President Joe Biden has reiterated a pledge he made on the campaign trail. The next Supreme Court nominee will be black and female. In my view, choosing someone simply because of her color is racist. Choosing someone simply because she's a woman is sexist. But choosing a black female who is also extraordinarily qualified and above reproach can help make the court more diverse. According to USA Today, only 5% of the federal bench is made up of black women. That needs to change, but only with persons who are as well qualified as any other candidate.
Today's one-liner: "The shortest way to the distinguishing excellence of any writer is through his hostile critics." Richard LeGallienne
Local Government TV
▼
Friday, January 28, 2022
64 comments:
You own views are appreciated, especially if they differ from mine. But remember, commenting is a privilege, not a right. I will delete personal attacks or off-topic remarks at my discretion. Comments that play into the tribalism that has consumed this nation will be declined. So will comments alleging voter fraud unless backed up by concrete evidence. If you attack someone personally, I expect you to identify yourself. I will delete criticisms of my comment policy, vulgarities, cut-and-paste jobs from other sources and any suggestion of violence towards anyone. I will also delete sweeping generalizations about mainstream parties or ideologies, i.e. identity politics. My decisions on these matters are made on a case by case basis, and may be affected by my mood that day, my access to the blog at the time the comment was made or other information that isn’t readily apparent.
According to the supreme court, he has now just made a racist, sexist hiring decision. If the best qualified person available is black and female, great. He could at least have not announced ahead of time if this was his intention, by doing this, in his mind, politically advantageous act he has in effect broken the law and is open for a serious lawsuit from any jurist who is willing to put their neck on the line to make a point.
ReplyDeleteCould you imagine if such a suit took place, and it would end up in the supreme court, they would have to rule against this president.
Maybe that is exactly the hope of Biden and his juvenile advisers that he could create a divisive conflict over race.
Most racist post in this blog's sordid history. Replace the word black with white in this post, and tell us how you feel. This nominee will always be viewed as a substandard box checker. What a disservice. I guess MLK's word were bullshit. We know they were and are to racist liberals like this blog's hateful author.
ReplyDeleteThe selection of a Supreme court Justice, or any position, should SOLELY be based on their qualifications. Gender and race should not be a factor. By making decisions based on race and gender the entire system is being eroded.
ReplyDeleteAbout time.
ReplyDeleteYet why are white men are not immediately questioned about their qualifications?
First thing brought up about a women or minority is about being qualified.
Seems they are held to a higher standard--wonder where that comes from?
Also where is it written that only old white men are capable of being a Supreme court judge?
Like most of America, I couldn’t care less about the race or gender of a candidate for office, the Supreme Court, whatever. I would like to see a seasoned professional who has a strong grasp on the Constitution and who will serve the court with honor and dignity. The law is the law and personal biases and allegiances should be left at the bar. Biden backed himself into a corner to pander and get votes, which shows me he is weak and won’t choose the best, rather try to make points by checking boxes. What a very sad state of affairs. How disappointing for the nominee to have his “Black woman” promise to answer to for the rest of what I hope will be a successful career.
ReplyDeleteWhite men do not rate with Biden.
ReplyDeleteFirst and foremost, the nominee should have a record of fidelity to the US Constitution. , and its Amendments. That is what the job is all about.
ReplyDeleteSecondly, after President Biden and all the media repeatedly crowed about his pledge to nominate a Black woman, let us never hear or see in print the ridiculous term birthing person ever again.
And, the fact that a jurist is chosen because s/he is Catholic is called what? We currently have 7 Catholics on the Supreme Court.
ReplyDeleteImagine the upheaval at Fox News and their supporters if there were 7 Jewish members, or (gasp) 7 Muslim members. They'd lose their collective minds.
Pure pandering. This from the guy that had treated Clarence Thomas so well at his confirmation hearing. What a crock!
ReplyDeleteHow about the content of their character and not the color of their skin. As long as the person is qualified regardless of color we should not care.
