Critics slam Cruz for saying Biden’s vow to nominate first Black woman to Supreme Court is ‘offensive’
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Critics slam Cruz for saying Biden’s vow to nominate first Black woman to Supreme Court is ‘offensive’
7-9 minutes Invalid Date
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) says President Biden’s vow to nominate and confirm the first Black woman to the U.S. Supreme Court is “offensive” and “an insult to Black women,” becoming the latest Republican to question what’s expected to be a history-making nomination to the high court.
On his podcast, “ Verdict with Ted Cruz,” the Texas senator argued on Monday that Biden’s pledge to nominate a Black woman sent a message to other Americans that they are automatically “ineligible” because of race and gender.
“The fact that he’s willing to make a promise at the outset, that it must be a Black woman, I got to say that’s offensive. You know, Black women are what, 6 percent of the U.S. population? He’s saying to 94 percent of Americans, ‘I don’t give a damn about you, you are ineligible,’” Cruz said. Black women represent 7 percent of the population as of 2019, according to the Census Bureau .
Cruz also claimed, without evidence, that Biden’s upcoming Supreme Court pick was “actually an insult to Black women,” and suggested the president would not nominate the most qualified candidate.
“If he came and said, 'I’m gonna put the best jurist on the court and he looked at a number of people and he ended up nominating a Black woman, he could credibly say, ‘Okay, I’m nominating the person who’s most qualified,’” the senator said. “He’s not even pretending to say that, he’s saying, ‘If you’re a White guy, tough luck. If you’re a White woman, tough luck. You don’t qualify.’”
The comments, which came a day before the start of Black History Month, were slammed by critics and liberals as what one called “unfettered systematic racism.”
“This nation has been built on the strength and fortitude of Black women. We are everything from caregivers to CEOs and soon, a Supreme Court Justice,” tweeted Rep. Marilyn Strickland (D-Wash.). “The only thing insulting to this Black woman is Ted Cruz thinking he speaks for us.”
Neither a Cruz spokesperson nor the White House immediately responded to requests for comment early Tuesday. White House spokesman Andrew Bates said in a statement to The Washington Post over the weekend that Biden’s promise to elevate a Black woman to the highest U.S. court “is in line with the best traditions of both parties and our nation.”
The GOP senator’s remarks come ahead of Biden’s meeting Tuesday with Senate Judiciary Committee leaders as he proceeds with his search to replace Justice Stephen G. Breyer, who last week announced he would retire at the end of this court term . The president has said the nomination of a Black woman to the high court was “long overdue.” The president said he hopes to announce his pick by the end of this month.
The White House has already confirmed that U.S. District Judge J. Michelle Childs , 55, of South Carolina, is under consideration. Others believed to be potential candidates include Ketanji Brown Jackson , 51, a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, and Leondra Kruger , 45, a California Supreme Court justice.
Democrats and historians have pointed to the way Republican Presidents Ronald Reagan and Donald Trump announced their plans to nominate a woman to an open seat on the Supreme Court. Reagan selected Sandra Day O’Connor for a vacancy in 1981, while Trump picked Justice Amy Coney Barrett to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg in 2020.
Despite the history, Biden’s upcoming nomination has caused some Republicans to question the president’s selection process, which Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) described as “clumsy at best.” Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) recently told Fox News host Sean Hannity that the pledge to name a Black woman to the Supreme Court reflected a “ hard woke left ” outlook that has been “race-obsessed, gender-obsessed.”
Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) was rebuked by the White House after saying Biden’s pick would be a “beneficiary” of an affirmative action “quota.”
“The majority of the court may be saying writ large that it’s unconstitutional. We’ll see how that irony works out,” Wicker said, adding that whoever Biden nominates “will probably not get a single Republican vote.”
Similar conservative criticism was made by Fox News host Tucker Carlson when he recently called Biden’s vow “casual racism of affirmative action.” Incoming Georgetown Law administrator Ilya Shapiro was placed on placed on administrative leave Monday after he asserted that Biden’s pick would be a “ lesser Black woman ” rather than the best jurist the president could find. Shapiro apologized for a series of now-deleted tweets mentioning how whoever Biden nominated would have “an asterisk attached” to her name as a result.
Black female judges and law students have celebrated Biden’s upcoming Supreme Court nomination and confirmation. Judge Bernice B. Donald of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit told The Post that Black women have long played a crucial role in “the struggle for equal rights, equal justice and equal opportunity.”
“We have championed the cause of justice; we have championed diversity, equity and inclusion; and we have fought for the rights of others,” she said. “There are so many extraordinarily well-qualified African American women poised and ready to serve. I thank President Biden for recognizing that fact.”
Cruz’s remarks drew immediate blowback. Shuwaski Young, a Democratic candidate who is running for the U.S. House in Mississippi, emphasized that Cruz is just the latest GOP lawmaker who is “ignoring equity on SCOTUS and disrespecting Black Women.”
“We are in times that call upon All of us to speak truth to power,” he wrote on Twitter . “This is unfettered systematic racism.”
Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.) noted that of the 115 people who were previously confirmed to serve as justices on the Supreme Court, 112 were White and 110 were men.
“Not one was a Black woman,” Beyer tweeted . “Senate Republicans could celebrate this important milestone in American history; instead they’re disgracing themselves.”
On Tuesday morning, Alberto Gonzalez, formerly President George W. Bush’s attorney general, called Cruz’s comments “nonsensical.”
“These are extremely well-credential individuals and from my perspective, more than qualified to serve on the Supreme Court,” Gonzalez told CNN of the potential Black women linked to the nomination. “I just find Senator Cruz’s comments really kind of silly.”
Tags
Who is online
419 visitors
The conservative whining about this is past annoying.
Hypocrites. Both Trump and Reagan promised to hire a "woman" justice.
Both Trump and Reagan promised to hire a "woman" justice.
Too bad Trump and Romney are at odds with each other, since Romney’s binder full of women could have been a great resource for Trump.
LOL!
Kudos! One from the archives.....LOL!!!!!
yeah, that makes sense because Trump is still President........uh, nope!
“could have been” … yep, past tense alright.
But the liberal left had absolutely no problem doing the same with the whining and hand wringing with Kavanaugh and Barrett. Pathetic!
