A Stunning First For Native American Women
I have to admit, the headline stunned me: "Senate Confirms First-Ever Native American Woman As Federal Judge." Before I get into why I was stunned, though, here are the basic facts of the story:
The Senate quietly made history on Wednesday night when it confirmed Diane Humetewa as a federal judge -- the first Native American woman to ever hold such a post.
Humetewa was confirmed 96-0 to serve on the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. She is a former U.S. attorney in Arizona and a member of the Hopi tribe. She is now the first active member of a Native American tribe to serve on the federal bench and only the third Native American in history to do so.
The stunning part of this milestone -- to me, at any rate -- is that it took so long. And that she is "only the third Native American in history" to be a federal judge. Because while Americans generally like to think of themselves as tolerant and supporting diversity, Native Americans usually aren't included in such thoughts. Which is likely why it took until 2014 for a Native American woman to achieve a federal judgeship.
A little historical review will put this in perspective. The first African American judge was Robert H. Terrell, who became justice of the peace in Washington, D.C. in 1901. Since Washington is federal territory, this qualifies. But this is comparing apples and oranges, in a way. The first African American to sit on a U.S. District Court -- the same job Diane Humetewa was just confirmed in -- was James Benton Parsons, who wasn't appointed until 1961. Five years later, Constance Baker Motley became the first African American woman to be named to a U.S. District Court.
In 1925, five years after the ratification of the Nineteenth Amendment (which gave women the right to vote), Clara Shortridge Foltz was considered for a federal judgeship. She didn't get it. It took until 1949 for Burnita Shelton Matthews to be the first woman confirmed to a U.S. District Court bench, although Florence Allen achieved an even higher judicial position (judge on a federal appellate court) in 1933.
While Reynaldo Garza, the first Latino District Court judge, was appointed in the same year (1961) as the first black judge; it took until 1980 for Carmen Consuelo Cerezo, the first Latina, to be appointed to a U.S. District Court.
In 1979, Frank Howell Seay became the first Native American judge on a U.S. District Court.
Since Judge Seay was confirmed, though, there has only been one other Native American federal judge named, until this week. The news that the first Native American woman was confirmed contained the equally-stunning fact that in the 35 years since the first Native American man was confirmed, only two other Native Americans have achieved the same honor -- and it took until 2014 to name a woman. That's not exactly all that impressive a record for the presidents who have served since Jimmy Carter, when it comes right down to it.
There is, quite obviously, a political point to be made as well, when you consider the presidential terms that all of these firsts took place in. Who were the presidents to set these milestones?
- First woman appointed to a U.S. District Court (1949) -- Truman.
- First African American man appointed (1961) -- Kennedy.
- First Latino man (1961) -- Kennedy.
- First African American woman (1966) -- Johnson.
- First Native American man (1979) -- Carter.
- First Latina woman (1980) -- Carter.
- First Native American woman (2014) -- Obama.
There is a distinct political slant to that list. Actually, "slant" isn't even the right word, as it is a list without a single Republican president on it. You'd have to go back to Teddy Roosevelt nominating an African American man to justice of the peace to have any Republican president's name on such a list of judicial minority "firsts."
While I do indeed celebrate Judge Diane Humetewa being elevated to the federal bench, and I certainly respect the milestone she just achieved by being the first Native American woman to ever hold such a judicial position, I have to say that the wait for such equality has been far too long. Such "firsts" should have happened a long time ago. While Barack Obama is indeed the first African American president, this is an elected position and not a judicial appointment. We still have many elected "firsts" ahead of us as a country (including the first woman president, for example). But it is stunning to realize that we are still setting such milestones when it comes to appointed positions. We still, it seems, have a long way to go on the path to full inclusion, equality, and representation in this country.
-- Chris Weigant
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Chris,
Your focus on Native Americans of late has reignited my interest in how things are progressing on this front. I've been out of the loop on these issues for a while now.
While it is high time that Native Americans have been appointed to the US Courts system, I tend to think that part of the reason it has taken so long has to do with the fact that Native Americans have their own tribal systems of justice and don't have a lot of faith in the non-Native justice system.
In Canada, there are First Nations courts that have jurisdiction over certain matters and are an integral part of First Nations' right of self-government.
Interestingly, the Canadian Constitution expressly recognizes and affirms Aboriginal and treaty rights and the Supreme Court has handed down some very important decisions confirming this. However, the Court has also ruled that Aboriginal and treaty rights can be extinguished if the Canadian government can provide sufficient justification.
