There’s been a trend in multidistrict and class action litigation of federal district judges expressly seeking diversity in plaintiff-side leadership, which is court-appointed. Yesterday, Chief Judge Pryor issued an order explaining that such a practice violates the Constitution as well as certain judicial codes of conduct.
The order stemmed from a judicial misconduct complaint filed against Judge Casey Rodgers of the Northern District by influential conservative lawyer Michael R. Davis, who runs the Article III Project.
Judge Rodgers, an experienced MDL judge who is presiding over the Depo-Provera MDL, had made comments at a case management conference about striving for diversity in plaintiffs' leadership—particularly gender diversity. She said, “I think diversity is still an important thing to strive for, so diversity, you know, of all types, but particularly in this litigation, because of the Plaintiffs, I want that particular diversity reflected in the leadership. Now, that doesn't mean I'm looking for every single leader[] to be female, but females need to be adequately represented in your leadership.” Judge Rodgers later issued an order consistent with her comments. Davis filed a complaint, which led to Judge Pryor’s review.
Ultimately, the issue resolved itself, with Judge Rodgers making clear through later orders and comments that she wouldn’t be giving preference to female attorneys when appointing leadership. All the same, Judge Pryor wrote that “the Judicial-Conduct Rules, the Code of Conduct, and the Constitution prohibit federal judges from engaging in discrimination based on sex,” and went on to point out that commentators in the space were “openly encouraging [judges] who preside over these actions to consider impermissible characteristics like sex or race when they appoint leadership counsel.”
Full order below.11-25-90043 CJ Order by John Byrne on Scribd
20 comments:
This type of nonsense was inevitable. We should have diverse leadership committees in these cases. The Judge knew this and tried to accomplish that end. She shouldn't have to apologize.
The conversation around DEI went off the rails. Articles are regularly published that attack people based on race. But only one targeted group is acceptable - whites - men most of the time, sometimes women.
The promoters of DEI also weaponized it. Say or write the wrong thing about any other group, even if you aren't trying to attack it, and you are a bigot, homophobe, racist, etc., and you get cancelled. What once was used to rightfully call out discriminatory behavior, morphed into a weapon that could be used against any (mostly white) person who said something clumsy or even benign.
Here is one headline: "Will the American project survive the anger of white men?"
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/nov/12/trump-white-men-anger-american-history
"The fact that Donald Trump’s candidacy was even viable, given that horrific track record, was because of the support of white men. White men, whose anger was on full display at Madison Square Garden as they spewed racist, misogynistic venom. White men who attacked poll workers and also voters of Kamala Harris. White men who chafed at the thought that their wives and girlfriends would not vote for the man who thought it was “a beautiful thing” that reproductive rights had been destroyed. And, as the New York Times reported, the downwardly mobile, frustrated “white men without a degree, [who] have been surpassed in income by college-educated women”."
This article, and many others like it, blame a entre class of people for what the writer describes as the potential end of America.
Imagine switching the adjective to another race or class and then blaming something on that group. The writer would rightfully be labeled a bigot, the publication that carried it condemned.
Yes, it is true that the promotion of diversity (which is what the judge was doing) necessarily means that other groups (in that case, men) would have less opportunity in that instance, but it really is a different thing then excluding an entire class of people because of who they are. We should want diverse and qualified work environments, benches and leadership teams - I do.
But it is not hard to make an argument that the two are closely related, and when it became acceptable for white people to be subjected to racist attacks like the one quoted above, the nuanced difference was lost. It makes an easy target for Judge Pryor and his ideologue colleagues to shred.
Racism is a bad thing. Diversity is a good thing. When one got welded to the other, it became polluted and subject to attack. That is unfortunate.
It is also apparent that many voters who did check Trump, did so not because of the bullshit he is selling, but because they did not feel welcome in the Democratic party. Non-hispanic whites make up almost 58% of the population of the US, and they have the highest voter registration figures. Does my party really think that encouraging racism against whites is a winning strategy? This cannot be the case.
Democrats will win back more votes by curtailing the acceptability of attacks based on race than they would by coming up with a plan to end war, solve global warming and provide housing for all. They will also win back support for DEI when they can figure out a way to explain that DEI is better for everybody and the country, without the policies and those supporting them being easily tagged as racists. I hope this happens soon.
Total BS. Federal judges should not be giving preference to one race or sex over another. It is reverse discrimination, and this type of thing has been percolating down to law firms for years: "oh, we need to hire a woman this or a [insert race here] that. And then these law firms trot out these non-equity partners as the diverse applicants, even though the same old actual firm owners are making all the money anyway. It's total garbage. You want to get a big appointment? Be the best and earn it. You want to be a judge who cares about empowering new lawyers, pay attention to actually owns the firm and not just who they employ as a "diverse" proxy.