Offensive hell. It's full tilt discrimination. With a dash of racism and borderline misandrist
.
nonsense
It's utterly racist.
Only to far right populists. No one else gives a shit.
The exact opposite is true. Only 26% of voters believe that race and gender is an appropriate basis of choosing Supreme Court appointments and 61% think its a bad idea.
Donald Trump was handed a short list of prospective SC nominees from which to choose his three picks. All of them were/are ultra conservative . It was predetermined what the ideology of Trumps three picks would be. You know it and I know it and we all know it. Stop with the comedy.
Biden has every right to limit his prospective picks to ultra liberals (which he will).
Discrimination on the basis of ideology is not illegal .
And just what the hell do you think Biden and the Dem Senators are going to look for? Suzy fucking home maker?
Ideology is not race or sex. I think very few are arguing that Biden choosing someone with the corresponding ideology is an issue, it is race and sex that is the issue.
[deleted]
Gender is an appropriate basis?
Yes-- that is true of some folks ( many politicians are indeed often "playing politics" by pandering to one minority group or another)::
Reagan's White House made sure the president stuck by his promise to name a woman to the Supreme Court — they knew the politics would help too
Which wouldn't make it not racist.
It was clumsy for Biden to do it this way but I don't agree with the full discrimination bit. I feel this is more partisan politics than anything else. We've had other presidents who have stated specific characteristics they wanted, such as Reagan promising to appoint a woman. I feel this is being pushed more for partisan reasons than anything else.
Myself, I don't care if the person is female or male, black, white, green, whatever. I want an honest principled jurist with constitutional experience who will work under the law and not under partisan biases.
I agree. He shouldn't have said anything about what he was looking for and then just nominated who he wanted. He'd still get slammed but well, he's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't
Yes-- reagan was definitely playing "partisan politics"...
Of course he was, so? What point are you trying to make because I don't understand your comment in reply to mine.
It's clumsy when they do it and I wish they didn't. But they do.. IMO no big deal.
Just like when Trump and Reagan announced they would hire a woman justice?
Biden is not the first president to promise to select his nominee from a specific demographic group.
Did they restrict it to a woman of color?
What color are O'Connor and Barrett?
Was that a qualifier?
Seems to me it was. They both wanted a woman but neither of them considered a woman of color
What color are Kagan and Sotomayor? What color was Ginsberg?
You don't know that. Unlike the current PotUS, they didn't specify any color. Whether there was a woman of color on the list or not, I don't know.
Sotomayor is Hispanic. Kagan and Ginsberg are white...and Jewish
I'm pretty sure I do know that knowing the racist tendencies of both men
And one was of color and three were not.
Kagan is Jewish/Russian - not Hispanic - my bad
I at least went and looked her up before I spouted off
Nine justices and seven are white. Seems that the current court is predominantly white and 99 percent of past courts have been white males.
So a black woman is named to the court with possibly a different perspective and that's not a good thing. All the frickin whining on here about her being black is, IMO BS.
Perhaps Cancun Ted is whining because he wasn't nominated during the last administration as a justice.
Not to mention the degree of spinning they are doing to differentiate Biden's statement, from those made by Trump and Reagan.
Did Trump and Reagan state they wanted a white woman? Or a black woman? I don't know why in the hell Biden has to say black. Why didn't he just say woman of color?
Think about that one and what word comes to mind? It starts with "pan". I still don't know why they consider Jamaican black in the popular vernacular when it has been more associated with those of African descent.
I'd like to thank you for proving my point.
Hardly. They both just said woman. Denial is not a good look.......
So you are appalled that he may actually nominate a "black" woman? That's what you're so upset about?
That's what you got out of that?
The point, that obviously blew right over your head, was that they left the door open to white OR woman of color as they did not specify any physical characteristics.
SMH
Which again makes you appalled at a black woman being nominated.
And again you would be completely wrong.................I am appalled at the fact that he reduced the playing field for virtue signaling. Stop putting words where they don't fit. Thanks,
Are you deliberately misunderstanding, or is it just on accident?
Trump: I will nominate a woman for Supreme Court Justice.
Biden: I will nominate a black woman for Supreme Court Justice.
Trump's statement you are fine with. Biden's statement you take offense to.
You tell me, what is the difference between the 2 that makes you so upset? There is just 1 word that upsets you between the 2.
Biden reduced the playing field to a nothing BUT a black woman (which would indicate even Hispanics, Asians among others would not be considered) where as Trump didn't use a strict qualifier but left it wide open to "a woman".
Get it now? Or should I try to type it slower?
One wonders if the ignorance of that comment is planned or simply a product of the obtuse.
His is a dishonest argument.
Can you imagine he would have had absolutely no problem at all had Trump stated he would nominate a white woman?
We both know he would be all over such a comment like white on rice, claiming racism.
I don't.
I go with deliberately obtuse.
And Trump's statement reduced the playing field to nothing BYT a woman. You're upset that he is only looking for a BLACK woman. That's what you are upset about.
So you will be fine if a future President says he will appoint a white woman. Got it, and if it ever happens, I'll remember it.
You are not even close. I have told you that yet you refuse to fucking comprehend. What if there is a hispanic or asian who is much more qualified? Don't be so fucking obtuse. Woman would have been more than adequate even if in the back of his mind he was going to virtue signal and had nothing in his mind but a black woman. To broadcast it is pandering bullshit pure and simple.
Biden reduced the options to an adult black female.
Trump reduced the options to an adult female.
Biden's scope is more restrictive than Trump's.
Both, however, imposed restrictions and categorically eliminated what could be (not necessarily) the best qualified candidate.
Are you arguing over the principle of categorical elimination or are you arguing simply that Biden is being more restrictive than Trump?
If you can't figure it out, i can't help you..........................
If she's qualified and doesn't have multiple criminal accusations against her, of course I would be. Why would you have a problem with a white woman Supreme Court Justice? Why would you be opposed to one?
What if there was a more qualified male for Trump's pick?
What you can't seem to understand is that all discrimination is bad, You cannot go around claiming that this discrimination is fine, but that discrimination is bad. That is called being hypocritical and, in this case, highly partisan.
