The name Grace Helen Whitener didn’t mean anything to me, but upon learning that she was appointed to the Washington State Supreme Court, I naturally assumed she’s an accomplished lawyer at the very least. Wikipedia provides a little information.
Whitener was born and raised in Trinidad. She moved to the United States when she was 16 to receive medical care. She earned a Bachelor of Arts degree in International Marketing and Trade from Baruch College, followed by a Juris Doctor from the Seattle University School of Law.
After graduating from law school, Whitener worked as a public defender, prosecutor, and private defense attorney. She served as a judge on the Board of Industrial Insurance Appeals for two years and then on the Pierce County Superior Court from 2015 to 2020, having been appointed by Governor Inslee and elected unopposed in 2015 and 2016. She assumed office on the Washington Supreme Court on April 13, 2020. She will run for election in 2020 for the remaining two years of Wiggins’s term.
An interesting path to the bench, given her experience with criminal law and her undistinguished education. As someone who knows nothing more about her than this cursory information, I’m prepared to assume she was a terrific lawyer and excellent judge before her appointment to the Supreme Court. After all, why else would the governor appoint her?
“Being a black, gay, female, immigrant, disabled judge … my perspective is a little different,” said Justice Grace Helen Whitener.
That may well be, but the job is judge, not “black, gay, female, immigrant, disabled” advocate.
While the federal bench grows more homogeneous by the day, Democratic governors are diversifying their state judiciaries to an unprecedented degree. On Monday, Washington Gov. Jay Inslee, a Democrat, elevated Grace Helen Whitener to the state Supreme Court. Whitener is a disabled black lesbian who immigrated from Trinidad. She joins Inslee’s two other appointees: Raquel Montoya-Lewis, a Jewish Native American who previously served on tribal courts, and Mary Yu, an Asian-American Latina lesbian who officiated the first same-sex marriages in the state.
Is Justice Whitener a smart, experienced and fair justice? What about Justice Montoya-Lewis, or Justice Yu? Do they rule based on the law or rule for whoever most closely aligns with their “identities”? The issue isn’t whether the judiciary should be drawn from the full universe of qualified people available, whether male or female, black or white, one-legged or two. To do otherwise would both be discriminatory and deprive the public of the best qualified person to sit on the bench.
But that’s the point, that the person is the best qualified, not the most intersectional.
I try to make sure that everyone that comes into this courtroom feels welcome, feels safe, and feels like they will get a fair hearing.
That courtrooms are the place for feeling welcome and safe is a dubious notion; neither litigants nor lawyers are there to pet puppies, nor should they be. They are there because they’ve been arrested or sued. It’s not a happy place. But that Justice Whitener wants people to “feel like they will get a fair hearing” strikes closer to the mark.
But do they? When a judge is promoted based not on knowledge and experience, but on immigrant status and sexual orientation, it might play to one small audience who shares these characteristics but it’s unlikely to make the vast majority of litigants feel warm and fuzzy. Do all people who appear before the court count or only those who share some of the judge’s “intersections”?
Will Justice Whitener make straight white men “feel like they will get a fair hearing”? What about African-American immigrants from Nigeria, because there’s a bit of inter-racial competition between African blacks and Caribbean blacks. And while there’s no clue what Justice Whitener’s “disability” is, since it’s no longer polite to specify challenges even if its mandatory that they be noted on their intersectional chart, can she fairly judge people who can’t see or hear, or worse yet, can?
That a justice of the Washington Supreme Court has been reduced to her simplistic identitarian components by Mark Joseph Stern at Slate, with no room left over to bother to mention whether she possesses any of the qualitities or qualifications one would desire in a judge, is offensive to the people of Washington and insulting to the judge.
I’m fully prepared to believe that she is eminently qualified to sit as a justice of the Washington State Supreme Court, based upon her experience, qualifications and temperament, and that she will be a brilliant and fair jurist. But there’s no way I could tell from what’s written about her, and Justice Whitener being “black, gay, female, immigrant, disabled” person is no reason to put her on the bench.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Putting aside your remark about her education, aren’t you really questioning a poorly written bio?