It's stated that 5% of the Federal Bench is made up of Black Women - that sounds low, but consider this - the total black female population is 6.6%.
If the pick is a black woman I hope they are smart and follow the law. But we will probably get an activist which is something the court should not be about for either side.
I long for the day when race and sex are not a consideration in appointments to office. But that would result in loss of income for many shills guised as advocates of the "moral high road". Imagine how many of these crooks in Allentown might have to get a real job. Well, for some, there is always the lucrative drug market.
ReplyDeleteI find it ironic that this very issue has been addressed by the Court of which he wants to place such a candidate and this Court has previously ruled that to do so is discriminatory.
ReplyDeleteI don’t disagree with efforts to make the judiciary more diverse. But, considering who is making the appointments, we can only think of the selection of Kamala Harris as a guide to what is coming. Select the best. You do a disservice to any candidate by placing high emphasis on race and sex. Too many will believe that those were the sole factors for selection and never see any other qualifications and ignore a substantial resume.
ReplyDeleteAt the top of my Google News feed there's an article from the New York Times with crack reporting informing us that late-night comics approve of the Biden SC strategy. I guess that settles it. The rest of us don't have to debate it any more.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, for what it's worth, people of color identified as female at birth make up 7% of the US population.
I would prefer the most qualified candidate and I don't give a crap if they are white, black, purple or blue.
ReplyDeleteIs Justice Thomas no longer black?
ReplyDeleteIt's a terrible shame we have been reduced to playing this "check off the diversity box" game with an incredibly important institution like the Supreme Court. It undermines the legitimacy of the system.
ReplyDeleteRace is important, but the way it is presented in the US is so distorted. An example of this, Bernie, is your statement about the percentage of black women in the court system. "Only 5%", amd "needs to change". The US population is only 12-13% Black. Half of of that group is female, so normal representation would only be around 6%. Is that extra percent really a systemic problem that needs to be fretted about? Or are our efforts better spent elsewhere?
For some perspective:
ReplyDeleteThe US black female population is somewhere around 6.5-7%.
Promises made, promises kept.
ReplyDeleteA supreme court justice is supposed to be of high integrity, unbiased, and to support the constitution. What if there should be black women justices of high integrity that would make it known they are not interested in the job, because they would want to be picked for their character, integrity and qualifications, not by their race or gender.
ReplyDeleteAfter the horrible appointment of Clarence (and Virginia) Thomas, this seems like a wise move. It will be necessary to throughly vett the candidate.
ReplyDelete"Even if he were mediocre, there are a lot of mediocre judges and people and lawyers. They are entitled to a little representation, aren't they, and a little chance?" Senator Roman Hruska on the Carswell nomination to the Supreme Court.
ReplyDeleteThe poor women who accepts this job will forever be saddled with the indignity of being chosen for her race rather than her qualifications, just another dagger in the hope of black people to be accepted as equal.
ReplyDeleteI have no problem with that pick. Although the job is supposed to be based on qualifications lets just admit that it is almost purely political . Pretty soon the position will become just as much a clown show as the presidency to placate the masses. In the future it will be an Oprah or Tucker. Having said that I do still think we should stick with the "for life" clause. As even some recent presidents have found out, when not trying to appease voters or selectors the supreme may not see things the same way as those who put them in the position.
ReplyDeleteThe politicians in this country are doing us in--no doubt about it.
ReplyDeleteWhat black people have been craving for is respect, this move is just another slap in the face and tells them they have no future without help from the democrat party. He could have chosen a black women, but to make the announcement beforehand is probably the dumbest political move in presidential history.
ReplyDeleteThe dramatic gasping and pearl clutching over this is ridiculous.
ReplyDeleteThere are over 330 Million Americans. Just because Biden decided to narrow the field down to a woman and a person of color does not mean that the individual selected will not be just as qualified as any other individual.
Using the 6.5% someone noted above, thats nearly 2,000,000 black women in this country. Pretty confident there are more than a few that have passed the bar and are qualified to sit next to Clarence Thomas.