And I simply LOVE pointing out whenever you guys make hypocritical statements.
Don't be so fucking hypocritical.
Trouble is that you have your head buried so deep in hypocritical bullshit, you cannot even see what is right in front of you.
Simple question and you emit snark and flit away. If you are afraid to defend your position then why post it?
Not what is being discussed. "Woman" is a broad spectrum and maybe just maybe whomever the man would be wouldn't get through the senate
There are degrees. And simply stating a man or a woman is a broad spectrum, once again, and a hell of a lot broader than "black woman".
Opinions do vary and let me know when that happens mmmmmK?
Your opinion once again. At least I am all inclusive.
I have no trouble seeing what's right in front of me. Postings that refuse to see what they are arguing against just for the sake of arguing. That is your normal MO and it gets very fucking tiring after about three comments.
I didn't flit. You are usually on ignore. Your style is that of a high horse jockey and I don't have time for that. But, that being said, I will answer you since you show up in my PN inbox even though the discussion didn't include you. It's fairly simple TiG. Biden is being more restrictive than ANY PotUS in my lifetime.
So there you have it. Thanks for reading.
Jeeze, did you really not understand my comment?
I don't have any problem with a woman Justice of any color.
I have a problem with a President excluding people SOLELY because of the color of their skin.
But way to spectacularly miss this part:
After seeing how you are carrying on and misconstruing most of what is posted, I have no doubt whatsoever you would become unglued if a President said he would appoint a white person and wouldn't even consider any other person of another race, regardless of qualifications.
C’mon man, it was a silly question. One is a subset of the other and represents a significantly smaller portion of our population. So yeah, one is much more restrictive than the other when it come to limiting options.
That and one was replacing a woman and the other is replacing a man.
I find it difficult to understand how you are trying to equate the two.
See, easy question to answer.
And surely you recognize that Trump was restrictive too. Just not as restrictive as Biden.
So in both cases, the principle is the same. We have presidents who artificially impose categorical restrictions on whom they will even consider.
If you have problems with Biden on principle then you should have problems with Trump, Reagan, etc. on principle.
You missed where I acknowledged that upfront?
In both cases, the principle is the same. We have presidents who artificially impose categorical restrictions on whom they will even consider.
Later in the seed from what I saw
You missed where I said one was replacing a woman with a woman. The other is not. What say you to that?
So? Did Reagan replace a woman with a woman?
Focus on the principle, that is the common element. In all cases (Reagan, Trump, Biden) the PotUS decided (for whatever reasons he had) to place demographics as his highest priority in the nomination.
Lol ....how far do you want to go back?
Lets focus on current events and stop avoiding my question. It’s a simple one.
Let me rephrase it. Do you consider what Biden is doing here to be equivalent with what Trump did with Ginsberg?
Obviously, Sparty, you recognize that the principle is the same but you just cannot bring yourself to admit it.
The principle at play is that a PotUS has decided that a demographic factor is the most important criteria for his selection. Biden is clearly NOT the first PotUS to employ this principle and likely will not be the last.
Regardless, why is this a big deal? Biden clearly limited the field (as he did with his choice for V.P.). No denying that. So if your point is that Biden is being very restrictive, you are correct. Congratulations on pointing out the obvious.
My point is that this principled approach to nomination is nothing new. Presidents get to make these choices. You will just have to learn to live with it.
It is equivalent in principle. It is not equivalent in gender match.
Is this not obvious?
You know, for someone who regularly accuses other here of snark, you sure drop a lot of snarky comments.
That said, I’ve already made my position crystal clear. Reread 4.4.40 for clarification if needed.
Exactly what is being discussed.
There is discrimination, and there is discrimination. One is just as bad as another. Any claim otherwise is dishonest.
This entire, comment thread is about a difference of opinion. So let me make sure you can hear me, IT IS HAPPENING NOW!!! MmmmmK?
So you feel that only including a woman is NOT discriminatory, but only including a black woman is?
How about the opposite? Is only excluding a woman NOT discriminatory, but only excluding a black woman is? That is how your "logic" shows it.
[Deleted] I suggest you read what you type before posting it.
But you are perfectly fine with a President excluding people SOLELY because of their gender.
You said it, not me.
So now you are telling me how I think? [Deleted] I know how I think, and I have never said I would not have a problem with it. But if you'd bother and read my comments, you'd see that...
I am sure you would not have a problem with a future President saying he would only hire a Muslim. Right?
I don't recall even raising a concern about your position. I was just dealing with your comments to me. But thanks for letting us all know.
Lol and more snark .... you’ve lost what little high ground you had with that accusation.
I have some free time. What specifically is unclear to you?
So instead of merely mouthing the words, how about QUOTING me saying that as you now claim?
Should be a piece of cake, right? I will wait for your quote of my words.
Once that gets taken care of, I will discuss the rest of the post.
After years of unequivocal support for Trump's nominees, it's the height of hypocrisy to pretend that most of those here that have objections give a fuck about nominating the 'most qualified'.
Kinda a reach Dulay - "most"?? Yeah - that'd be a sweeping generalization I'd think.
From 1789 - 1967, all SCOTUS's were WHITE. 1967, Thurgood Marshall was the first Black selected (Per Johnson - "the right thing to do, the right time to do it, the right man and the right place."). Three women by Democratic Presidents, two by Republican Presidents.
What's your point?
Wouldn't an Asian woman bring a different perspective? Wouldn't a Native American woman bring a different perspective? Wouldn't another Hispanic woman bring a different perspective? Wouldn't a transvestite bring a different perspective?
But, the court enabled by the U.S. Constitution to ensure that the laws are constitutional laws has stated that DISCRIMINATION is illegal - Even Sandra Day O'Conner stated that it was with a 25 year caveat which hasn't come to pass.
What Biden is attempting to do is an illegal action.
You've learned - congratulations.
Of course, I've learned that when someone offers an apology, the intended person doesn't just continue to dump on them.
But, that's the way I was taught.
You're right 1st, it did seem to be too far of a reach for Trump to nominate anything near the 'most qualified' Judges.
You'd be wrong.
How do you know there isn't a transvestite on the court already? Those robes cover well...
