On the Trump nominee for the US Supreme Court

Oct 01, 2020 Letters

---

Dear Editor,

I learn that the nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court, Ms. Amy Coney Barrett, is considered a problematic, even terrible, choice. There is the usual and the old, which is about religion. But there is another objection, arguably still more insidious. It is about race.

The nominee is Roman Catholic. For whatever it matters, so am I. Because of her religious teaching and persuasion, it is feared that Roe v. Wade will inevitably be overturned. However and whenever that occurs is outside my range of interests. I have never been engaged enough in the abortion debates and positions that have raged, and which have occupied, improperly I believe, such a central place in American politics and judicial calculations. I may agree that this could be criticized as a copout, but that is absorbable, since I have other priorities that mean more to me, such as immigration, equal opportunity, and the rights of minorities, to name a few.

As for nominee Amy Barrett, she should be afforded the benefits and dignities attached to possessing the intellectual instincts and attitudes, which enable and empower her to be a prudent and independent thinker, actor, and adjudicator in America’s highest judicial arena. This is what we would expect-even demand-of ourselves, from those chosen to operate in the areas to which aspired, and actually serve. Now this may be rightly objected to for going too easy on Ms. Barrett. I prefer, however, to focus and lend time and energies to those priorities held high and close.

I identify governance and ethical leadership; conscientious professional stewardship; character and standards that speak for themselves; and matters of race. Since no man is an island and of necessity, shares spaces, resources, and opportunities whether as givers or gatherers, as constructive presences or hateful people – this is at the pinnacle of personal considerations. Because race has come to signify such a crucial component of human existence, I bring vision and give voice.

In the instance of Ms. Barrett, I respond instinctively and intuitively to the racially disparaging, to the racially unthinking and racially unacceptable. According to the New York Post of September 27, a Boston University professor, a learned Black man, went public to denounce Ms. Barret as a ‘White colonizer.’ The foundation of his public position was that her two adopted children are nothing more than ‘props.’ I mention that they are Black and Haitian.

Surely, this wise man should know better. Surely, there are places that none should contemplate going. And, just as surely, there are those things and places that all of us should consider sacred, hence, inviolable. For when I question and condemn mixed race adoption, then the way is paved for dismissing all that is mixed, of a different kind and blend, of what will only be acceptable to me. Meaning, that it must be this way, the way favoured and forced.

Using this as basis, I now drag Guyana into the cauldron, which I believe suits our situation. I point to mixed marriages (Indian and Black); partnerships (Black and Indian); shared neighbourhoods (of the same two) and conclude that, by the visions and positions of this Black professor, those are all inherently evil. Similarly, I suppose that shared governance (inclusive and however) assumes the devilish and hellish.

As an aside, I identify this Guyanese embarrassment and failure. For over decade, we have been paralyzed at finalizing the two highest positions in Guyana’s judiciary. The current placemats are forced to act out a charade. And it is because our leaders are held hostage by racial and practical considerations. The former contention may be scorned, but I deliver to the face; the latter is about who will decide how for our abortion issues, which are not of the right to life, but of the right to electoral and racial supremacy.

Obviously, when racial narratives take hold, there is a mad bent, not on being instruments of progressive change, but of pursuing self-aggrandizing positions that feed frenzies. This happens when the entire order of relationships (discriminatory in parts, to be sure) is damned, unless it aligns perfectly with what pleases. If it is curing and beneficial, I am all for it. When otherwise, I stand thoroughly against. On adoption and ‘props’, we go too far. We lose our essential humanity, jettison our credibility, and abandon basic decency. Some things are just not done. Now who has the courage and conviction either to challenge or to come to grips with what profanes and make lesser beings of all of us?

Yours truly,
GHK Lall

---

---