Now that Justice Breyer has announced his intention to retire, we’re going to have to live through another SCOTUS circus. Democrats and Republicans will both say things we all know aren’t true — and they know aren’t true — contradicting things they said just a short time ago.
Biden has promised to nominate a black woman. That doesn’t seem to have gone well with his VP pick, but … whatever.
Tulsi Gabbard had this to say about it.
Biden’s mistake: He should not be choosing a Supreme Court justice based on the color of their skin or sex, but rather on their qualifications & commitment to uphold our Constitution & the freedoms guaranteed to all Americans in that document which is the foundation of our nation
I think Biden is at least five years past his sell-by date, but I do want to try (however half-heartedly) to look at this from his point of view. What is the point of prejudging the candidates and choosing to have a black woman on the Supreme Court?
Let’s set aside the obvious answer — that he was appealing to his base — and examine this. Why is the race and sex of a SCOTUS justice important?
It’s based on the assumption that a woman will view issues differently than a man, and a black person will view issues differently than a non-black person. Statistically speaking, that might be true. For example, I’ve been reliably informed that women are one standard deviation more likely to be interested in other people than men, and one standard deviation less likely to be interested in things / gadgets than men.
But isn’t judging an individual by an alleged group characteristic exactly what we don’t want to do? Isn’t Biden’s declaration, in fact, the very definition of racism and sexism?
Are all women the same? Are all black people the same?
Would Candace Owens judge a case the same way as Whoopi Goldberg?
Obviously not. In fact, that’s so obvious it’s hard to imagine a person with two brain cells believing that race or sex determine a person’s political or judicial philosophy. As little as I think of Joe Biden, I do believe he has two brain cells. So what the heck is going on?
Okay, yes, it’s a crass political overture to interest groups. I get that. But there are some people who think this is a good thing. What are they thinking?
They clearly know there are conservative black women in the world, so they can’t be so stupid as to believe that a black woman will necessarily vote a certain way. Again, think of Candace Owens. I’m sure she’s not on Biden’s list.
What they really mean is “a liberal judge with decent qualifications who is also a black woman.”
But why? Why not an Asian? Why not a Native American? Why not somebody in a wheel chair? There are any number of demographic groups that have not been proportionately represented on the Supreme Court.
Why prejudge the issue this way? It makes no sense at all.
QUOTE: Why prejudge the issue this way? It makes no sense at all.
This fake “concern” from the right is total male bovine manure. Where was it when Ronald Reagan explicitly promised to nominate a woman during his run for president. He nominated Sandra Day O’Connor. As well, Regan mused that there wasn’t an Italian-American on the court, so there needed to be one. Then he nominated Scalia. Trump stated, “I will be putting forth a nominee next week. It will be a woman. I think it should be a woman because I actually like women much more than men.”
So, if it makes no sense, then it’s not made sense for a long time. Interestingly, it wasn’t voiced as a major concern until now. I wonder why?
I’m pretty sure I criticized Trump for that.
Justices should be chosen based on their qualifications.
I’m pretty sure I criticized Trump for that.
You missed the point. Do you represent the general body of the right? Why didn’t this concern get voiced with this level of fervor by the right when Reagan and Trump did it? In fact, when Trump did so, many cheered. So, is the right now using this opportunity to virtue signal??? Or, could it be some other reason for this reaction given this isn’t new territory?
BTW, what did you say when you criticized Trump?
QUOTE: Justices should be chosen based on their qualifications.
Interestingly, this is what President Biden said: The person I will nominate will be someone with extraordinary qualifications, character, experience and integrity and the person will be the first Black woman nominated to the United States Supreme Court…I will fulfill my duty to select a justice, not only with Senate’s consent but with its advice…I’m going to invite Senators from both parties to offer their ideas and points of view. I’ll also consult with leading scholars and lawyers…I will listen carefully to all the advice I’m given and I’ll study the former records and cases carefully…in the end, I’ll nominate a historic candidate…
Given Biden commentary, it seems he’s on solid ground especially given the precedence of Republican presidents in making SCOTUS nominations based on qualifications, ethnicity and gender.
Reagan’s decision to nominate SOC was considered a foolish decision at the time by us foaming-at-the-mouth right-wing types, but defended by the more establishment-friendly parts of the GOP. Unsurprisingly, it turned out to be a disaster. And Scalia would have been a great justice even if he was from Mayflower stock.
You’re welcome not to pay attention to the internal conversations of the other side, but you can’t then claim to find the hole that your ignorance leaves suspicious.