Oh, BTW, what law are you pretending that Biden is violating?
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act barred race, religious, national origin and gender discrimination by employers and labor unions, and created an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission with the power to file lawsuits on behalf of aggrieved workers.
You [Deleted] have stated multiple times that you are fine with Trump limiting the pick to only females. Are you now saying that you are NOT fine with it?
Are you deliberately misunderstanding, or is it just on accident?
But the consensus here is that it's honky dory to limit the nominees to female 1st. So why cherry pick ONE part of the Act while blowing off another part?
I am not addressing it to the user that claimed IMPASSE. But since the comments remain, and those comments are the ones that are being discussed by someone who has not claimed IMPASSE, I should be able to reference that user as long as I don't address him.
Depends on whose comments you read. Not everyone here thinks it's honky dory to utilize any form of discrimination - specifically since this is a SCOTUS - the law enablers.
Honky? Talk about racist ...
To repeat the simplicity of what is being said here by numerous people. No matter how one tries to rationalize it, there is a huge difference between saying you are going to replace a woman, with a woman and saying you are going to replace a man, with a black woman.
Biden was simply pandering by limiting himself like that. Trump, not so much.
Using the Trump example on the Ginsberg replacement amounts to nothing more than whataboutism.
Nothing more.
Bullshit. Reading is fundamental.
Where does that document this 'huge difference' you claim exists? Hint: NOWHERE.
Trump limited himself almost exclusively to white men. His list of 21 potential Supreme Court nominees included ONE Black man who later proved himself to be a bald-faced liar.
No mention of Ginsberg in my comment. Try to keep up.
Look up consensus. Perhaps that will help you recognize that I didn't claim 'everyone' thinks ANYTHING.
Now, how about addressing the FACT that you want to cherry pick the race part of Title VII to bolster your posit, while glossing over the gender part of it.
If you insist Biden would be BREAKING THE LAW [Title VII] then it would be hypocritical not to admit that Reagan and Trump already did so, right 1st?
Wow - an attempt to parse - who would've figured.
Go to a court and watch a trial - Prosecutor introduces a "law" of 15 pages in print in which 21 particular items are in violation of the law - BUT - the Defendant is being charged with the crime of violating just one of those 21 particular instances. The Defense attorney has to prove that the defendant did not violate that one particular crime/item - not all 21 of the particular items. That ain't "cherry picking" - that's ensuring compliance with the intent - get that? INTENT of the law IN ITS ENTIRETY and not just one little comma or exclamation mark or asterisk or "an" or "the" or whatever a person wishes to derail with - the ENTIRETY of the law sez YOU DON'T DISCRIMINATE - PERIOD.
Your issue with following the letter of the law????
I've actually participated in quite a few trials 1st.
Actually 1st, I'm the one arguing the 'letter of the law' [strict and exact force of the language used in a statute] while YOU are the attempting to 'parse' [analyze into its parts] the law.
Thanks for playing.
Personally, I never expect a president to nominate the "most qualified" person. It's completely subjective anyway, and no matter who anybody appoints, political crazies will howl and scream about how it means the end of the world.
I also personally don't care who he appoints, presuming he's going to choose from a list of people with some respectable level of qualifications... which he will.
I realize he'll probably appoint somebody more liberal than the last few, but that's the system working as it should to ensure checks and balances.
Also, he's perfectly within his rights as POTUS to declare that he's not going to consider anybody who isn't a certain color and/or gender. But there isn't any way to get around the fact....that's racist AF. If you support one kind of racism because you feel like it makes up for another kind...fine...but by definition that makes you a racist.
Then it would be logical that a POTUS stating that they were going to nominate a woman would be sexist. That ships sailed more than once, sexism gets a pass, it's precedent.
Which begs the question, after a decades old precedent, WTF is up with the hair on fire reactions?
Lol .... you’re shtick is beyond stale Dulay ..... it’s so weak it’s almost childlike in nature.
My post is spot on. That you don’t agree is just more empirical evidence that proves that out.
Now enjoy before you play the sophomoric, petty little reporting game you like to play.
Uh .... buh bye .....
Would you be content if Biden were replacing a white man with a white woman?
Or replacing a white man with a woman who is not Caucasian?
How about replacing a white man with a black man ... an Asian man?
What if he replaced a white Christian man with a pure-blood Native American man?
What would be acceptable to you other than white man (the given situation) replaced with white man?
Both were pandering. Biden's is clearly more restrictive. Same principle though, both decided that demographic factors were to be dominant in their decisions. Same with Reagan and Justice O'Connor. This principle is not new and I predict it will continue. I prefer presidents not limit themselves this way, but it is their prerogative.
I agree in principle, 100%. I will always be a huge proponent of picking the most qualified candidate for a job. Defining “most qualified” is the fly in that ointment.
That said, saying you are picking a “black” woman reduces the potential field by approximately 95% as opposed to about 50% for just saying a woman. Strictly by percentages of population.
Thats not a rationalization but is a hard number and is significant when searching for the best candidate for a job. The math on that self imposed restriction can not be argued.
Yet you prove incapable of answering a simple question Sparty:
Where does Title VII document this 'huge difference' you claim exists?
That unsubstantiated proclamation IS childlike in nature.
So then logically, everything YOU don't agree with that I post is empirical evidence that MY posts are spot on. Ya, that's the ticket Sparty.
Really Sparty, other than your nether regions, I don't know where you and yours get your 'inside' information.
Oh you;ll be back spewing personal comments about me soon enough. It's become an MO on the right here. Zero substance, ad Infinium vitriol.
Yawn ......
Yes he dramatically narrowed his field as he did with the VP.
Who is arguing that black+woman is NOT a narrow field? There are plenty of highly qualified candidates but clearly fewer candidates by focusing on both gender and a particular ethnicity.
If a PotUS decided that it is long overdue to have a Native American perspective on the SCotUS, that would be substantially narrowing the field too. Would you object on mathematical grounds?
Yes, narrowing it down to only a Native American would reduce the potential field even more drastically. We’ve already agreed in principle to that concept.
The smaller the field is to chose from, the lower the chances are that you’ll find the best candidate. So yeah, it is still pretty simple math for the unbiased to understand.
