> max sawicky
Ashcroft's racism derives from his philosophical views on all policies relating to race, not to his decision on White. he is reported to have voted to confirm most black judges who have come up for confirmation (26 of 28). If this is true, he can't be faulted on racial grounds for rejecting White. he could be faulted for cockeyed views on criminal justice policy, but the relation of that to race is much more subtle then rejecting White for the bench because he is a minority. The White case might have race connotations if a white candidate with a similar record was accepted, but nobody has raised that possibility.
In other words, the race dimension of the White case is raised by inference, not by anything simple & explicit.
You are right to focus on the demagogic aspect of A's conduct, and with some explanation this can be related to race.
(((((((((((
CB: However, with due respect , and even considering the analysis of Ashcroft as philosophical racist, the focus on Ashcroft's specific intent with respect to White is analogous to the main line of argument the Burger court used to begin the Supreme Court's cutback on the _Brown v Bd. of Educ_ doctrine by requiring strict proof of specific intent to racistly discriminate. They moved toward requiring proof of de jure and finding proof of de facto inadequate.
The discriminators merely learned to disguise their intent very well. Thus the genesis of code words such as "inner city". It was in fact the racists who started "playing race cards", holding their hands close to their chests. Racism went underground and unconscious, and eventually "disappeared" with Reaganism.
The left's response to that maneuver by discriminators was to analyze racism as institutional. Especially someone like Ashcroft is an emblem of institutional racism , and his actions can justifiably be so characterized. The left must have a higher standard than the U.S. Supreme Court on racism.