Supreme Identity Politics: Biden Pledges To Only Consider Black Females For Supreme Court Pick

Below is my column in The Hill newspaper on former Vice President Joe Biden’s pledge that he will select a black women as the next nominee to the Supreme Court.

Here is the column:

In his debate with Bernie Sanders, Joe Biden made two pledges to voters and asked his opponent to do the same to nominate only a black woman for the next open Supreme Court seat and to choose a woman as his vice president. Even with identity politics, the pledge to impose a gender and race requirement for the next Supreme Court nominee is as ironic as it is troubling. What Biden was declaring, and what Sanders wisely avoided, would effectively constitute discrimination in admission to the Supreme Court. Indeed, the Supreme Court has declared that such race or gender conditions are strictly unconstitutional for admission to public colleges.

The pledges that Biden has made amount to this. No matter how qualified men or, in the case of the Supreme Court, women who are not black may be, he will not consider them as candidates. In the case of vice president, such gender discrimination would be allowed, as presidential candidates can select a running mate on any grounds and voters can decide if they approve. Justices, however, are lifetime appointees, and presidents have always been careful to state that, while they seek diversity among their nominees, they would appoint the most qualified person regardless of race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation. But in a single declaration, Biden quickly dispensed with even the pretense of equal consideration.

Imposing an absolute requirement that a nominee be a particular gender and race is effectively an affirmative action pledge. It is precisely what the Supreme Court already declared to be unconstitutional discrimination. In the 1977 case of Regents of the University of California versus Allan Bakke, the Supreme Court found quota and affirmative action admissions policies based on race to be unconstitutional. While the justices were fractured on the logic, a clear plurality on the bench supported the view that preferring “members of any one group for no reason other than race or ethnic origin is discrimination for its own sake,” adding “this the Constitution forbids.”

The Supreme Court handed down decisions over the next 20 years that struck down admissions policies that directly or indirectly used race as a critical element. It continued to allow race and gender to be used as part of an overall effort to promote diversity so long as it was not the emphasis or overriding criteria. That is precisely the position of past presidents, and Sanders, in saying that they want greater diversity without declaring that men or those who are not black will not be considered, as Biden pledges.

In the 1977 case, the Supreme Court rejected claims that discrimination in favor of a minority is not really discrimination at all. The Supreme Court declared that “the clock of our liberties, however, cannot be turned back to 1868” and “it is far too late” to embrace any discrimination for “special wards” or groups. This is more damaging when a discriminatory policy is used to select members of the highest court responsible for protecting us from discrimination. Biden is promising to shape the Supreme Court with conditions that it has previously declared forbidden by the Constitution.

His policy would also dramatically reduce the pool of potential nominees since fewer than 230 African Americans have served on the federal courts, and the majority are men. The number is greater on state courts, however, presidents have preferred picking justices from federal courts. Even if one branches outside the judiciary for a nominee, the pool is a fraction of the nondiscriminatory population traditionally considered by past presidents.

Biden has taken the position that he will not consider any candidate who is a man or a woman who is white, Asian, Hispanic, or other minority that is not black, no matter how qualified. He would not consider a nominee like Ruth Bader Ginsburg because of the color of her skin. He would not consider Thurgood Marshall because of his gender. Louis Brandeis and Oliver Wendell Holmes would be two-time losers under this policy. Indeed, this is just ironic for those four members of the Supreme Court who have voted consistently to uphold admissions policies based on race. Now their own bench could be the subject of a threshold selection not based on merit.

Particularly disappointing is what this policy says about the way in which Biden views the most important criteria for justices. The Supreme Court has always been treated as the place for the best legal minds who stand objectively above their peers in intellect and abilities. I have been critical of the past failures to nominate such leaders. There is no doubt here that identity politics played a role in some nominations, but presidents have at least maintained an appearance of their selections based purely on merit.

Biden now also belittles those minority jurists who can compete for the Supreme Court without an assurance that no whites or other women will be considered. In the name of diversity, Biden embraces discrimination. The Supreme Court denounced such rationalizations as harming minority groups, concluding that they would “only reinforce common stereotypes holding that certain groups are unable to achieve success without special protection based on a factor having no relationship to individual worth.”