Again, yes, Sparty, we are talking about an example of drastically reducing the potential field. That is why I chose that example.
The criteria for a nomination is determined by the PotUS. That is fundamental to our constitution. If a PotUS has decided that the most significant criterion is to seat a justice who represents the perspective of Native Americans, that of course narrows the field considerably. But it does not mean that a high quality, deserving individual who is as qualified as any other sitting justice could not be nominated.
The nomination process is subjective under all circumstances. Candidates are eliminated for all sorts of reasons other than their suitability to serve as a justice. The field is necessarily narrowed in order to make a choice.
Narrowing the field is a problem ONLY if it is done in a manner that makes it impossible to nominate an individual highly qualified and deserving to sit on the SCotUS.
If a future PotUS decides that the Native American perspective is sorely lacking and waaaay overdue from the SCotUS, I have no doubt that s/he would have plenty of high quality candidates in that heavily narrowed field.
First and foremost I never alluded that a qualified candidate couldn’t come from any given minority group so I’m not really sure why you took it in that direction.
In the end what really matters is we agree that in a perfect world, the best candidate would be chosen regardless of race or gender.
If you agree that a quality, qualified candidate who is as fitting as any other seated justice can be nominated then why protest the filtering criteria?
I'm not sure sexism becomes OK if we simply repeat it often enough.
We're in an age where that seems to be the normal first response.
Everything from an old man playing a drum in a park to a storm knocking out power has become an idiotic political crisis.
I didn't say it 'became OK'.
I thought we already agreed on that. Limiting choices by race or gender only is not a good idea. Have you changed your mind on that now?
Let the best candidate be nominated, regardless of those filtered criteria.
No. My position remains that I prefer not seeing choices be categorically eliminated.
What I am noting is that in spite of my own personal preference, there is nothing logically, ethically or morally wrong with a PotUS deciding to impose limitations to achieve a particular high objective.
If a PotUS were to decide, for example, that it is long overdue that a Native American justice be on the SCotUS, I see nothing fundamentally wrong in that. I can easily see how a PotUS would view that as a primary factor.
I would see it to be wrong if the filtering made it impossible to find a nominee who is of the caliber of extant and historical justices. Short of that, the filters and the ultimate choice for nominee is the prerogative of the office.
No matter what, a PotUS is going to employ filters to narrow down the field. A PotUS might, for example, seek a justice with a very specific view on certain key issues. That could narrow the field quite quickly. Most of the time we are not privy to the filters a PotUS uses.
This narrowing by filtering criteria is a practical necessity. And, by definition, the eventual nominee would be the 'best' because 'best' is determined by the PotUS.
So, in this case, unless you hold that black+female produces a winnowing which precludes a solid set of high-quality candidates, there seems to be no logical reason to object.
Your logic makes no sense. But, whatever works for you.
My logic is simple. Which is the best kind of logic. It states that it makes no sense to limit choices by race or gender. No reasons for doing so, are truly logical in arriving at the best solution for this problem. In Biden’s case they are simply partisan. Nothing more.
That goes for every president who has ever limited their choices with such illogical reasoning.
Do you recognize that the 'best' choice is the call of the PotUS? The PotUS defines 'best'. When a PotUS decides what s/he thinks is 'best' that determines the filtering criteria (and the calculus for the final selection).
Surely you do not think that a PotUS must simply pick the candidate with the most years of experience or the one with the best peer reviews, etc. There is no definition for 'best' nominee. This is not objective and mechanical. It is a subjective process and that means that 'best' varies per situation and by PotUS.
Every PotUS necessarily limits the available candidates with criteria of their choosing. There is no practical alternative. And their criteria filters out most every candidate and leaves a tiny subset representing the 'best' per that criteria.
Why? Do you believe that Reagan's nomination of Justice O'Connor was not sensible? What, specifically, was senseless about Reagan's choice?
So, do you know that justice O’Connor was not the best choice at the time? I don’t one way or the other and likely neither do you.
Again my position is simply logic based. Trying to judge choices made in the past, without all the pertinent information at hand to do so, is not something I care to do.
I suggest you do the same.
You categorically claim this:
Your position declares that Reagan did not act sensibly when he chose Justice O'Connor. By your declaration, Reagan made a decision that 'makes no sense'.
Wrong and if you want to continue this conversation answer my question first and I’ll be glad to continue. Otherwise you’ll be talking to yourself. I’ll waste no more time on it.
Insightful rebuttal.
Your position declares that Reagan did not act sensibly when he chose Justice O'Connor. By your declaration, Reagan made a decision that ' makes no sense '.
Lol yeah, keep avoiding the question .... SOSDD.
We are done here. Not sure why i even try with you.
You said we would be done if I did not answer your deflection question. I intentionally avoided answering it (because it is deflection). But you came back anyway.
Okay, since you returned and offered absolutely nothing of value, your flawed position remains on the table:
Your position declares that Reagan did not act sensibly when he chose Justice O'Connor. By your declaration, Reagan made a decision that 'makes no sense'.
I understand why you refuse to face the consequences of your logic. But given you claimed your position is 'simply logic based' after declaring my logic to be wrong, I am going to leave your logic sitting on the table.
Works for me.
[Deleted]
But note that you quoted Sparty, but it looks like you quoted me (to others).
No, you said sexism "gets a pass". I'm just not sure I understand how that's different.
I'll give you an example.
Trump got a pass for a plethora of vitriol, lies and outright incompetence. None of it was 'OK'.
"Got a pass" how?
People screamed like the world was ending every time the man got out of bed in the morning.
Laughable tripe. At best.
As in no consequences of consequence. Yet...
Ok...here's me reading between the lines of Cruz's idiocy. He says : 'I’m gonna put the best jurist on the court and he looked at a number of people and he ended up nominating a Black woman, he could credibly say, ‘Okay, I’m nominating the person who’s most qualified,’” the senator said. “
Yeah...right. Excuse while I scratch my big toe. Even if Biden had said that Cruz would be the very first whiner complaining that Biden picked a black woman because she's a black woman
Prove it.