I was hanging out with so-called conservatives and subjected to a lot of their foamings-at-the-mouth at the time of SOC nomination. They were not having hissy fits about it, certainly not nearly as shrilly as we are currently hearing. Whether they were okay with Scalia, the reason given by Regan still should have been objectionable to them, and indeed with undying and boundless shrillness. The quotation from Trump about liking women more than men is downright flippant, as we can only expect from a man utterly devoid of moral character.
With few exceptions, conservatives find the ethnicity and gender objectionable criteria ONLY WHEN IT SUITS THEM.
QUOTE: With few exceptions, conservatives find the ethnicity and gender objectionable criteria ONLY WHEN IT SUITS THEM.
That’s just it. If this is suppose to be about “principle” and doing the right thing… why is it they get to do with impunity what they harshly criticize in their opponents?
After the crap that was pulled with the non-nomination of Merrick Garland, nomination of Amy Coney Barrett and various examples of selections based on things other than pure “qualifications”…you’d think they’d not criticize. Yet, they wax poetic about principle that they themselves haven’t abided by and then expect to be taken credibly….laughable.
QUOTE: Reagan’s decision to nominate SOC was considered a foolish decision at the time by us foaming-at-the-mouth right-wing types…but defended by the more establishment-friendly parts of the GOP
Yikes!…almost sounds like a rabid animal. No wonder the establishment GOP didn’t give credence to rabid right and defended Regan’s centrist approach in court nominations. Interestingly, Reagan’s woman pledge wasn’t isolated to the SCOTUS. He said: “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.” Imagine that???
QUOTE: You’re welcome not to pay attention to the internal conversations of the other side, but you can’t then claim to find the hole that your ignorance leaves suspicious.
Yes, there may have been intra party squabbles (which is rather typical in politics) and even resentment from the rabid right. Despite that, Reagan made pledges that were not only generally supported by his party but actually executed. Interestingly, that support remained when Trump pledged to nominate a woman to the SCOTUS…so much so some even “cheered” when he announced it. Imagine that…cheering on a president for selecting a SCOTUS justice based on sex?
Oh, since you bring up “ignorance”….one of the chief clowns in the rabid right circus, Sean Hannity, recently stated: “I’m saying this fully acknowledging that there are definitely qualified people in all backgrounds, all races, all religions, etc., etc…but there’s never been a president that has made race and gender the defining factor. That’s the difference here.”. His glaring ignorance of the statements of Trump and Regan leaves some suspicious. But wait…there’s more.
Peter Wallison, Reagan’s White House counsel said that Reagan “wanted to be sure that he could appoint the first Italian-American …he felt that it would be great to put an Italian-American on the Supreme Court.” Dang it, I suppose that one got by Hannity too, eh?
According to historian David A. Nichols and political science professor Sheldon Goldman, Eisenhower told his attorney general, “I still want the name of some fine, prominent Catholic to nominate to the bench” . Justice William Brennan Jr., acknowledged this during an interview saying. “I have seen the record that President Eisenhower, when this vacancy arose, gave instructions to the Attorney General that he would like consideration of a Catholic.” Interestingly, during the nomination process that resulted in the confirmation of Clarence Thomas, administration officials said Bush concentrated almost exclusively on minority or female candidates. So, despite Hannity’s and other’s ignorance, seems Republican presidents have been dabbling in targeted selection for some time.
That said, isn’t it’s ironic that when Trump expressly stated he was nominating a woman…it was generally accepted and even embraced with “cheers” by the right. Yet, when Biden said he wanted to nominate a black woman the reception was so very different from that same group. Things that make you go…hmmm.
Lastly, this is all US dirty laundry. I’m sure the conservative Canucks can show us ignorant Americans a better way to run a nation, right DSM?
Ted Cruz is a conservative Canuck. Isn’t he just wonderful!
Yet another thoughtful question doomed to go unanswered because somebody else did the same dumb thing before.
🙂
The question remains, and makes its own point, irrespective of the inability of people to get past whataboutism.
For decades it seemed to be acceptable practice by both parties to take ethnicity and gender into account. It is obvious why it became so. For a very long time women were subordinate, as were blacks. A group of exclusively white males could very well be imperceptive when such inequalities come into consideration. In spite of such obviousness, however, it is suddenly subject to brutal dismal when a Democrat is making the decision. Quite naturally any rational person will wonder why.