If this is the new norm, then we should expect further affirmative action in demanding seats for other identity groups or powerful voting blocs. What makes this worrisome is that we have seen other troubling pledges during the Democratic primaries in recent years, including the use of litmus tests for Supreme Court nominees. As Biden himself previously proclaimed, “A litmus test on abortion relates to a fundamental value in the Constitution.”

But there are many such fundamental values, and litmus tests have long been denounced by judges, bar associations, and Congress as inimical to the independence of the judiciary. Democrats supported the “Ginsburg Rule” to refuse to testify on any cases or issues that might come before a justice. But Biden and others are now pledging to make such promises a condition of any nomination. All this suggests an alarming future for the Supreme Court, yet the response from the media has been crickets. After all, there can be only one nemesis to judicial integrity, and that position is already filled now by the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

The Supreme Court rejected an admissions policy that would simply give an enhancement score for “underrepresented minorities” in its decision in the 2003 case of Jennifer Gratz versus Lee Bollinger. The majority noted that “individualized review is only provided after” the group is designated for special consideration. In this instance, however, Biden would go even further and designate the group for exclusive consideration in his policy.

Sandra Day O’Connor voted in favor of an admissions policy that allowed race to be one of many criteria in the 2003 case. She emphasized that the majority expected that “25 years from now the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today.” The policy that Biden has taken goes far beyond that case and, if he used it, would come around the time when O’Connor foresaw the end of racial preferences in admissions. It would turn out that, roughly 25 years later, the Supreme Court would actually witness, not an end to race or gender preferences in admissions, but the application of such criteria for itself.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. You can follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.

150 thoughts on “Supreme Identity Politics: Biden Pledges To Only Consider Black Females For Supreme Court Pick”

  1. Yammer, yammer, Jonathan Turley. The Prez can nominate any warm body he cares to for a vacant seat.

    How about Anita Baker?

    — David B Street

  2. Some of you people are worried about appointing white males to the Supreme Court. Take a look at who the people just appointed to run for president from each party. 2 crusty old white guys. The people made this choice. I guess the people really don’t care about political correctness!

  3. THE PLAN TO MAKE COURTS WHITE AGAIN

    Donald Trump has done something remarkable to the nation’s federal courts: he’s filled up their empty seats with clones of Vice President Mike Pence.

    Whether it’s for district courts or higher-ranking appeals courts, Trump’s confirmed lifetime judges are overwhelmingly white men with records of opposing abortion, LGBTQ rights and voting rights.

    A whopping 90% of Trump’s picks confirmed for appeals courts in his first two years in office were white, according to a Congressional Research Service analysis. 10% were Asian American. He didn’t confirm any African American or Hispanic circuit judges.

    In that same period, 92% of his confirmed district court judges were white. 4% were Asian American, 2% were African American and 2% were Hispanic.

    As for the gender breakdown, 80% of Trump’s confirmed appeals court judges and 74% of those approved for the district courts were male.

    For some context, 65% of President Barack Obama’s confirmed appeals court judges were white, as were 63% of his confirmed district court judges. In terms of gender, 56% of Obama’s confirmed appeals court judges and 59% of his confirmed district court judges were male, per the CRS analysis.

    What does it all mean? It means that Trump is making the federal courts a lot less diverse than they were after Obama left office. And less diversity means fewer of the people making decisions on the nation’s most powerful courts reflect the demographics of the populations they serve, which limits perspectives on critical issues like abortion rights, criminal justice and employment discrimination.

    Edited From: “The Good Ol’ Boys: 2 Years In, Trump Is Making Our Courts Less Diverse

    Huffington Post, 4/23/19
    …………………………………………………………..

    This article is almost a year old. But these trends remain consistent. For update staes see the New York Times post further down.

    1. United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” March 26, 1790

      Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof
      _________________________________________

      Do you know which country you’re in?

      The Founders iterated this requirement four times. “Crazy Abe” Lincoln conducted an illicit and unconstitutional “Reign of Terror” to subvert and abrogate the “original intent” and extant law of the American Founders causing Lincoln’s actions to be illegitimate, including those of his successors.

  4. CARTER DEFENDS ALL‐WHITE AREAS

    By Christopher. Lydon Special to The New York Times

    April 7, 1976

    SOUTH BEND, Ind., April 6 — Jimmy Carter said today that the Federal Government should not take the initiative to change the “ethnic purity” of some urban neighborhoods or the economic “homogeneity” of well‐to‐do suburbs.

