...when you've got the AP? which "reports":
"Obama's search to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice David Souter should extend beyond the current roster of federal judges, senators from both political parties said Sunday.
"'I would like to see more people from outside the judicial monastery, somebody who has had some real-life experience, not just as a judge,' said Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee that will hold hearings when Obama makes his nomination.
"Noting that all nine justices came directly from the federal appeals court, senators on the committee said someone with a wider breadth of experience would be a plus..."
Well, ummm, yeah, so what's your point, Senator Leahy? What's this "wider breadth of experience" you're after? Might it possibly be...
...might it just possibly be...
Oh! Yes! It is!:
"I would like to see, certainly, more women on the court. Having only one woman on the Supreme Court does not reflect the makeup of the United States. I think we should have more women. We should have more minorities," Leahy said.
And (can it be? is it possible?) Arlen Specter (I mean, he used to be a "Republican" - right?) agrees:
"'I would like to see somebody with broader experience,' Specter said. 'We have a very diverse country. We need more people to express a woman's point of view or a minority point of view, Hispanic or African American ... somebody who's done something more than wear a black robe for most of their lives.'" [sic]
So there you have it. "Wide Experience" = being non-white &/or non-male. (Ideally, of course, both at the same time).
Not that we all didn't already know that.
* * * * *
You know, it's funny, in a way. I used to think that this sort of stuff was so obviously silly that it just couldn't last long.
But now I know that it will outlive me.
It concentrates the mind, wonderfully.