When should identity politics — which have the objective of advancing the interests of particular groups in society — play a role in the Supreme Court nomination process?

The answer should be a resounding “never.”

Last week, in an editorial that has garnered national attention, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel stated in response to the nomination of Judge Samuel Alito to the high court: “In losing a woman, the court with Alito would feature seven white men, one white woman and a black man, who deserves an asterisk because he arguably does not represent the views of mainstream black America.”

Now how is that for political incorrectness?

Given the board’s position on Justice Thomas, it seems that Condoleezza Rice, Colin Powell, and Alan Keyes — among other intelligent conservative blacks — deserve asterisks behind their names as well.

But even more staggering about the editorial is that it engages in the stereotyping this country seeks to avoid. The Sentinel wants a “black” seat on the Court. But what they really desire is a seat held by a racial minority who will hold the same ideology as Rep. Gwen Moore — a liberal African–American who represents the residents of Milwaukee.

By the Sentinel’s standards, Mr. Thomas must favor affirmative action policies, neglect states’ rights, support gun control, and prevent restrictions on the ability to obtain an abortion. These are supposedly “black” issues, right? Not quite. These are issues held dearly by the Sentinel and those who support the ideological slant of the board.

This isn’t the first time Wisconsin’s media has resorted to racial stereotyping when blacks don’t agree with their liberal ideology. Morning talk show host John Sylvester of WTDY–AM in Madison recently referred to Ms. Rice as an “Aunt Jemima” and Mr. Powell as an “Uncle Tom” — noting they served nothing more than “subservient roles” in the Bush Administration.

Fortunately, Mayor Cieslewicz and Sen. Feingold condemned the remarks.

Unlike the Sentinel’s remarks, though, Mr. Sylvester took the racial stereotyping a step further. Not only do conservative blacks deserve an asterisk at the end of their name, they should also be considered “incompetent.” As such, when their accomplishments merit high positions in a more conservative environment, they are demoted to “black trophy” status.

The Left’s negative attitudes towards conservative blacks only fuel the racial tensions present in society. But these attitudes also force identity politics to be played out in an institution that should be insulated from such action.

Justice Thomas’s replacement of Justice Thurgood Marshall — the Court’s first African–American who also interpreted the Constitution liberally — does not necessitate that he must abide by the same judicial philosophy as his predecessor.

But then again, the Sentinel would prefer that Mr. Thomas occupy the proverbial “black seat” — complete with the supposed trademark “liberal” ideology that goes with it.

The Sentinel speaks of diversity in dichotomous terms: white and non–white, female and male, conservative and liberal. Viewing diversity through this lens, they believe Judge Alito’s nomination “lessens the extent to which the court mirrors the nation’s rich diversity.”

Something tells me the Sentinel selectively applies the word “diversity” though. President Bush could have nominated Judge Janice Rogers Brown — a black woman currently sitting on the second most powerful court in the nation — to the Supreme Court. But the Sentinel would have a problem with her — she is more conservative than Mr. Alito.

I guess she deserves an asterisk behind her name too.

President Bush nominated who he believed to be the best person for the job — someone with strong credentials, who could interpret the law and not legislate from the bench.

The Supreme Court is held in high esteem because most expect politics to be left outside on the courthouse steps with the protesters. Unfortunately, the Sentinel doesn’t seem to get this point.

We select our elected representatives — not our judicial nominees — based on the issues they support. On the contrary, Supreme Court nominees are selected for their legal minds. For an editorial board to suggest that a justice represent the interests of a certain ideological or racial group while serving on our nation’s highest court is beyond absurdity.

The Sentinel may have remembered the Democratic Party talking points when crafting their editorial. But they seemingly forgot that it is not Judge Alito’s nomination that will — in the words of the Sentinel — “divide America rather than unite it,” but rather it’s the paper’s remarks that are more likely to breed such a result.

Darryn Beckstrom ([email protected]) is a doctoral student in the department of political science and a second–year MPA candidate in the La Follette School of Public Affairs.