Sadly, in the 15 years or so since I was very much involved in supporting Aboriginal peoples and their struggle for justice in Canada, not much has changed and the same battles are still being waged.
I would love to see an Aboriginal person in Canada sitting on our Supreme Court one day. But, I think that there is much that needs to happen first with regard to the recognition of Aboriginal and treaty rights and the fleshing out of a new government to government relationship between Canada and its original inhabitants based on equality and mutual respect.
Isn't it possible that the reason there haven't been many Native American judges is that there haven't been many that were QUALIFIED??
Or, more accurately, maybe non-Native American judges were MORE qualified??
Or, are ya saying that their race SHOULD be a consideration in their nomination??
Isn't that the exact kind of racism that America has been fighting AGAINST?? :D
Ya know, this country will NEVER achieve racial equality until the Left stops harping on EMPHASIZING the different races...
I mean, *MY* first reaction to the news that the first woman Native American judge was nominated to the bench was, "eh.. yea?? So??"
Now isn't THAT the mark of true racial equality??
I'm just saying... :D
As an aside, no way, no how, no possibility whatsoever, am I accusing you of racism, CW...
All I am saying is that allowing someone's race to be considered in selection is the very definition of racism..
Wouldn't ya'all agree??
Michale
In other racial news:
http://variety.com/2014/biz/news/donald-sterling-refuses-nbas-2-5-million-fine-threatens-to-sue-1201183067/
Looks like Sterling is not going to go quietly into the night...
The NBA really stepped on their wee-wees in this issue..
That's what happens when the LAW is ignored and Politically Correct mob mentality wins the day.
People do stoopid things..
Michale
Isn't it possible that the reason there haven't been many Native American judges is that there haven't been many that were QUALIFIED??
... written like someone who knows nothing about Native Americans.
Michale,
How do you define equality between Native Americans and non-Native Americans?
Michale,
Now isn't THAT the mark of true racial equality??
I think I can understand why you would like to think so.
... written like someone who knows nothing about Native Americans.
Are you saying that, because they are Native Americans, they HAVE to be qualified??
How do you define equality between Native Americans and non-Native Americans?
That they are judged by their character and their merits, not by the color of their skin...
THAT is equality...
Agreed??
Michale
Allow me to quote a passage from STAR TREK IV: THE VOYAGE HOME...
DR Gillian Taylor, a native of Earth circa 1986 was helping Kirk and McCoy rescue Chekov from a hospital..
Kirk came up with the BRILLIANT idea to have Taylor fake being a patient so they could get past the guards...
TAYLOR:"Why do I have to be the patient!?? Is it because I am a woman!!"
KIRK:"What does being a woman have to do with anything!!???"
You see my point???
Gods, there ain't NOTHING on this planet that can't be explained by quoting STAR TREK!! :D
Michale
Ya really gotta wonder..
In Spain or Mexico, do the headlines scream,
"El hombre blanco llamado a la Corte de Distrito"
Isn't the goal to get to a point where the color of one's skin is completely irrelevant to ANYTHING and EVERYTHING??
Michale
I've rarely agreed with a comment I've read from Michale, but it would be interesting to see some numbers on how many Native Americans actually are lawyers or other relevant professions which would qualify them for federal judgeship compared to other minority groups. Native Americans only made up roughly 2% of the US population as of 2012 according to the US Census Bureau, so it is plausible that a sufficiently qualified person of such descent simply may not have been readily available until now.
Just playing devil's advocate here.
I've rarely agreed with a comment I've read from Michale, but it would be interesting to see some numbers on how many Native Americans actually are lawyers or other relevant professions which would qualify them for federal judgeship compared to other minority groups.
Thanx... I think.. :D
But you make the point I was trying to make a helluva better than I did...
Michale
Why does the first assumption always have to be that there are no qualified Native Americans?
Are you saying that, because they are Native Americans, they HAVE to be qualified??
No. While that would certainly qualify as the opposite of what you are saying, Michale, that is NOT what I am saying. :)
Why does the first assumption always have to be that there are no qualified Native Americans?
It isn't...
I was just wondering why the FIRST assumption is that it IS racism...
Isn't it POSSIBLE that there are NON-Native Americans who are better qualified??
Considering the proportions, THAT is not outside the realm of possibility, eh??
Just because a minority is not handed the keys to the kingdom doesn't necessarily mean that it's because of racism..
Michale
No. While that would certainly qualify as the opposite of what you are saying, Michale, that is NOT what I am saying. :)
Lets approach it as we would a crime scene...
The crime is racism...
Is there ANY evidence that a crime has been committed??