Indeed, another thoughtful question has gone unanswered….why is it such an issue now…given the group raising the issue has done the alleged dumb thing (multiple times without much issue)?
Variant 37 on whataboutism.
Yet another red herring. Or, more figuratively expressed….“If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts. If the law and the facts are against you, pound the table and yell like hell.”
If we stipulate that anyone who has not previously raised this question when it involved different people is a filthy hypocrite and cannot possibly have a good motive for asking it, can we move on to thinking about it and answering it?
Actually, the question is fine. We should inquire and establish principles for roles of this magnitude, given their potential impact. The issue is the right’s attempt to hold others accountable to principles they haven’t held themselves to. As well, why is it essential this principle be adhered to now, especially given the right seems to have ignored it previously (and it was considered permissible)?
Both the question and adjoining issues need to be addressed given their implications. You know, it’s like walking and chewing gum. Both can be done by those who are truly proficient….especially if the “true” intention is to enhance the system.
We certainly can walk and chew gum, but sometimes it seems like on this page the gum chewing of actually discussing the question raised gets eliminated in favor of the walking of discussing the page owner’s presumed philosophy and motives for asking it. At the least, we seem to need several rounds of gumless walking before anyone’s willing to unwrap the Wrigley’s, and sometimes we never get there.
My understanding is that this is a discussion page. As such, that engenders talking about many aspects of given topics. Sometimes that involves walking and chewing gum and that potentially offers a wholesome review of the subject matter. That said, just because some chew gum, doesn’t inhibit those who wish to merely walk.
“Would you guys stop chewing gum? We’re trying to walk here.”
QUOTE: “Would you guys stop chewing gum? We’re trying to walk here.”
Touché! 😉
If some want to walk…why not simply do it? Some choosing to walk and chew gum doesn’t prohibit walking.
IDK. If we always pick the “most qualified”, we always get WASPs–at least it was that way for a couple hundred years. Our country isn’t all WASPs. I think our court probably should not be all WASPs. If they pick the “most qualified” then they say, “oh, only pick from Harvard or Yale because those are the best schools…just like us.” Who gets into the schools? Well, there’s a selection process, and then they say, “oh, pick Donald and not Kwame because Donald is more like us.” It’s almost like this with the job market for college graduates. Companies want to hire new grads that have “experience.” To give “experience”, companies offer “internships”–unpaid. Well, when I was in college, I sure AF could not afford to take an unpaid internship. I needed a job to earn money for school costs. Who could take an internship? Well, those kids who went to private schools that cost more than my college tuition…they could afford to take an internship because mommy and daddy were paying for everything. So these little brats would be “the most qualified.”
Biden should have just shut his mouth and picked a qualified black woman. Afterward, he could have just said, “oh wow, now that you mention it, she is black and a woman.” Hell, why doesn’t he nominate Kamala? She’s black and Asian. If she was Jewish or Muslim too, then he’d have the trifecta going on.
It was interesting watching a who on the Emmett Till murder case from the late 50s. Some rednecks down South killed a 14 year old boy because he allegedly said something to a white woman. Surprise, surprise, the all white jury found them not-guilty. Afterward their acquittal, they admitted and bragged that they did commit the murder. It was interesting in the film, because they brought in voting rights. Who got selected to juries? Registered voters. If you could suppress voter registration, it also had the effect of selecting the jury pool.
Selecting the “best” nominee is sort of bullshit. There is no “best”…only what you prefer.
Who is the “best” guitarist? Back in the day, some people used to say Steve Vai or Yngwie Malmsteen. Or, they’ll say Jimi Hendrix or Edward Van Halen. And, what do you even mean by “best”?
Steve Vai had a new album come out this week. I listened. Once. The guy has mad skills on a guitar. Mad, mad skills. He can play insanely fast. He can even make his guitar talk without a talk box–listen to Yankee Rose from David Lee Roth’s first solo album after Van Halen.
However, as mad as his skills are, or Yngwie Malmsteen, I get tired after an hour of listening to them. Put on the Beatles or the Rolling Stones discography and I can listen all day. Is Steve Vai a better guitar player than John Lennon or Keith Richards? Technically, probably. He could play stuff those other two could never play, and probably play everything those two ever played…as far as raw playing goes. But those two also wrote songs on a guitar. They wrote songs I like, can sing along to, and that move me.
Who is going to be the best justice? What are we going to go by? Take all the candidates that went to Yale or Harvard and had a 4.0 GPA? How many extra-curricular activities did they have? If one had more than another, does that move them up on the competition? What about the one who had a 3.95? But held down a 30 hour week job during school to help pay for expenses rather than the 4.0 whose parents paid for everything?