    ‘If he wins the Presidency, the Georgia Democrat said at a news conference here, “I’m not ‐going to use the Federal Government’s authority deliberately to circumvent the natural inclination of people to live in ethnically homogeneous neighborhoods.”

    Similarly, he said, “To build a high‐rise, very low‐cost housing unit in a suburban neighborhood or other neighborhoods with relatively expensive homes, I think, would not he in the best interest of the people. who live in the high‐rise or the suburbs.

    “Any exclusion of a family because of race or ethnic background I would oppose very strongly and aggressively as President,” he said. “But think it’s good to maintain the homogeneity of neighborhoods if they’ye been established that way.”
    __________________________________________________________________________________

    The Constitution and Bill of Rights provide Americans the Freedom of Belief, Religion, Thought, Speech, Socialization, Assembly and an unqualified and, therefore, absolute and immutable right to private property under the 5th Amendment?

  5. How would that be different than a candidate promising to choose his Supreme Court Justices from a list provided to him that included nobody black, or Hispanic?

        1. Enigma, the Federalist Society probably represents 30% of the country at most. Yet about 80% of Trump’s appointees are Federalist Society members. I think an effort should be made to recall them from the courts. Federal Judges shouldn’t belong to any secret, ideological societies.

          1. Peter take courage. Your side of the team is adding more and more meth heads and self-loathing gays who are black. And you of all power bottoms know what they say about black gay men.

            🍆🍆

            1. Regarding Above:

              The commenter here, using the name ‘John Burgoyne’, is actually known as ‘Crazed Idiot’. And he is exactly that: ‘A deranged yahoo obsessed with homosexual topics’. For reasons not entirely clear, Crazed Idiot keeps gaining access to the blog only to post totally insane replies.

              1. Regarding above

                The commenter here, using dozen or so sockpuppet accounts, is not so endearingly known as “Paint Chips”. and he is exactly that: a poor soul who ingested leaden paint who consequently copies and pastes fake news from debunked for-profit websites because everyone on Grindr in West Hollywood has blocked him. No more glitter for him

                🤪

                1. Sherwin William’s and John Burgoyne are both Crazed Idiot whose comments betray mental illness.

          2. Trump’s appointees are Federalist Society members. I think an effort should be made to recall them from the courts. Federal Judges shouldn’t belong to any secret, ideological societies.

            1. The term ‘secret society’ does not mean what you fancy it means.

            2. Applying your principle, I want an inventory of the decisions in which the last four Democratic appointees have been in the majority, and a franchise to cancel 60% of them.

          3. “Federal Judges shouldn’t belong to any secret, ideological societies.”

            omg now we are into new depths of naivete.

            first of all, the federalist society is no such thing. it is not a secret society in the slightest bit.

            but there is one that’s deep and wide among the article III jduges…. have you ever heard of Freemasonry?

            that’s a secret society. one with its totems, the eye of Providence, glaring at you ever time you see a dollar!

            I have known a few federal judges in my day. not a lot, really, even though Im a lawyer, but the ones i have, have many times been freemasons. not that there’s anything wrong with it. it’s an honor and they do many fine charitable things. i have been pleased to assist with the philanthropy. the gentlemen I am thinking of were all fine jurists and completely on the level in every way.

          1. I’d only be speculating as to the how, they looked at those people most likely to give them what they want. It’s how corporations got to be people and we have unlimited anonymous donations to campaigns.

    1. Enigma:

      How would it be different? Because job qualifications are not skin deep. Candidates should be chosen based on merit. Something as superficial as their skin, hair, or eye color is immaterial.

      You assume that a list that does not include any black people is either racist, or shut out a highly qualified black person. Why?

      Do you want the best legal minds deciding cases, or do you want people to look a particular way?

      1. I wouldn’t think that in the history of the nation, no black woman has been qualified enough to serve. Donald Trump has only seen fit to select white men, provided from a list (technically not true because he got Kavanaugh added to the list so he could encourage Kennedy to retire) that also excluded black women (and Hispanics). His promise to choose from that list meant he wouldn’t consider anyone black or Hispanic, why is that good?

