Your legal argument is over my head. If A approved 26 of 28 black judges, my only legal analysis is that rejection-of-White-because- he's-black does not fly.
As I said to Chris or Mike, A's conduct re: White is revolting and appropriate fodder for criticism, but that's a different story.
mbs
(((((((((((
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.