Michale
Michale,
That they are judged by their character and their merits, not by the color of their skin...THAT is equality...
I can agree with that
But, I was asking a more general question about equality as it relates to non-Native Americans and Native Americans. I was thinking more in terms of non-Native rights versus Native rights and if there is any difference or if equal treatment means same treatment ... any thoughts on that?
In Canada, for example, Aboriginal peoples and non-Aboriginal Canadians have different rights based on original occupation of the land and on treaties signed between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal governments.
Of course, non-Aboriginal governments in Canada have not kept up their end of the bargain (not by a long shot!) with respect to recognition of Aboriginal and treaty rights, thus the long struggle of Aboriginal peoples for equal justice.
In this sense, I strongly believe that equal justice does not mean that the same rights apply to Native and non-Native peoples in North America and, furthermore, that to treat people equally does not always mean that you treat them the same.
Michale,
What reasons - besides racism or not being qualified - do you think might explain why there are no Native American justices in the federal court system or even on the Supreme Court?
What reasons - besides racism or not being qualified - do you think might explain why there are no Native American justices in the federal court system or even on the Supreme Court?
Well, as Blyed points out, what is the size of the pool to choose from??
If, as is pointed out, Native Americans make up 2% and, out of that 2%, only 5% (for example) of THAT pool are laywers/relevant profession and, out of that 5%, say 3% would be qualified for the District/Supreme Court......
So, we have 2% of the population (314 million) that are Native Americans.
That's 6,280,000 Native Americans..
Now, 5% (let's say) are lawyers/relevant profession..
That's 314,000...
Now, out of the 314,000 Native Americans that ARE in relevant professions, 3% are actually qualified for the District/Supreme Courts.
Now we're down to 9,420....
Up against MILLIONS of qualified people from other races... For a handful of positions a year...
Given those numbers (examples, to be sure) then it doesn't seem to be outside the realm that there MIGHT be something besides racism at work..
The possibility that racism had nothing to do with it at least HAS to be considered...
Michale
Michale,
Is there ANY evidence that a crime has been committed??
Well, generally speaking, I don't think it is possible to talk about Native Americans and the issues of concern to them WITHOUT accepting that racism permeates the relationship between non-Native North Americans and Native North Americans and has since first contact.
I don't know if racism is directly responsible for there being no Native American judges in the US Federal Court system. But, I do believe that the chances of an unqualified or under-qualified judge or justice being appointed or nominated are very small, whether we are talking about a Native or non-Native American judge or justice.
Given those numbers (examples, to be sure) then it doesn't seem to be outside the realm that there MIGHT be something besides racism at work..
That sounds logical. :)
Aren't there Native American courts under tribal jurisdiction in your country? It could be that many qualified Native American lawyers, for example, don't want to be a part of the non-Native justice system in terms of sitting on US district courts, let alone the Supreme Court.
I strongly believe, however, that we would all be better off - Native North Americans and non-Native North Americas, alike - if Native North Americans were even nominally represented throughout the US and Canadian court systems.
In the case of the Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing for Diane Humetewa, this is all I could find, so far:
http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/012814QFRs-Humetewa.pdf
If anyone knows if there actually was a hearing or if there is video of it, I would love to take a look at it!
Well, generally speaking, I don't think it is possible to talk about Native Americans and the issues of concern to them WITHOUT accepting that racism permeates the relationship between non-Native North Americans and Native North Americans and has since first contact.
In the uber-politically correct society we find ourselves in now, instutionalized racism against any race but caucasion is dead...
Now, we have organizations bending over backwards to address ANY possible racism or bigotry...
Which SOUNDS good on the surface.. But when you examine the details of these knee-jerk reactions, a disturbing pattern emerges...
But, I do believe that the chances of an unqualified or under-qualified judge or justice being appointed or nominated are very small, whether we are talking about a Native or non-Native American judge or justice.
Maybe not UNDER/UN qualified.. But certainly not AS QUALIFIED as other applicants..
It's called Affirmative Action. And it is, BY DEFINITION, racism...
I strongly believe, however, that we would all be better off - Native North Americans and non-Native North Americas, alike - if Native North Americans were even nominally represented throughout the US and Canadian court systems.
I would have to conditionally agree..
However, I must caution that diversity simply for diversity's sake is always a bad idea...
It could very well bring about the animosity it's designed to prevent..
If you were a Native American, would YOU want to sit on a High Court knowing that the ONLY reason you are there is BECAUSE you are Native American.
What kind of working relationship could you have with your fellow judges if they knew, or even THOUGHT, you were a "token"...