Look who we had to vote for in 2020. It’s laughable that the two best candidates were Trump and Biden.
I definitely believe we should get people from different law schools. There’s nothing “most qualified” about only having Harvard and Yale.
But you’re wrong that we’ve been getting WASPs. Jews and Catholics are over-represented on the Supreme Court.
And what would be wrong with having all WASPs, or all Jews, or all Catholics, or all Blacks, or all anything else, if they were all well-qualified?
I do want to see more diversity on the Supreme Court. I want to see other law schools and other judicial philosophies represented. And maybe even some non-lawyers. I don’t give a hoot the color of their skin, their sex, or who they have sex with.
I agree that “best” doesn’t identify a single person. But it certainly narrows things down.
The current court is made up of a male and a female Jew, a Latina, an Irishman, an Italian man, a black man, and what appear to be one male and one female of Anglo-Saxon descent, neither of whom are protestant.
So there is actually not a single WASP on the court at the moment.
Nope, just looked it up. Not a single Anglo-Saxon. Amy Coney Barrett’s heritage is Irish and Cajun, John Roberts’s is Irish, Welsh, and Slovak.
Sure, there’s a long history of WASP dominance, but apparently that history was quite effectively broken without the overt identitarian criteria now being proposed.
It is mainly the W that matters in our time. The ASP part has become a non-issue for the most part. Given the contempt that a lot of Protestants have for Catholics (Mary, the Pope, etc.), you never know when this sort of hostility could get reanimated.
QUOTE: It is mainly the W that matters in our time.
When the first 180 years of the Court consisted of justices that were almost exclusively white males, it raises the question why. So, it’s helpful to identify what caused that and confirm that nothing was done to exclude other qualified candidates. If there were flaws, correct them as to ensure the nomination process allows for “anyone” who is qualified to have an opportunity to be appointed and serve.
QUOTE: And what would be wrong with having all WASPs, or all Jews, or all Catholics, or all Blacks, or all anything else, if they were all well-qualified?
What’s right with it when there is a rich pool of qualified diverse talent that reflects the composition of the country? If there’s all of one kind, there might be a legitimate reason for it but it should at least raise the question of “why” given the diverse talent pool within the US.
In the history of the court, there’s been 15 Catholics. If we look in our recent memory, counting Scalia, prior to Scalia’s appointment, there were 7 Catholics on the court. Thomas was Prot when appointed. Gorsuch…is he RC or Prot?
As for the sons of Abraham, 8 total including Kagan, Breyer, and Ginsburg. So for the 225 years prior to those two, 5 Jews.
You think Dred Scott might have gone different if there was a black person on the court humanizing blacks? Or, what about a Native American?
QUOTE: Biden should have just shut his mouth and picked a qualified black woman.
Why should he have to shut his mouth given this was an established and fairly non-controversial practice till now by previous presidents?
According to the Wiki article on Sandra Day O’Connor, Reagan “had pledged during his 1980 presidential campaign to appoint the first woman to the Court.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandra_Day_O'Connor
At the time such a pledge seemed about as non-divisive as you could get in the USA, in spite of a few dissenting and shrill voices on the far right.
Exactly! Despite some minor opposition, she received the most votes for a Supreme Court confirmation in US history (inclusive of initial non-supporters). During her first year as a SCOTUS justice she received 60,000 letters from the public…more than any other justice in history.
Fast forward, Trump says during a rally, “I will be putting forth a nominee next week. It will be a woman. I think it should be a woman because I actually like women much more than men.” . It was received with cheers. In fact, Barrett’s nomination was generally supported by Republicans and a favorite among the Christian right and social conservatives. No questioning of constitutionality by Hannity. So, even the few shrill voices quieted and the nomination wasn’t generally considered a dumb thing.
That’s why I find it so curious that now that Biden has done virtually the same as Trump (less than two years ago), that he received so much blowback from conservatives. In fact, Biden even contextualized the nomination by saying…“The person I will nominate will be someone with extraordinary qualifications, character, experience and integrity and the person will be the first Black woman nominated to the United States Supreme Court…” It didn’t matter that he talked about “extraordinary qualifications”and a series of other relevant attributes…still there was severe criticism. The question is “why”?
That said, Biden was fine in making the announcement in the manner he did. You can’t take seriously those who criticize the same behavior they recently endorsed or let slide because it came from their guy.