What kind of a mind produces this:

"White Men Need Not Apply"?

You could look at an opening on the SCOTUS 10 different ways, Halperin went his way.

Poor oppressed white man Mark Halperin. Only 7 of the 9 current justices are from his beleaguered minority group. Can't a white man catch an even break?

Southern Politician knew they couldn't be the first to say this.....But...

No Fear... Halperin is happy to provide the first shot to rally the poor put-upon white men who can't seem to hold more than a 90+ percent of the jobs in Washington anymore.

Whats Next? A congressional delegation that has a ethnic makeup similar to it population?

Oh... the horror...

What's really bizarre is that nothing in the blog post relates to the lede, which could have read "Obama to broaden court" or "Obama seeks SCOTUS diversity" except Halpperin doesn't even touch on this in his 11 "real" questions. What's up with the photo of fresh face job applicant?

Halperin, like most of his colleagues in the corporate media is a vacuous twit. Is there any relationship at all between that idiotic headline and the 11 questions? None that I see. Frankly, I doubt that Obama is going to be as narrow minded in his search for a replacement for Souter as most of the commentators assume. Obviously, there will be (as there has been already) certain pressure for a female justice, an hispanic justice, etc... But so what? That's part of the game. I wouldn't assume that Obama is going to nominate any particular kind of person. I wouldn't even assume he will a liberal judge. Instead of acting like a bunch of little old ladies gossiping, why don't we wait and see. Given that the announcement itself is less than a day old I think all this is vastly premature.

Is there a certain percentage of white that disqualifies you? I mean, is it 51% white, or just any amount? I hear that less white is better. In the white community there apparently is a certain stigma that goes with being too white. Personally, the president is way too white imo.

What's weird is that the analyses I've read (see Slate and Scotusblog) seem to say that Obama should appoint a woman; they say nothing about race. There are a number of white women on the lists I've read. So Halperin could just as easily have written "Men Need Not Apply," but instead he had to go full-on Helms and bring race into it.

It takes a Republican to look at a picture of the Supreme Court and conclude that it's the product of discrimination against white men.

Maybe Mark got passed up at Time for a promotion by a non-white individual and is bitter?

Most likely he's just trying to start some shit because he knows he has the platform to do so and people will hear it.

It's just the SWaMP (Southern White and Male Party) playing to it's core constitutency and continuing to build the case for seccession.

What an idiot! Of course the fact that (women, African-Americans, Hispanics, Native Americans, etc.) were for years told directly that they need not apply never occurs to him. It's always nice to see a privileged white man discover that he is only human.

Chicago,

Check the page again. It features a fresh-faced applicant with an everyman sheen on him under a banner "white men need not apply." Like Josh said, it's the full Helms. Now, is Mark being ironic in using that kind of imagery -- or is he actually trying to stoke resentment over the presumed preference, in this case, for anyone not a white male?

I doubt it. But then why go the full Helms? Because he accepted the CW that it's somehow important or meaningful that a white man will have a particularly hard time getting chosen for this slot. (Some will probably be at least considered, pace his actual point about "applying.") Thing is, that disadvantage is not important. The whole thing suggests that qualified people are being meaningfully denied opportunity for advancement based on racial or sexual politicking, when they're not. We all know what the Supreme Court looks like, which Halperin doesn't suggest is the result of a general bias for white men; when Harriet Miers was '86ed, did he emphasis that Alito, as a man, was chosen instead? Was the conclusion that Miers was axed in part because she was a woman who needn't apply?

No. But then, there's this post of Halperin's. Because he's always wearing those same shades -- with bitchin' frames.

Also, the most important part for last: gender seems to be the key issue here, not race. So why put race front and center? Because there's a subconscious Washington framing that pure racial advantage is always at the heart of nearly every identity issue with Democrats. Even if race doesn't look primary, it must be!

This headline is just a stupid, artificial controversy. There's been a conscious push over the last several decades to make the bar more diverse at all levels, including teaching, practice and the judiciary. The next 3 SCOTUS picks (probably all Obama will get even in 2 terms) should bring greater gender or racial diversity to the court to reflect that push as well as reinforce the fact that this is a court that deals with issues for all. As long as they are qualified (unlike, frankly, Thomas) it will be a good thing if the Court winds up with at least 3-4 women and at least that many racial minorities in the next few years.

There will still be plenty of white male judges. Heck, Obama's first judicial nominee is a very white male (Hamilton to the 7th Circuit), and the GOP still has found something to scream about.