Google+
Close

The Corner

The one and only.

Ex Uno Plures



Text  



Mickey Kaus points to an appalling lawsuit where a Compton, Calif., city councilwoman was accused of not be “Latina enough”. Here’s the news story; it doesn’t say whether she had to provide an Aryan certificate.

And now California judges have to reveal even more information that’s no one’s business; as The Weekly Standard explains, “judges and justices must reveal their ‘sexual orientation,’ in addition ‘to their race/ethnicity [and] gender identification.’”

E pluribus unum, indeed.

 

UPDATE: I just received an e-mail from Philip Carrizosa with California’s Administrative Office of the Courts about the sexual-orientation question asked of judges:

Dear Mr. Krikorian,

Regarding your posting today, let me correct a misimpression.

The Weekly Standard posting was inaccurate in reporting that California judges must reveal their sexual orientation. In fact, judge are under NO obligation to answer questions regarding their sexual orientation or race or ethnicity or gender identification.

While the Administrative Office of the Courts is statutorily required to ask such questions, judges are free not to answer them.  As the results of the survey show, 40 percent of judges declined to answer the question regarding sexual orientation.  

In the interest of accuracy, please correct your posting.

So noted. But even asking the question is appalling. If you follow his link, you see the depressing finding that only 2.9 percent of the judges refused to provide their race/ethnicity, down from 9.9 percent in 2006. Clearly, we have our work cut out for us in getting Americans to stop complying with racialist data-gathering. 



Text  


Sign up for free NRO e-mails today:

Subscribe to National Review