I am certainly less capable of assessing her abilities than you might be but that holds true for me when I read your qualifications on the web or the qualifications of my own lawyer for that matter ( and he successfully defended me quite well several years ago).
As to how someone should feel in a courtroom, it seems to me safety is most important and does not necessarily reflect a warm and friendly place. It does suggest a place of security where facts speak, and the adversarial process moves forward wIthout the possible hinderances of prejudice or character assassination. A hope I know but then, cynical belligerence may be the attitude that has brought criminal justice to its current abusive modality.
As to the judge’s intersectional origins, their prominence in the bio reflect political bias more than legal evaluation. And this might be a larger problem. Still, White male judges do not bring much more into a courtroom than their own biases and a claim of fairness. Mass incarceration, political leanings and power abuses have made such claims soft at best.
Diversity may be the criterion du jour for a while. Perhaps with reason
No.
It’s unfortunate, but not surprising, that you murdered all those words and grasped absolutely nothing. Maybe your passion about the “current abusive modality” has used up whatever cells exist in your head.
Non-lawyers say stupid non-lawyer things. Why here, I can’t explain, as if being the stupidest guy in the room is an advantage.
Maybe they’re trying to see how early we can make Scotch O’Clock
It’s understandable that Stern’s obsessive focus is identity, regardless of whether you share his self-serving adoration of progressive politics. But his complete failure to pay even lip service to the judge’s qualifications is shocking. Stern truly is offensive, even to those he purports to care more about, and obviously oblivious to it.
MJS can write some very smart stuff, provided neither his identity nor politics are implicated. When they are, his writing is…not good.
From the history you quoted from Wikipedia, I was fully prepared to believe she had the background and qualifications to make for a good justice, lack of an Ivy League education (which itself impresses me less today than it would have 20 years ago) notwithstanding. I couldn’t care less that she’s black, gay, disabled (so long as not mentally), or an immigrant (so long as she’s here legally). But I care a great deal (well, I would were I in her jurisdiction) that she’s making those qualities the defining characteristics of her spot on the bench. That’s the wrong way to judge, no less for her than for the allegedly wise Latina.
I’m all in favor of an excellent judge who is (pick your fav identity). But the job is judge, and like you, I’m deeply concerned that anyone, even a black, gay, disabled immigrant, forgets why she’s wearing the robe by putting anything ahead of her duty to be an excellent judge.
SHG,
I demand to be recognized as old, of German heritage, and proud of it, with a pale skin and blue eyes and no hair who hales from the flyover part of this vast country. Please see to it.
This judge does not want to be left out. Furthermore, my demand serves to disprove the canard that the federal judiciary grows more homogeneous by the day. Candor requires me to admit that we may be more goofy, but that is, to my way of thinking, just another point that should be favorably recognized on the identitarian scale.
Thank you. All the best.
RGK
I see you, Judge.
You do sort of hail on the flyover country ,too.
Here you go esteemed one. Why not include Judge Whitener’s own words on this topic?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=57FMau29O_g
You should write her a letter, she might even be a reader of SJ…
She’s entitled to her beliefs off the bench, as long as she performs her judicial function well on the bench.
I’ve never heard of immigration allowing to permanently move to the US to receive medical care. Patients are allowed to come for a relatively short visit to see doctors and then go back.
Earlier versions of the Judge Whitener’s bio on the internet state that she initially arrived to the US to attend college (although, it’s not clear why it took her 8 years to receive a Bachelor’s degree). Did she obtain her green card after marrying a man with the last name “Whitener”? Reading her bio I can’t tell if her professional record is good enough or not, but she seems to be quite an activist type. Did her clients appreciate her participating in various minority, women and LGBTQ associations, giving talks and getting diversity awards? One interesting shift is how progressive types rebranded her bio just within a few years. In 2015 she was praised for being diversity minded. In 2020 she’s praised for literarily being diversity herself, like an upgrade to some kind of deity status. And they also added “disability” given she previously had no interest in any disability associations. The bigger your list of worshipped identities, the better. Being just a black woman isn’t sufficient anymore.
For the people using these selection criteria, the criteria are reasons to put the selected nominees on the bench. The root premise is that they need judges who will legislate social change from the bench.