What's to prove? It's straight out of the GOOPER play book. Every time a democratic president nominates a POC the right makes it to be a total catastrophe and use all kinds of tropes that we all know are racist. Railing against affirmative action for one
Six years Trout - six years - from 2015 - 2021 when "every time Trump nominated a POC, the LEFT/Dems/Libs made it to be a total catastrophe and AGAINST THE LAW"
Yeah - reality is hard to bear, eh?
Trump was prez in 2015????
I suppose reality is a hard bear if you can't keep your timelines straight
I didn't know a presidential term was six years...
"we all know" is not proof. I also think what they tried to do to Kavanaugh and to a lesser degree Coney Barrett is the definition of catastrophe. And that doesn't even count the left trying to say Thomas is not Black.
Token Thomas.
My point exactly. Interesting you can't refute anything else I said.
He wears the robe, but his wife wears the pants.
Why do you insist on calling him a token?
Is it solely because he is black and deemed conservative?
[deleted]
"Right Down the Center"?
Shows what a great sense of humor you have-- congrats!
Yes I am and yes I do.
"He wears the robe, but his wife wears the pants."
Ain't that the truth!
That nasty bitch had the never to call Anita Hall a few years back demanding an apology to her token husband.
Nothing to refute. You're wrong. Who says token Thomas isn't black?
It seems we're not the ones having a hard time dealing with reality here
I am right.
You may be 'right' despite your alleged moniker - but YOU ARE INCORRECT.
A typical asinine comment considering ..... SOSDD
[Deleted]
You are wrong again ..... amazing!
I am correct and you are wrong, again.
Nah, it’s much easier to bear if you ignore it by pointing out an error. No error in the point First was making while Trump was President.
Care to comment on that or just continue deflecting.
Gooper????
Prove it!
Nope.
I am right
Well, he did say that you ain't Black if you don't vote for him.
Who knew?
Oh, I can keep my reality and timelines straight, but many others on NT have a serious problem doing so. In 2015, when Trump announced his candidacy for President, the Dems/Libs IMMEDIATELY began attempting to draft articles of impeachment against Trump - and he hadn't even been elected.
[deleted]
BS, even Breitbart says the chattering nabobs who started talking about impeachment during
the campaigns were members of both parties and the media
when it became clear that Trump had a path to nomination.
You see how some folks just make shit up?
You may be 'right' but you're wrong, [removed] [tm]
I am right down the center and correct.
See 2.5.34
Why do you believe that you have to misrepresent what Biden stated?
Please provide a link for that quote or at least some evidence that ever happened.
[deleted]
You've got that backwards.
[deleted]
Lol .... yeah right. When a Dem like Biden says something racist like that it was taken out of context.
Your comment is just dripping with hypocrisy.
Dripping wet with it .....
[deleted]
Please - do your own research - Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, Barrett - just a sample - and that's just for Associate SCOTUS.
“If you have a problem figuring out whether you’re for me or Trump then you ain’t black,” Mr. Biden said.
You figure it out.
Um, NONE of them are POC 1st. Did you already forget that you predicated your statement on that characteristic? Try harder...
I have figured out that he didn't say 'If you don't vote for me' as you claimed.
Your comment is a strawman Sparty. It seems to be an MO of late.
POC stands for what?
"figuring out whether you're for me"
[Deleted]
The same thing it stood for in your comment 1st:
Are you claiming that you were unaware what it meant 3 days ago?
Ya, that's some juvenile bullshit right there 1st. Why bother?
Good luck on that happening.
Nope, you’re wrong again Dulay.
Wrong again.
Yawn.
I have to wonder if Rafael considers himself to be white or colored?
I think that pretty much says it all.
To select somebody off gender and skin color pretty stupid metric to use when selecting anybody for a job. Democrats used it when they selected the VP. Look at the train wreck that has turned out to be.
Except YOU know that's not the only metric. Trying to bullshit it is - is just stupid.
You're right. Using skin color and gender as any part of the metric is just stupid.
So the multitude of where only white men selected previously were stupid - Should we put asterisks in all our history books?
Thought that skin color and gender wasn't the only metric? Which is it?
Which goal post do you want me to kick to?
You're the one making contradictory statements. You pick.
Oh...right...because McCain chose the perfect female running mate didn't he?
What does that have to do with my comment? Oh, that's right...Nothing.
Sure it does! You're bitching about Biden nominating only a black woman and McCain was fixated on a female running mate.
As did Walter Mondale with Geraldine as his choice.
At least Farraro had a brain. But you're right, the country wasn't ready even tho Britain had their first female PM
I still liked Ferraro - and I'm an Independent
Couldn't stand Mondale.
Bingo, we have a winner!
???
Reagan's deserves credit for his precedent-setting decision t o appoint someone from this particular minority (a woman) to the nation's highest court. His decision to do this has set a precedent and has led to several other women being appointed-- something that would have been unheard of previously!
Is that supposed to change my mind or something?
There's no changing a closed mind.
Who in the hell is President Reagan?
Offensive isn’t the word I would use. Narrow-minded, shortsighted and bigoted are a couple that do immediately come to mind though.
No matter which black woman is confirmed, she will always be considered to be an affirmative action token
... by reactionaries.
Meanwhile, Trump's picks filled the quota in the no-nothing category.
Well, one could say he picked them with a goal in mind to the detriment of a balanced group of justices.
He appointed them to have his back, which they didn't.
Well, sure, if one just wants to make stuff up.
One could certainly say that.
Is that how you feel about Justice Thomas?
[deleted]
I never got an answer to this but how is it any different than only picking a nominee that is from the federalist society....
wer to this but how is it any different than only picking a nominee that is from the federalist society....
Take a look at the Civil Rights Act and see what it says about discrimination. I'm sure you can figure it out from there.
So a non answer...
Lol.. You need it spelled out?
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin.
Now apply that to the process of picking a judge because of race, sex or ideology. Which one is different from the other?
Why are you deflecting?
If it is wrong to narrow a field, why would it not be wrong to only pick people from one organization....
Why is he deflecting???? You can't accept answers given to questions asked.
Do you even know what the "Federalist Society" is?
The Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies is a group of conservatives and libertarians interested in the current state of the legal order. It is founded on the principles that the state exists to preserve freedom , that the separation of governmental powers is central to our Constitution , and that it is emphatically the province and duty of the judiciary to say what the law is, not what it should be.