You see the kind of minefield that particular road is??
Michale
However, I must caution that diversity simply for diversity's sake is always a bad idea...
Well, that's not what I'm talking about, in any event.
In the uber-politically correct society we find ourselves in now, institutionalized racism against any race but Caucasian is dead...Now, we have organizations bending over backwards to address ANY possible racism or bigotry...
Well, I suppose you could TRY to make that argument with regard to the relationship between Native Americans and non-Native Americans and their respective government but, I suspect it won't hold much water.
Let's try that again ...
In the uber-politically correct society we find ourselves in now, institutionalized racism against any race but Caucasian is dead...Now, we have organizations bending over backwards to address ANY possible racism or bigotry...
Well, I suppose you could TRY to make that argument with regard to the relationship between Native Americans and non-Native Americans and their respective government but, I suspect it won't hold much water.
Well, I suppose you could TRY to make that argument with regard to the relationship between Native Americans and non-Native Americans and their respective government but, I suspect it won't hold much water.
That's fine..
All you have to do is show me... :D
Then I'll concede the point.. :D
Michale
Michale
Did you read this ...
But, I was asking a more general question about equality as it relates to non-Native Americans and Native Americans. I was thinking more in terms of non-Native rights versus Native rights and if there is any difference or if equal treatment means same treatment ... any thoughts on that?
I'd really like to know where you come down on these questions ...
I'd really like to know where you come down on these questions ...
I thought I already said so..
When it comes to "rights" there shouldn't have to be ANY difference between Native and Non-Native...
Giving someone extra consideration because of their race is as ridiculous as giving someone extra grief because of their race...
The ONLY consideration should be character, merit and ability.
PERIOD...
Michale
Well, that's not what I'm talking about, in any event.
In a way, it's EXACTLY what you (and CW) are talking about...
The entire commentary is, "Why hasn't there been a Native American woman appointed"..
Which gives the impression that there SHOULD have been a Native American woman appointed so that there can be a Native American woman appointed..
Which, by logical progression, leads to the concept of diversity for diversity's sake..
Which brings us back to my original comment back on comment #2....
Isn't it POSSIBLE that there simply hasn't been a qualified Native American female until now??
Why assume right up front that racism is the problem??
Michale
Michale,
I think you're talking about two completely different things ...
When it comes to rights, there definitely are differences between Native and non-Native, based solely on original occupation of the land, a legal principle.
Though, I'm not sure what it means in the US as compared with Canada. And, I should make clear right now that, if we're going to have an ongoing discussion about this, my arguments will be based on what the legal situation is in Canada wrt Aboriginal and treaty rights. Though, I believe in the US there are also treaties that remain in effect between tribes and the US government but, I could be wrong about that.
Given that there are different rights based on original occupation of the land and treaties between Native American governments and non-Native American governments, that is quite separate from your notions about giving extra consideration based on race. In other words, Native American rights are not race-based; they are, to reiterate, based upon original occupation of the land and treaties entered into between Native and non-Native governments.
So, this is where I'm coming from and where I will begin my arguments.
Just to be clear, when I speak of "Native rights", I am referring to the inherent right of self-government and rights that flow to Native peoples based on treaties that were signed in good faith between Native and non-Native governments.
And so, when we talk about the rights of Native Americans, we shouldn't confuse that with notions about giving someone extra consideration based on their race.
Also, I think it's important to make clear that in a discussion about Native American rights, there are only two groups to consider: Native Americans and non-Native Americans. There are no other distinctions.
Michale,
Isn't the goal to get to a point where the color of one's skin is completely irrelevant to ANYTHING and EVERYTHING??
Absolutely, positively, unequivocally!
But, that doesn't mean that Native American rights - or, as we say in Canada, Aboriginal and treaty rights - are rendered null and void.
I think I'm going to start referring to these inherent and treaty rights as indigenous rights ...
There are about 5 million Native Americans in the US, out of about 300 million Americans. If they were proportionally represented among the 600 or so district judges (678 judgeships, but a whole lot of vacancies), there would be about 10 Native American district judges.
The barriers are obviously not all at the level of presidential appointments. Probably a smaller proportion of Native Americans have access to good schools, than of the overall US population. Probably a smaller proportion of Native Americans who do have access to adequate schools are encouraged by their teachers to go into law school. Probably a smaller proportion of Native Americans have the networking needed to get the jobs that lead to high-powered legal careers. And so on.