Any questioning, dissection or personal trouble anyone has with a black woman on SCOTUS is moronic and yes even a tad racisty.
"Most racist post in this blog's sordid history."
ReplyDeleteI'm sure you can find more racist posts than this one. I have always acknowledged I am a racist and product of my environment. I am doing my best to be a better person. But I find that singling someone out precisely bc of race, sex or religion is the very bigotry I despise in myself.
I feel that, in this day and age, we should be judging candidates on the content of their character, not on the color of their skin. MLK rolling ove.
ReplyDeleteI think the African American woman he chooses should have entrance music like a baseball player or wrestling star. I recommend "Back in Black" by AC/DC. They can play it whenever she enters the court room!
ReplyDeleteWhy not an Asian American woman or an indigenous woman ? Isn't only looking at an African American woman racist to the Asian/Indigenous women? This is coming from a guy that said he didn't want his kids to grow up in a racial jungle so par for the course. Oh I also believe he eulogized a KKK member. Bernie you will have to fact check me on those 2 claims.
ReplyDeleteThis nominee (whomever it is) raped and abused classmates in high school and college, and has a history of horrible racial insensitivity. I have no proof of this, but making these specious accusations is fair game in the post-Kavanaugh confirmation world. I'm certain a mentally unstable accuser will be found without much effort. We are essentially elevating a racist rapist to the highest court in the land. How low we have descended as a country. I'm sick of all of us.
ReplyDeleteCouldn't care less if it is or it isn't. Isn't that the point of color blind equality?
ReplyDeleteIf I were more qualified and most appropriate for this position after years of proven work and I was not considered based on my gender or my color I would find that ironic and very disheartening and discriminatory
ReplyDeleteBlack women are the single most under-represented demographic group in our country on the Supreme Court. All you people trying to say fixing this problem is inherently racist are really showing yourselves for who you are. Justices are often appointed because of their demographics, including conservative ones. Thomas was appointed because he is Black (he replaced Thurgood Marshall) and Coney Barrett was appointed to fill Ginsberg's seat because she is a woman, and conservatives didn't want to overturn Roe with an all-male majority.
ReplyDeleteWhat you haven't mentioned are the impeccable credentials of the candidates being considered. Ketanji Brown Jackson, for example, completed her undergrad and her JD at Harvard, where she was the supervising editor of the Harvard Law Review. She completed three clerkships, including one for Justice Breyer, and has worked in private practice as an appellate litigator, as a federal public defender handling cases before the DC appeals court, on the US sentencing commission as both associate special counsel and later as its vice chair, as a judge in the US District Court for DC, and is currently a judge on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals.
I am not sure what planet you all are from that you don't think this woman is eminently qualified.
Ask the Lehigh Valley Tea Party, I'm sure you will get an interesting answer.
ReplyDeleteHe should nominate Anita Hill. Maybe Michelle Obama. I wonder how Anita would get along with Clarence and his puppet master wife.
ReplyDelete"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."
ReplyDeleteSorry MLK. You're passe', buddy.
If this isn't racist, imagine if he said that my next pick will be a white male?
ReplyDelete3:55pm: "My next pick will be a white male". Isn't that what every President said and did until 1967? Stop your false equivalency, your whiteness is showing.
DeleteAnd, in 1980, Ronald Reagan was losing women support for his opposition to the ERA, so a month or so prior to the election, he held a press conference stating that, if elected, his first appointment to the Supreme Court will be a woman. Funny how Republicans forget that. Just read the above comments condemning Biden.
So Biden is saying that he is going to nominate a black woman? It is Elizabeth Warren.
ReplyDeleteNo seriously, he said he will nominate Diana Ross. She has experience as a Supreme.
How's about a black women trangender from PA, there are a few that could do the black face. This could be Wolf's new position that he is heading for in his jeep.