So, how is this any different?
So you have no problem with the republicans only picking noms from a right wing judicial activist group...
That you think I'm deflecting is not a good look for you.
why would it not be wrong to only pick people from one organization....
First, did Trump claim he would only nominate people from one organization? Second, does that organization discriminate on the basis of sex or race or is it open to everyone?
[deleted]
Who cares? Thats what happened.
What is eye opening is the right's ability to dismiss what the republicans do and cast blame on everyone else.
You just shown that you have no knowledge of the Federalist Society, what its mission nor its goals are.
Argue something you know.
Others care - and, no, that is NOT what happened.
So you are going to deny that it is a right wing organization?
Yup - it's a - oh, wait, I gave you the link and you've already read it and ignored what it said.
I understand.
[deleted]
So yes, you are going to deny what most everyone else knows...
It even says it in what you provided...
A group of conservatives and libertarian...
Yet you deny what they are...
Maybe someone else should re-read the link...
Do you even have the faintest idea what/who a Libertarian is????
I'll wait.
Somehow I get the idea some people do not, considering they deny what is in plain sight.
Oh, Ted's back from Cancun?
Hopefully with a bad case of Montezuma's Revenge.
I dont think these whiners realize how foolish they look.
Yes, thanks for being current on last year's news.
And, of course, the "Invisible People" won't be given any consideration.
'Course, they had "nothing" to do with “We have championed the cause of justice; we have championed diversity, equity and inclusion; and we have fought for the rights of others,” she said. “There are so many extraordinarily well-qualified African American women poised and ready to serve." , and 30,000 years, before having our country/lands/culture/traditions/religions/children stolen from us, we have NEVER shown our beliefs in justice, diversity, equity, inclusion and rights of others. Just dumb ol' savages, eh? Then, again, we're only 2.1% of the U.S. population and Blacks/Asians/Hispanics are 36.6% - go figure, eh?
She's right - there are no "well qualified Native American women" who are "poised and ready to serve such as Diane Humatewa, Federal Appeals Court Judge in AZ (Obama selection), or U. S. District Judge Ada Elane Brown in Dallas (Trump selection), or Lauren King of Washington (Biden selection) or Lydia Griggsby (who is also a Black/Native American) of Maryland (Biden selection).
If with Biden's next pick he says he's only going to choose a Native American judge , are you still going to complain?
Only if they meet ALL the standard requirements FIRST.
And, BTW John, Biden won't be getting any more picks.
What makes you so sure? Anybody on that bench could keel over at any time. Life has no guarantees
Trout - an atom bomb "could" hit DC at any time also - war issues no guarantees.
Not everyone on the SC is gonna have a Scalia night and Biden has got a lot more to take care of than just the selection of a SC justice.
Justices typically vacate the bench through retirement or death, and a justice’s decision about whether or when to leave can be nearly as political as the process that replaces them. Democrats had been vocal in their hope that Breyer would step down while the party could decide his replacement. That’s after the death of liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in 2020, which allowed Trump to replace her days before the general election he lost. Ginsburg’s replacement, conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett, turned 50 on Jan. 28.
Raising the stakes further—the ages of current Supreme Court justices suggest that this may be the last vacancy filled for a while. The next oldest justice after Breyer is Clarence Thomas, who is 73 years of age and joined the court in 1991. Justice Samuel Alito is 71. Both would be replaced by Biden’s successor even if he wins a second term in 2024, assuming they both serve until roughly the current average age when justices leave the court.
And, since Biden won't get a second term, his claim to fame is 'bout to burn out.
Thomas and Alito are in their 70's. They are not young men
I know lots of folks in their 70's and they get pretty damn irate at folks telling them that "we ain't got long to go" or "we're not young" anymore.
Hell, Breyer's only 83. Thomas and Alito have got a long way to go and Biden won't be anywhere near office.
Harry Mansfeld summed up AA very well:
"As a policy, it cannot claim success, because to announce an “affirmative-action appointment” as such is to insult the recipient by implying that he would not have got it on merit. It is a peculiar policy indeed where the administrator cannot admit he has done nothing, since this is hardly “action,” yet cannot boast of doing something., lest his actions insult the beneficiary."
UTTER NONSENSE.
If a football coach said I'm only going to pick a white guy to quarterback my team , he has to be white, and then he picked Tom Brady, would you say that Brady would not have been picked on merit?
There'd always be that question though, right?
Would you be okay with a coach saying he's only going to start white quarterbacks? If not, why is acceptable in the Supreme Court?
Not about Brady. The same will hold true for the SC nominee Biden picks.
Biden is nominating one person, not nine. If all his eventual nominees are black women maybe you will have a point.
It's the same thing though. If a GM declares before the draft." I'm only picking a white QB," no one would be okay with that process and the GM would be justly fired even if he had another black QB on the roster. How can it possibly be acceptable to use a racist process to select one of the most powerful people in the country who will determine how we live when we would recoil from using it in a meaningless game?
Why is it alright to only pick an ultra conservative from a short list prepared for trump by an ultra conservative judicial activist group?
Conspiracy again?
One is a specific race/sex while the other is desired qualifications. How is being a black woman a qualification for the job? There is no way you can successfully argue that is the same thing. It is nothing more than a poor attempt at deflection.
The issue is narrowing the field and not considering a range of nominees. It is the same thing in that regard. Did Trump consider anyone not on the federalist society list? If not , why not? And no, he didnt.
You guys have no case and to keep this up for days and weeks is bizarre.
Because the list didn't discriminate on the basis of race or sex.
"You guys" seems to be about 75% of the country. The left that continues to try and equate the two very different things is amusing, and a little sad. Rationalization runs rampant among many liberals.
Exactly correct.
Now that IS utter nonsense.
Attempting to compare selection of a NFL QB with selecting a SCOTUS judge.
Next you’ll be trying to compare it with the cookie selection process in kindergarten.
Oh Goody - you have provided absolutely no substantiation to your claim - but - well, thanks for the fill John.
Yes John, look at the differences between them using Democrat's moronic prism.