The fact that the number has long been zero and never risen above three, instead of fluctuating around ten, is a good preliminary measure of the overall barriers faced by Native Americans, all the way from grand-parental poverty and childhood nutrition to old-boys' networks and lingering prejudices. It doesn't tell how much is due to each.
Bleyd [10] -
Total number of federal Circuit Court judgeships: 2,758. Over the course of 35 years, it could be expected that the turnover rate would approach 100%.
So, 2% of those would be over 55 judgeships. Total Native American judgeships: 3.
As for the availability, I admit I have no hard numbers on NAs who have graduated law school and passed the bar in the intervening 35 years. But I would bet the farm it's higher than 0.1 percent of the population (3/2758).
Michale -
If anyone were arguing for quotas, then we'd be arguing there should be at least 55 judges by now.
But nobody's arguing that. It's a straw man, dude.
I must admit, I have no idea what the turnover rate is among District Court judges, but I would even bet it is HIGHER than "once, for every judge, in every 35 years." Which would make my numbers even more slanted....
LizM [16] -
That was a brilliant comment, especially the bits at the end. Just had to say that. Down here in the United States, we have just as poor a record when it comes to Native Americans, sad to say.
Michale [18] -
OK, let's use your numbers instead. I have no idea how accurate they are, but let's go with them just for grins.
Out of the 98% of the population that is non-NA (307.7 million), we take the 5% that are lawyers: 15.4 million. From them, the 3% that are qualified: 461,580 who are qualified for the appointment to District Court.
So that's not exactly your "Up against MILLIONS of qualified people from other races"... is it?
Let's further turn your own numbers on you. From your 9,420 Native Americans who qualify, we have 3 in 35 years. That is a rate of 0.03 percent, or in ordinary mathematical terms, 0.0003185.
Let's just multiply that times your 461,580... that would be 147 non-Native Americans nominated (in this mirror universe where non-NAs were treated the same way NAs have been treated in ours) and 2,611 new Native American Distict Court judges. Would you consider that fair?
Yeah, I didn't think so.
Maybe racism does have something to do with it, after all, huh?
Put it another way: if you were sent up for a federal crime, would you want a judge who just might be of your race and history, or would you want precisely ZERO chance of that happening?
Now imagine you're a Native American in Arizona, and ask yourself the same question.
Michale [28] -
OK, but why hasn't there been a SINGLE Native American woman qualified until now? Think that's all about merit? I don't, I have to say.
You really think that there have been NO qualified NA women lawyers in the last 35 years? I think there probably have been a few, personally.
LizM [30] -
We will certainly allow for differences between us and you Canucks when it comes to federal policy and governmental relations with NAs. Never fear!
We LOVE out neighbors to the north, right folks?
:-)
dsws [33] -
Where did you get that 678 figure? I got the 2,758 from Wikipedia:
As of May 2012, a total of 3,294 individuals had been appointed to federal judgeships, including 2,758 district court judges.
OK, that's it for this thread for now...
-CW
If anyone were arguing for quotas, then we'd be arguing there should be at least 55 judges by now.
But nobody's arguing that. It's a straw man, dude.
No, you are not arguing for quotas.. But you ARE arguing that race should be a consideration...
Which amounts to the same thing..
OK, but why hasn't there been a SINGLE Native American woman qualified until now? Think that's all about merit? I don't, I have to say.
Unless there is evidence beyond the law of averages that shows a Native American woman has kept from the position because of her race, I am going to have to go where logic takes me..
Maybe racism does have something to do with it, after all, huh?
Maybe it does.. I am not saying it doesn't..
But, given the evidence (or in this case, lack thereof) it's not the first thing I would consider..
You have to consider the possibility that race had nothing to do with it.
Of course, that would make for a lousy commentary ending.. :D
"Of course, this could be simply a case that has absolutely nothing to do with racism. In that case.... NEVER MIND......"
Kinda like an entire season of DALLAS being nothing but a dream sequence.. :D
Michale
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/05/16/cultural-double-standard-michael-sam-tim-tebow-and-free-speech/?intcmp=obnetwork
That's what pisses me off so much about the Left and their hysterical BIGOT!!!! rants..
The double standard is so glaring and obvious, it's nauseating....
Michale
Where did you get that 678 figure? I got the 2,758 from Wikipedia:
From Wikipedia also:
As of 2010, there were 678 authorized district court judgeships.[6] A study put forth by Brennan Center for Justice at New York University of Law found that under the Obama administration and especially in the year 2009 there have been a “uniquely high” number of vacancies in Federal Court, averaging 60 or more from the years 2009 to 2013.
I'm guessing that the 2,758 includes former as well as current district court judges.