ReplyDeleteWasn't Janice Rogers Brown blocked twice by Joe Biden? Miguel Estrada and Clarence Thomas were both blocked by Biden. Can't say Republicans are 1st at blocking minorities.
ReplyDeleteWhen Reagan ran for president he promised to nominate the first woman to the Supreme Court, and he did. Where was the outrage then ? Of course we didnt have Fox/Kremlin News back then. Lets face it, the REpublican party in general has no use for black people. It is the view of Republicans that the only way a black person belongs in the White House is if he/she is mopping the floor or serving drinks.
ReplyDeleteDon't be fooled by this past tense bull crap. Any one who thinks he has just came up with the idea is stupider then those that believe Fox news spew. Presidents go in the election knowing several key things if they happen to be elected. And one of those things is who they would most likely nominate for key positions if they become elected. And who they would nominate for a supreme court just happens to be one of those things. So saying that he is going to nominate a black woman may seem like it is a surprise to many of the general moronic public in this country but he has had her on the short list for a while. I forget where I remember reading it but presidents wince Reagan have had these short lists. All except the last one Who gave just as little thought to what he would do in the position as he did in supporting a peaceful transition of power.
ReplyDelete.
3:55, the difference, of course, is that white men have historically been wildly over-represented on the supreme court.
ReplyDelete4:14, "women" is a plural noun, not an adjective. "Transgender" is an adjective, not a noun.
4:38, Rodgers Brown was widely opposed by Democrats because her judicial philosophy is nonsensical. Obama said this about her:
"Justice Scalia says that, generally speaking, the legislature has the power to make laws and the judiciary should only interpret the laws that are made or are explicitly in the Constitution. That is not Justice Brown's philosophy. It is simply intellectually dishonest and logically incoherent to suggest that somehow the Constitution recognizes an unlimited right to do what you want with your private property and yet does not recognize a right to privacy that would forbid the Government from intruding in your bedroom. Yet that seems to be the manner in which Justice Brown would interpret our most cherished document."
Thomas was also opposed widely (including by two Republicans) because of the Anita Hill scandal and his very extreme judicial philosophy, which is becoming more incoherent by the day.
Reagan said he'd of course he'd consider nominating a woman. That's a bit different than a guarantee to check a box, as Uncle Touchy has done.
ReplyDeleteI think he should nominate a trans female because, as we've seen recently on Jeopardy, and in college and Olympic sports, men make the best women. Prove me wrong.
@6:15- Not even close. Reagan was losing female support prior to the election because of his lack of support for the Equal Right Amendment. He met with leaders and worked out a deal to nominate a female Supreme Court Justice, if elected, in order to have their support. A month before the 1980 election, Reagan held a press conference specifically to announce that he will nominate the first female Jurist.
DeleteDamn, you people love your fake news.
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteFor some perspective: The US black female population is somewhere around 6.5-7%.
So roughly 1/12th? Then having 1/12th of the Supreme Court as black female seems about right to me.
Comments on here claim everything from intentionally trying to create a divisive conflict over race, to disappointing MLK. I don't give a shit if his selection is a he, or a she, black, white, yellow, brown, or polkadot.
ReplyDeleteAs long as it is someone who believes in protecting the Constitution and doesn't decide matters based on their own political beliefs.
Past history has shown the Supreme Court can justify some bizarre and wrong decisions based on politics at the time.
Let's hope whomever the candidate may be is shown greater respect than Biden's racist attacks on Clarence Thomas and his racist vote against him.
ReplyDelete(The above is in keeping with the leftist tradition of calling everything they don't like "racist.")
6.15
ReplyDeletetry
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1980/10/15/reagan-pledges-he-would-name-a-woman-to-the-supreme-court/844817dc-27aa-4f5d-8e4f-0ab3a5e76865/?itid=lk_inline_manual_20
"Ronald Reagan, striving to refute charges that he is insensitive to women's rights, said today he would name a woman to "one of the first Supreme Court vacancies in my administration."
