging to a women’s organization called the “Belizean Grove.” This organization, apparently made up primarily of “wise Latinas” is a place to relax and spend time with like-minded people with similar social experiences. As the article notes, Democrats go ballistic if a Republican nominee belongs to an all male social group of this kind, so Republicans are now attempting payback.

Section 2C of the Model Rules of Judicial Conduct, adopted by most states and the federal judiciary but not, to my knowledge, the Supreme Court, states:

A judge shall not hold membership in any organization that practices invidious discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion or national origin.

Liberals have maintained against male Republicans (but not females as Justice Ginsberg and Justice O’Connor demonstrate) a rule that any social organization that is all male violates this “rule.” This is nonsense and its time Republicans, and people of good will generally, said so.

My Webster’s Dictionary defines “invidious” as:

1) tending to cause discontent, animosity, or envy, 2) envious; 3) of an unpleasant or objectionable nature.

Is the purpose of the Belizean Grove to promote the political domination of Latin women to the exclusion of others? No. The Boy Scouts and the Girl Scouts have a federal charter. Both require that you be a boy or a girl to join them. Is this invidious? No.

There are across the land, little men’s and women’s groups that combine for social, recreational and educational reasons. Some of them support scholarships for only one sex or for a single sex school. Is the alumni association of Smith College invidious? Would we not want a member of the Boy Scouts or an alumna of Smith College to be on the Supreme Court? Such a rule is stupid on its face.

What is going on here is the Left’s endless Jacobin war against natural sex differences. Same sex marriage is its natural analog but there are a host of other institutions that have to be worked over to satisfy this foolish rejection of reality. Until now, it has been hypocritically invoked only against men, but the rule of law is supposed to be even handed. Sex is not like race and never has been in any society that we know of, or in our own. Women and men have throughout time liked to join various activities and groups that are single sex. This has not caused oppression but contributed to the diversity and joyousness of American life.

When the first civil rights cases of the 1950s were percolating up through the judiciary they always noted that “invidious” discrimination was prohibited. Little by little, pushed by the Left in the dreadful 1970s, “discrimination” lost the adjective that had made its elimination consistent with liberty and the natural activities of American life. Republicans should not criticize Judge Sotomayor. They should use the opportunity to have Chuck Schumer, Ted Kennedy and Chris Dodd (talk about a boy’s club!) acknowledge that simply belonging to an all female or male social club says nothing about one’s fitness for the Supreme Court, or any court.

Once again the Republicans are poised to throw away a teaching moment that would put them on the same side as the vast majority of Americans in order to score cheap political points and at the cost of further confirming and entrenching an invidious social trend.

This blog post drew some inspiration from Professor Kaufman’s piece for the Hofstra Law Review here for those who really want to engage this issue on a sophisticated legal basis.