I'm not from Miami, but, in a small town, far away. I have never filed a Complaint against a Judge because I have seen the Judges of a Circuit punish those who do.
Now, I think we have a good bench, and they certainly try to keep each other in line, but, "snitches get stitches." State court Judges with their billions of cases, don't have time to get petty, but those Federal Judges, they are nothing if not petty. I hope this Article III asshole get all the pain they can dis out.
Promoting diversity is not racism. It is an effort to correct the continuing impact of past discrimination by being mindful of ensuring equal opportunity. Equal opportunity means just that and not, as some claim, equal outcomes. And when people stop being mindful that diversity and inclusion matter, inertia maintains the status quo. And that’s also how you end up with the scrubbing of black and female achievements in the armed forces, which leaves nothing but those of white men.
Tell us exactly what “equality of opportunity” means. When you hire an African American applicant over a more well qualified non-diverse applicant because she’s black, your hiring practices are discriminatory. That’s racism. Period. Point blank. And even if your intentions are noble, the results only perpetuate division and a culture of grievances.
The idea that there is always a single,
objectively “best” candidate is nonsense. Candidates often have a mix of qualities that are considered together. I don’t know anyone who would hire based on race over someone they thought was a “better” candidate. Equality of opportunity means casting a wide net, being open-minded, and not relying on proxies for talent that perpetuate discrimination. It’s really not that hard. And assuming that the black woman who was hired was less qualified than whomever is racism. Period. Point blank.
I’ve been hiring lawyers and promoting lawyers for 25 years. There is always an objectively better candidate based on merit. I’ve never once seen two exactly equal candidates. And I’ve personally witnessed objectively superior candidates passed over because of race. Multiple times. If you don’t think it happens frequently you are naive. People involved don’t like to talk about it out of shame. Casting a wide net, working to recognize implicit bias and making efforts to retain minorities makes sense. Racial preference do not. Your ad hominem makes zero sense given that the hypothetical I put forth expressly stated that the non diverse candidate was superior. I’ve hired many minority lawyers that were superior based on merit. And I was more than happy to do so.
DEI should be mandatory for every part of our society. Let's start with the most undiverse elements first. The NFL, NBA, and NCAA men's football and basketball. They should make their rosters "look like America." The core problem is that these institutions rely on merit. That needs to change. Once society reaches a point where there are as many Jewish physicists catching passes and manning the offensive line for the Dolphins as there are black athletes, then we can talk about diversity.
@6:53 cries “ad hominem” after throwing out racist first and now naive. And while assuming I have not also been involved in hiring for many years. Get over yourself. And Mr Funny @8:45AM thinks providing equal opportunity is a laughing matter after decades of systematic exclusion regardless of merit has shut women and racial/ethnic minorities out of opportunities to meet, demonstrate, and reach their full potential. Spoiler: it’s not funny. And neither is erasing black and women’s history and putting unqualified white men in positions of power. Not funny at all.
Angry Lib alert.
zdvf
Love that you are hammering DEI as stupid and racist, while also being racist...that takes talent.
Making hiring decisions based on race (even if only in part) is racial discrimination.
Making hiring decisions based on sex (even if only in part) is sex based discrimination.
This is pretty easy stuff.
Some folks in our society think that racial discrimination and sex based discrimination is good policy because it can be used as a tool to remedy the very real and still present harm of past racial discrimination and sex based discrimination.
I won't get into the policy merits of that because it's unnecessary. As a threshold matter, racial discrimination and sex based discrimination is illegal.
If you don't like that, please see Article V of the U.S. Constitution.
“Angry lib” here, to those of you that have difficulty hearing a different point of view. Glad to say the constitution has already been amended to provide for equal protection of the laws. And that Congress passed statutes to ensure equal opportunity. Realize the ground is shifting to make room for folks like Pete Hegseth—finally that kid gets a break—and to erase “DEI” folks like Jackie Robinson who were once denounced as unqualified. Just do whatever you feel comfortable explaining to your grandkids about where you stood at this moment.
I cannot WAIT until the history books of the MAGA period get written. These fools are gonna look like those angry white supremacists throwing rocks at the Little Rock Nine in those photos they don't want shown in school anymore.
Why not Black Physicists catching passes?? You think only a Jew can be a Physicist??
Dumb Maga alert
Can't wait to read about the incompetence in the SDFL lately.
@7:55 & 8:46 - y'all are assuming too hard. I don't think there will be books or reading for much longer.
If you love to use discrimination to push your ideological goals, you are squarely with the people whom the equal protection clause of the Constitution was designed to shut down. Equal opportunity means people compete on neutral grounds, not that some people are advantaged based on their race or sex. This is so simple that only a liberal couldn't understand it.
Post a Comment