Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Judge James Ho Spoke Courageously Against Asian-American Wokeism
The recent rise in Anti-Asian Protests across the country presented a sense of American Asian victimhood amplified by Corporate Media to the world. When I received a phone call from my sister in Singapore worrying about my safety, I knew once again the Media had warped the truth. The majority of Asian Americans can see through the smoke and mirrors of the “Atlanta Hate Shooting”. While racism is alive and well here and everywhere in the world, it is untrue that systemic racism exists in America. In fact, Wokeism is the mutant fetus of Systemic Racism past, pushing for its birth by the far-left Democrat Party’s policies at the moment. No one articulated this view better than one Asian American Judge James Ho.
Below is the testimony by Judge James C. Ho of the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals prepared for a March 25 House subcommittee hearing on “The Importance of a Diverse Federal Judiciary.” During the hearing, Rep. Ted Liu complained that there were no Asian-Americans on the Supreme Court.
Published in CultureEquality of opportunity is fundamental to who we are, and to who we aspire to be, as a nation.
(1) To my mind, that means two things: It means we must do everything we can to ensure that everyone truly has the opportunity to succeed. And it means we must never bend the rules to favor anyone. Dr. King had it right: Choose people based on who they are—not what they look like.Let me begin by explaining how I began. I came to America from Taiwan at a very young age. Most kids grow up learning English from their parents. I grew up learning English from a bunch of puppets, from a place called Sesame Street. My classmates brought a kids’ lunch box to school. I brought a bento box to school. My food seemed normal to me. But it smelled funny to my classmates—or so they would tell me. And I remember racial slurs and jokes on the playground and on the football field.
But I also learned that, if you work hard and prove yourself, you can find your place in America.
Equality of opportunity is not something to be passive about—it’s something we should be passionate about. We must make sure that everyone has the opportunity to learn and to succeed, so that win, lose, or draw, at least you got a chance—no matter who you are.
That’s not just a talking point to me. It’s why I was honored to serve as co-chair of the Judiciary Committee of the National Asian Pacific American Bar Association. It’s why I love talking to young lawyers and law students of every race and ideological stripe. It’s why I always say that, if anyone is willing to forgo other opportunities in order to enter public service, call me. I’ll take them to lunch and share what I know.
But here’s the kicker: Once everyone has had full and fair opportunity to be considered, you pick on the merits. Both the Constitution and the Civil Rights Act make clear that it is wrong to hire people based on race.
(2) That’s the law for a wide range of jobs. But it would be especially wrong to select judges based on race.
It is true that I am the only Asian American on my court. I’m also the only immigrant on my court.
But I would never suggest that a wise Asian would, more often than not, reach a better conclusion than a white judge. That would be antithetical to our legal system, and poisonous to civil society. No one should ever assume that I’m more likely to favor Asians or immigrants or anyone else—or that my colleagues are less likely to. Everyone should win or lose based on the law—period. That’s why Lady Justice wears a blindfold. That’s why judges wear black robes.
I don’t say this because I think race is no longer an issue in our country. I’ve received racist hate mail and racially disparaging remarks because of positions I’ve taken in my career. I’ve been treated differently because of who I’m married to. And I also remember, back in high school, my college admissions adviser telling me that my grades, SAT scores, and activities were all strong enough to get me into my top choice of schools—if I wasn’t Asian.
Now, I’m not saying any of this here to complain. Whatever negative experiences I’ve had, they pale in comparison to my many blessings living in this great country. I was not born an American. But I thank God every day that I will die an American.
My point is just that I don’t come to my views because I think racism is behind us. Rather, I come to my views precisely because racism is not behind us. The last thing we should do is divide people by race. The last thing we should do is suggest that the racists are right. We don’t achieve equality of opportunity by denying it to anyone—we achieve it by securing it for everyone.
So make no mistake: It would be profoundly offensive—and un-American—to tell the world that you’re restricting a judgeship to members of only one race. It’s offensive to people of other races. And it’s offensive to people of that race—because you’re suggesting that the only way they’ll get the job is if you rig the rules in their favor.
As a judge, I have the honor of presiding over a naturalization ceremony every year, to celebrate my own naturalization thirty-nine years ago. People from all around the world come together in one room, for one purpose—to become an American. And it reminds me that what binds our nation is not a common race, or religion, or philosophical point of view. What unites us is not a common past, but a common hope for the future—a shared love of freedom—and a mutual commitment to the Constitution and to the principle of equality of opportunity. Thank you.
What a refreshing perspective. Thank you for sharing this.
Reading this made me want to stand up and cheer!
I couldn’t because my wife would think I went insane . . .
Good catch. Thank you, Joan.
Let’s see. Asian Americans make up about 5 1/2% of the population. Does that mean that, if there were an Asian American on the court, Asians would be over represented (11.1%)? When are we going to get over this BS?
Stand up and cheer anyway Stad, I’ll stand with you.
Converts are often the best example of a group.
Simple, clear, eloquent, and patriotic.
Can we get a giant space bullhorn and blast these words down from geosynchronous orbit into the brain pans of all Americans, and then the people of planet Earth? Because it’s kinda important.
I want to thump a tub for these words. I don’t want to clap. I don’t want to politely “huzzah” from the mezzanine. I want the top of my head to pop open and have confetti shoot out of it, in small red, white, and blue streamers.
Today, for America, I turn my head into a Confetti Cannon ™.
We have to find a half-Asian . . . Kamala Harris!
Then my wife will get jealous!
The learned Ted Lieu also screamed at Peter Kirsanow, an African-American member of the US Commission on Civil Rights, for bringing up discrimination against Asian-Americans in university admissions.
I had to read your comment three times. And then I said, Oh! That Asian! I was thinking you meant Kamala was Chinese or Russian. I can’t keep these groups straight anymore.
Judge Ho wrote:
“But I would never suggest that a wise Asian would, more often than not, reach a better conclusion than a white judge. That would be antithetical to our legal system, and poisonous to civil society”
that is Judge Ho delivering a not so subtle reference to an astonishing quote that a fellow judge once said, not in jest, but in all seriousness.
and while it was brave of Judge Ho to say it; i’m kind of surprised that Judge Ho said it. because the judge that Judge Ho is not so subtly mocking is a supreme Court judge. and having a supreme court justice pissed off at you is no small thing.
Should such a thing ever affect the judgement of a wise Latina judge? Wouldn’t a truly wise Latina judge recognise that even if it shouldn’t, it might appear that it had? Would a wise Latina judge recuse herself from ever being put in such a position?
That’s a lot of imponderables to ponder. I’m glad I am just an engineer.
Justice Sotomayor was repudiating Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s comment that, “As Supreme Court Justice, Ruth Bader Ginsberg observed, “A wise old man and a wise old woman reach the same conclusion.”
Still, the left will come after him for even the slightest deviation so why not do the opposite of Roberts and actually take a stand for what’s good.
Sotomayor bucks Ginsberg the one time in her life that Ginsberg was right about something.
Wisdom.
Didn’t Ginsberg later repudiate her later anti-racist statement?