One is an African American male (gasp- the horror)
One is female (can't have that in a white male driven world)
The other 4 are white males (Of course the picture you used of Roberts makes him look orange. Which we all know is a subset that all Democrats are racially biased against)
The only thing they have in common is they are all Constitutional conservatives. Which is what you are really against.
And?
Your problem here is you are poorly attempting to equate ideology with race.
The two things are not the same!
I'm not equating ideology with race. I'm equating restrictions or parameters that are arbitraily put on the selection process.
Dont try to outthink me. Its not going to happen.
Looks exactly like what you are doing to me.
I see no evidence for that claim.
Leave your personal baggage at the door.
Only when it doesn’t suit one of the liberal/progressive narratives du jour he prefers
Odd to me that you all think if affirmative action is used it somehow means the person is not qualified...
Odd to me that you want to narrow the field that much on such an important issue
Answer my question I had at #8
It has proven to be true...time after time.
So according to you most people that have benefited from affirmative action are not qualified...
How can you possibly argue the appointment is merit based, when race and gender discrimination is involved?
How can you argue that they would have no merit?
He cant. Their argument is bizarre.
With the use of affirmative action, the emphasis will be on, in this case skin color and gender more than qualification. 2 things that are completely irrelevant to the position.
Not sure I understand the "One organization" part. Please clarify
Qualification and affirmative action can co-exist.
the federalist society, that republicans pick from.
wow....that sounds....oh...wait we're not allowed to call that out around here
Do you not understand what merit based means?
As long as the emphasis is on the qualification. Skin color and gender would be a bonus but shouldn't be the deciding factor. In this case, from the start the emphasis is not on qualification.
You haven't looked at the educational system, have you?
In that case yes it is different. They have a right leaning more than likely, given, however, they only MAY consider conservative over liberal. NOT restrict it to gender and /or race. What Mr. Biden has done is relatively a very narrow field to choose from. And it is too damned important to do that.
You really believe what you print?
How 'bout showing us some FACTS and EXAMPLES of the Repubs using the Fed Soc for SC selections.
We'll wait.
Meet the powerful group behind Trump's judicial nominations
How the Federalist Society became the de facto selector of ...
The Conservative Pipeline to the Supreme Court - The New ...
The incredible influence of the Federalist Society, explained
The conservative club that came to dominate the Supreme Court
If it is too damn important than it is also to damned important to rely on a right wing organization.
Well I'll be. Imagine that. Appointed by a conservative and looky there.............FFS JR that was already established.
Wrong, they make a list of recommendations NOT a unilateral, two criteria pick like Mr. Biden has committed to. .
So they made a list of a select few and they were all from the same society...yet just because donald did not say it out loud it makes it alright....
Say what out loud?
Charles W. Cooke made this as simple as possible to understand:,
"The president’s conservative critics have not offered up the inverse critique — i.e. that it would be illegitimate for President Biden to exclude FedSoc-approved judges from consideration, as he undoubtedly intends to do — but have focused instead on Biden’s promise to search only for an African-American woman. Why? Because, as should be obvious, those two things are not in the same category. In almost every walk of life — the Supreme Court included — there are wholly rational reasons to discriminate against job applicants based upon their approach, their temperament, their qualifications, or their philosophy. By contrast, there exist almost no circumstances in which it is rational to discriminate on the basis of race or sex — yes , even when doing so is ostensibly benign . The news that a public official is screening applicants by race and sex should be — and, apparently, is — reflexively disgusting to the American public. The news that a public official is screening applicants by ideology should not be. T here is a reason that the 14th Amendment applies to race, rather than to ideas, and that reason is that ideas matter a great deal, while race does not. "
In other words, every single conservative on the Supreme Court has Federalist Society ties, yet the right wingers have the gall to complain about a restrictive condition for the Democratic presidents pick.
More Democrats need to grow a backbone and tell these whiners such as Ted Cruz to go fuck themselves.
In affirmative action and diversity nowadays when used in politics, education, and employment means that usually the ones that lose out the most are the most qualified regardless of race/ethnicity, skin color, or education.
It's all about appearances and capitulation to the lowest common denominator (the SJW).
It’s strange why you seem to prefer trying to put words in other mouths, instead of using ones that were really used.
Really cannot figure out why or if you think using extra large print gives you any more credibility?
Those who insist that using race as a prerequisite could likely inherently exclude the best person for the job remind me of people who claim they married their soul mate. No, that is statistically impossible - you married “a” soul mate. Somewhere on earth exists the person who would in every metric (known and unknowable) be the optimally suited mate for you, but by odds alone you will never even catch a glimpse of them. They may be of an ethnicity that you excluded from your search from day one, but the fact is you still ended up with a match that works perfectly for you. There’s nothing untoward about how this appointment is being handled when the choices are all highly capable and qualified, just like you aren’t a racist just because you didn’t consider a particular ethnicity to be capable of being your soul mate.
On that note …
At President Joe Biden's lowest moment in the 2020 campaign, South Carolina Rep. Jim Clyburn came to him with a suggestion: He should pledge to put the first Black woman on the Supreme Court.
After some cajoling, Biden made the promise at a Democratic debate, a move Clyburn credits with turning out the Black support that helped Biden score a resounding victory in the South Carolina primary and ultimately win the White House.
Two years later, the hoped-for vacancy on the court has arrived with the retirement announcement by Justice Stephen Breyer. Biden is standing by his pledge. And Clyburn, the highest-ranking Black member of Congress, has another ask.
“Judge (Michelle) Childs has everything I think it takes to be great,” Clyburn said.
Biden is beholding to Clyburn for delivering the black vote that got him the nomination. I predict Biden will nominate Michele Childs to the SCOTUS, he owes Clyburn, it's payback time.
Remember when Donald Trump appointed Betsy DeVos as Secretary of Education? Jeez, you guys always act so shocked when your opponent’s politics gets political.
Rich bitch DeVos who wanted to destroy public education as we know it.
One of those very rare occasions where we are actually in agreement. Devos should never ever have been appointed to that position.
When you promote someone solely based on skin color it's called racism. I thought most of us knew that these days?
Most of us do, but there will be deniers.
If Cancun Cruise wants to see offensive, he should pick up a mirror.