        1. enigma:

          “I wouldn’t think that in the history of the nation, no black woman has been qualified enough to serve.”
          ******************
          “Qualified” is the threshold inquiry. “Best qualified” is the deciding inquiry. There’s been only one American of Italian ancestry on SCOTUS and we discovered and named the place. I’m guessing there were better qualified people back when that actually mattered. So cry me a river! And why would you assume the worst when other possibilities are at least just as likely? Says something about mindset.

          1. The United States of Vespucci?

            Actually, to not write off eons of history, you didn’t discover the place.

                1. “ … the people already living there.”
                  **************
                  A hodgepodge of nomadic savage tribes lived on the continent in no particular civilization prior to the entrance of the Europeans. No acknowledged land ownership, no common law and no unifying culture led to continual conflict over hunting grounds. Talk about diversity is our strength! A true State of Nature. The indigenous were however adept at massacre, slave taking and hunting/cultivating. The latter quality served them well in their relations with the Europeans. As so often happens in history, the dominant culture prevails and the losing side and their sympathizers whine on about their moral superiority. History is about actual winners and actual losers. Life is hard, I know.

        2. Out of 325 million people in the United States, there might be a dozen top candidates for the Supreme Court.

          Maybe there is a brilliant African American legal mind out there perfect for the Supreme Court. But I have not heard of her.

          Justice: Race should be no barrier to consideration.

          Injustice: race must be a deciding factor in an appointment.

          Don’t you feel black judges can make it on merit alone? If judges have to look like the rest of the country, then they need to appoint an Asian and Eastern European American before the next black person.

          If that’s the yardstick, then most basketball and football teams should be broken up. After all, it must be racist that most of them are not white. The athletes should exactly follow the population distribution to Turkey represent the country. Merit no longer matters. An all black team must be racist. Therefore, basketball teams will be reconfigured to have mostly white and Latino members. There can be no more black players than the population percentage.

          Plus, religion should be of consideration above athletic talent. So it must be further divided up to have the proper distribution of Christians, Jews, Muslim, and Atheist players.

          If you object then you do not stand behind your own logic.

          Go read Fahrenheit 451 and get back to me. I especially enjoyed how there were clumsy ballerinas and stuttering news anchors.

          Also, while I disagree with your argument, I hope you and yours are all healthy and safe. Be well.

            1. Enigma:

              Tell me about it. My degree is in Biology. I used to work in a heavily male-dominated field. But I was raised to work for what I wanted. I never felt like I couldn’t be a woman in science. Just that there weren’t as many like me. You have to build a reputation for competence.

              I don’t want to get a job I’m not qualified for because I am a woman. I don’t want someone not to get a job because he is a man. I want equal opportunity. Not special treatment that no one else gets. That’s not fair, and it breeds resentment. And you don’t want to work with someone who deeply resents you.

              Take the police and fire departments. We have friends in both.

              Firefighters: They lowered the physical requirement so that women could be firefighters. Then they cannot carry a 200 lb unconscious man down a ladder. They have to pick up a downed comrade so he doesn’t burn. The physical requirements to fight a brushfire up a steep slope in CA brush is intense. The women can’t do it with all the gear because, biologically, most women are not as strong as men. And as they age, they get weaker faster. Then they want maternity leave and are gone, only to come back in worse shape. But if you complain, it’s discriminatory. Firemen are infamous for hazing each other. They put new recruits through hell, and come out brothers. That’s no more. Once they haze a female or a black man, there are accusations of discrimination. What they don’t realize is that it was an attempt to treat them like one of their own, and get an opportunity to earn respect. Instead they earned resentment. These are people who have to live together on shift.

              Police: They lowered the bar to get on so that they could fill out quotas for minorities and women. I’ve known people who wanted to be a cop since they were kids. They scored near perfect on all the tests, but they were white. They didn’t get on. They were told that they instead accepted a black woman or man who showed the slightest interest, and had much lower test scores. The women cops have had difficulty breaking up fights, or assisting their partner wrestle a strong suspect. That creates deep resentment. And it’s not fair to the black cops who also wanted to be a cop since they were a kid, and had high test scores. Once they lowered the bar, black accomplishments were tainted. There is the unspoken assumption that they got in by that lowered bar.

              If it was merit based, instead, then if you got in, you deserved it. If you were a woman firefighter, then you were strong as an ox and deserved to be there. If you were a black cop, then you got there on merit.