"It is time for a woman to sit among our highest jurists," Reagan said in a prepared statement to a news conference here. "I will also seek out women to appoint to other federal courts in an effort to bring about a better balance on the federal bench."
And trumpie
""I will be putting forth a nominee next week. It will be a woman," Trump said Sept. 19, 2020, during a rally in Fayetteville, North Carolina."
Apparently Pres. Reagan appointed Scalia specifically because he was Italian (besides being conservative of course). That's called "affirmative action." I suppose the principle is as good now as then, as long as the nominee is extraordinarily qualified.
ReplyDeleteHe wouldn't be choosing her only because of her color or sex. He would be choosing her for her knowledge and performance as a judge. I am perfectly fine with this approach.
ReplyDeleteIt would be delusional to believe that Kavanaugh, for example, was in the top 5 of all possible candidates, when he was nominated. One could have found a black person, or a woman, or both who was more qualified. So confining the search for the sake of diversity is fine.
Just more political BS and corruption from the people that want to destroy America. Let's not base on qualifications and intelligence, but race and sex. Pitiful . The great division and destruction of America continues.
ReplyDelete8:39 - So you are saying that racial diversity isn't cared for if this individuals values oppose the party? For two years Biden actively filibustered a black woman to circuit judge.
ReplyDeleteWhen Obama was a senator he said this about Rodgers in 2005, "Unfortunately, as has been stated repeatedly on this floor, in almost every legal decision that she has made and every political speech that she has given, Justice Brown has shown she is not simply a judge with very strong political views, she is a political activist who happens to be a judge." An opposing view can say same about any of Obama's appointees.
This is the same party that made fun of SCJ Barrett for adopting black children.
Simply put, a meritocracy cannot exist in the United States because year after year, people with the best outcomes tend to be white people with the most money. Part of the reason is that advantages in this country can be bought, so it’s not a fair system toward marginalized groups. This is why affirmative action was developed and is a key component of modern day diversity in the country. It’s not racist to nominate a black woman to the Supreme Court, it’s serving the underrepresented.
ReplyDeleteBlack women in this country can take no days off. Look how you all treated Michelle Obama for eight years, how you vilified and continue to spread lies about Kamala Harris, and now the mere mention of a black woman in the Supreme Court bringing all the racist home to roost.
ReplyDelete8:50 - maybe Biden should go all out and find a candidate of Chinese descent. But, seriously. The purpose of the Supreme Court is to uphold our United States Constitution. I don’t remember anything in that document that mentions preference for any one specific race.
ReplyDeleteSince when do we hire people for the color of their skin and not their qualifications.. proof is in this administration
ReplyDeleteIf you want to look at percentages of the population then the NFL, NBA should only have around 15% of non white players. Lets see how that affirmative action correction would be accepted.
ReplyDeleteI know you think you have a “aha” moment here but Contrary to popular belief, athletes hold no significant influence over institutions that hold the power for real change in this country. These positions of power were typical held by rich white elites that were racist and had no interest in changing a system that benefited them. These are the areas where affirmative action and diversity hold their biggest values.
DeleteAlso, white athletes are beta-male cucks whose slow-twitch muscles make them injury prone meatballs on any field.
Have a nice day.
It's racist to put this post out there. Biden didn't say "I'm going to appoint a black female regardless of whether she is of the same caliber as other potential candidates." That would be putting race ahead of substance. Way to go. You've just given all the racists license to jump on the bandwagon--"See? If he says he's going to use race as a qualifier it must he's ignoring more qualified candidates." Right. B/c a candidate can't be black, female, and qualified all at the same time.
ReplyDeleteOh so I see, conservatives don’t have a problem when Reagan nominated a woman to the Supreme Court.
ReplyDeleteThey just have a problem when someone nominates a BLACK woman to the Supreme Court.
Point taken…
(Not like I didn’t know you were bigots)
Just saw an email from PPL advertising minority and female scholarships.
ReplyDelete