              Lowering the bar is racist. It assumes that black people can’t be successful unless they dumb down or soften the requirements. They don’t do that for Asians, Latinos, or Latvians. Just black people. Stop it. Stop demanding spots based on skin color, because that shouts the message that you can’t get it based on merit. Stop acting like every other minority can be successful except blacks. It’s not true. It’s a defeating paradigm of low self esteem.

              Ever notice how the Republican Party projects the message that anyone can make it from hard work and responsible choices, and Democrats say that black people just can’t do it without quotas, lowering requirements? Ever notice how they say work requirements are too hard for black people on Welfare? They don’t say that about Asians. It’s one of the most insidious forms of racism.

              Identity politics is racist and bigoted. No one should be assigned a value, or demerits, based on race, creed, sexual orientation, or gender. Not in any direction.

              1. “Ever notice how the Republican Party projects the message that anyone can make it from hard work and responsible choices, and Democrats say that black people just can’t do it without quotas, lowering requirements?”

                I don’t think that is an accurate representation of what either party represents or actually does. I don’t feel like arguing Party vs. Party, neither one looks out for more than their political interests. I personally think quotas are much closer to caps than minimums, never has anyone done much more than meet the quota. On the other hand before them, representation of women and minorities in many areas was miniscule.

                1. On the other hand before them, representation of women and minorities in many areas was miniscule.

                  That’s a logical fallacy sufficiently distinct there’s an ancient proper name for it.

          1. Karen, there is as much reason – maybe more – for us to assume the white guy got the job because of who he knew. That certainly has been our history and is still the reality in small business America, which hires about 50% of the work force.

            You say you don’t think there are any blacks in the top 12 candidates. Did you know who Neil Gorsuch was before the Federalist Society put him on a list? Do you think that organization – who the GOP openly acknowledges as their go to source – bases their choices on pure ability? Surely you don’t, nor do I think you have any idea how many excellent possible SC judges are out there, or what even makes an excellent choice. I don’t either, though I heard Merrick Garland was one.

            The SC qualifications are not in the constitution. They could be a high school grad only. Obviously many if not most are a supposed combination of acceptable ideological and ability, but brilliance may or may not be as important as experience. You might note that of the 9 justices today, only Sotomayor has worked on every side of the law, while all the others are academics used to a reserved parking space next to a guilded hall. Is that good? How about a court with some experience in what most Americans live, white and black?

            There no rules for appointments other than the President to appoint and the Senate to advise and consent – a rule your boys broke in two so they could steal a majority from the American voters. If Biden wants a court with more experience about what it takes to live in America, but didn’t make it to Yale – good! If they went to Yale too – better!! If that’s all they did and then got a robe – talking to you frat boy Kavanaugh – f…. off!

            1. If they went to Yale too – better!! If that’s all they did and then got a robe – talking to you frat boy Kavanaugh – f…. off!

              All the sitting judges attended private research universities. All four Democratic appointees and all five Republican appointees. Harvard, Yale, Columbia, Stanford are all represented on the court, as is Oxford. Not one of them attended an ordinary institution for any component of their schooling. The closest you get to an ordinary institution is Clarence Thomas undergraduate degree from Holy Cross. The court used to be more varied than it is. The only people who have served on the court since 1965 to have attended a state university were Byron White (appointed in 1962) and Warren Burger (appointed in 1969). Warren Burger and Thurgood Marshall are the only two people who have served on the court since in that time who had a thoroughly cheap seats education. You may have noticed that both retired a generation ago.

              I have news for you, Gainesville. Every person currently appointed to that court was well-connected in some way. The posturing you and Paint Chips have engaged in in this thread is repulsive.

        3. that also excluded black women (and Hispanics).

          The false statement incorporated in this remark is that the list excluded black women qua black women.

          Janice Rogers Brown may or may not have been on the list. She elected to retire from the federal bench in August of 2017.

            1. I don’t want you to do anything with it. I never saw the list, and neither did you.

              1. Most of the list including the top recommendations have been made public. No blacks, no Hispanics, though a couple white women were included, that’s progress I guess though who knows if they really meant it.

                1. They weren’t thinking about ascribed traits when they drew up their short lists. That’s your pathology.

  6. Democrats are so proud of their racism and gender bias now.

    They openly claim people are bad if they are white, male, or worst of all, white male.

    They proclaim that people can be chosen for jobs, or admittance to university, if they have the right shade of tan.

    So much for judging people on the content of their character. Do people really think diversity is skin deep? Pity.

    1. Karen, Trump is stacking the courts with White males (see post below). Why is that acceptable?

      1. Well, it’s his prerogative to nominate judges, it’s the Senate’s to confirm them. And the judges he appoints meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications to hold those positions.

        This isn’t that difficult.

        1. Absurd, an oddly large percentage of Trump’s appointees could not muster approval from the bar association. And many more refused to answer when asked if Brown Vs The Board Of Education was properly decided. What’s more, a significant percentage of Trump appointees could not get approval from the U.S. Senators in their home states.

          1. Absurd, an oddly large percentage of Trump’s appointees could not muster approval from the bar association.

            The American Bar Association’s central organs were taken over by political sectaries a generation ago. See James Lindgren’s statistical studies of their judicial evaluation panels. There’s a reason non-stupid people do not take them seriously.

            And many more refused to answer when asked if Brown Vs The Board Of Education was properly decided.

            Which talking point mill is distributing that particular tidbit?

            1. This from the guy grading Clarence Thomas higher than Marshall, as if a 16 month cup of coffee in the DC district court – awarded by the same guy who put him on the SC – is more valued than 25+ years on the SC ramparts defeating segregation. He also thinks grades from the lily white right wing Federalist society is a better standard than the American Bar and he can find just the right crackpot to back it uo, No doubt on “Ace of Spades HQ” or some other wingnut organ.

              1. This from the guy grading Clarence Thomas higher than Marshall, as if a 16 month cup of coffee in the DC district court – awarded by the same guy who put him on the SC – is more valued than 25+ years on the SC ramparts defeating segregation.

                In Introduction to Reading Comprehension, you will learn how to parse my actual statement, which was to examine Thomas’ preparation next to a raft of nominees to the court, many of whom had no judicial experience at all.

                That aside, that someone favored a course of action you like is not a ‘qualification’ except to you. For the rest of us, Marshall was just another public interest lawyer until John Kennedy put him on the bench. And the Supreme Court’s body of case law regarding the administration of local schools is nothing to write home about. In fact, it’s a scandal. Marshall bears some of the responsibility for that.

                And I’m afraid the evidence is on video that in his last years on the court, he hardly cared whether he was coming or going. He tells his clerks, “If I die, just prop me up and keep on voting me”. For Marshall, courts were a tool to get what you want, full stop. So, he (and Mr. inJustices Brennan, Blackmun, and Stevens) had the audacity to put his signature on an opinion in 1977 which declared that Congress was acting ‘unconstitutionally’ when it refused to pay for abortions with Medicaid funds.

                So, yes, I do grade Thomas higher than Marshall. He’s lucid and he does not generate scandals.

  7. “Supreme Identity Politics: Biden Pledges To Only Consider Black Females For Supreme Court Pick”

    – Professor Turley
    ———————–

    An argument can be made that Africans in America are illegal aliens.

    On the date of issuance of the Emancipation Proclamation, the Naturalization Act of 1802 was in full force and effect requiring citizens to be “…free white person(s).” Freed slaves were in violation of the Act and their status changed from that of “property” to “illegal alien” requiring immediate deportation.

    Since Abraham Lincoln persisted in office in violation of the Constitution, including his denial of Southern secession and suspension of Habeas Corpus in a condition of secession not rebellion, none of his acts or the acts of his successors were/are legal or constitutional, including the improperly ratified (under the duress of brutal post-total war military occupation and unconstitutional) “Reconstruction Amendments.”

    Africans in America may very well be illegal aliens requiring deportation and compassionate repatriation as the preeminent “cold case.”

  8. Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1798 and 1802

    United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” March 26, 1790

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof
    _________________________________________

    One would conjecture that after four times making the point, the point would get across.

  9. Trump’s Judicial Appointees Have Been Disproportionately White Male

    This past Sunday, The New York Times ran an extensive feature story reviewing the record number of judges Trump and McConnell are packing on Federal Courts. The Appointees are overwhelmingly White males and ‘younger’ as a group than those of any previous president.  

    Turley no doubt read this article.  It was probably a topic of discussion among his friends.  Yet Turley writes this column to sound the alarm that Biden wants to place a ‘Black woman’ on the court.  Such an appointee could be pro-choice on abortion; a sickening thought to Trumpers!

    The following is an excerpt from that NYT article.
    …………………………………………………………..

    The review shows that the Trump class of appellate judges, much like the president himself, breaks significantly with the norms set by his Democratic and Republican predecessors, Barack Obama and George W. Bush.

    The lifetime appointees — who make up more than a quarter of the entire appellate bench — were more openly engaged in causes important to Republicans, such as opposition to gay marriage and to government funding for abortion.

    They more typically held a political post in the federal government and donated money to political candidates and causes. Just four had no discernible political activity in their past, and several were confirmed in spite of an unfavorable rating from the American Bar Association — the first time that had happened at the appellate level in decades.

    Two-thirds are white men, and as a group, they are much younger than the Obama and Bush appointees.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/14/us/trump-appeals-court-judges.html

      1. Absurd, White people are shrinking in relation to the general population. It seems odd to stack the courts with justices unrepresentative of the country

        1. It seems odd to stack the courts with justices unrepresentative of the country

          Peter, what’s salient about a judge is not his ascribed characteristics. This isn’t that difficult. (And, while we’re at it, ascribed characteristics are only tenuously related to quality of representation and, in any case, judges are not representatives).

          Try to come up with an objection that doesn’t make you look like a clown.

          1. Yeah, Absurd, like stacking the courts with younger White males is a genuine step towards progress.

            1. Judging people by the color of their skin instead of the content of their character is not progress.

              But all good democrats know that. It is after all, the party of racial discrimination. A step backward for everyone else is a step forward from them.

              From the Democrat Word Salad to English Dictionary:
              Progress = Oppress
              Tolerance = Discrimination

              1. Em, if your comment has any truth, Blacks should heartily approve of Trump and his White appointees. But Trump’s approval rating with Blacks is about 20%.

                1. Approval ratings and polls don’t mean anything to me.
                  They’re fun to look at, though.

                  Only November knows how that demographic will vote.

            2. ‘Progress’ toward what, Peter? And of what salience do you fancy their background is to their jurisprudence? Let’s here something other than canned talking points from you.

              While we’re at it, three of the last four Democratic appointments to the Supreme Court are Jewish, two out of the four are childless, and one’s a spinster. That’s not representative, Peter, so why no objection from you?

              1. Absurd, you’re saying that Justice Sotomayor is ‘Jewish’? I don’t think so. And if, as you contend, there are ‘too many Jews on the court’, it sounds like you want more diversity as well. But an all White male line-up doesn’t sound like diversity.

                1. Try answering the question, Peter. You can’t get it done.

                  And while we’re at it, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kagan are Jewish; Sotomayor and Kagan are childless. Kagan’s a spinster.

                  1. Absurd, interestingly your comments here aren’t appreciative of women. Quite the opposite. Very dismissive. You may not see it that way yourself but it kind of comes out that way. I think Right To Lifers are generally uncomfortable with female justices. Women can’t be trusted to restrict abortion access

                    1. Still no answer to my question. Why does this not surprise me?

                    2. Absurd, interestingly your comments here aren’t appreciative of women. Quite the opposite. Very dismissive.

                      Chips,
                      Those that have been on this blog for more than a cup of coffee and a functioning left half of their brain, soon realize DSS doesn’t do identity politics. Hence why you find it interesting.

                  2. “Sotomayor and Kagan are childless. Kagan’s a spinster.”

                    And you? You’re an a$$. And insufferable.

        2. Anonymous:

          “Absurd, White people are shrinking in relation to the general population. It seems odd to stack the courts with justices unrepresentative of the country.”
          *************************

          Not really. Many mixed racial Hispanics and Hispanics generally themselves self-identify as white. Seventy percent of Puerto Ricans self-identify as white despite their decidedly Hispanic origins.

          https://merionwest.com/2018/10/05/are-hispanics-white-the-answer-has-sweeping-political-implications/

          And the largest growing demographic in America aren’t Muslims (flat) or blacks (declining) but the Amish and Evangelical Christians — both decidedly Caucasian.

          1. Mespo, how many Hispanics identifying as ‘White’ has Trump appointed to the courts?

        3. It seems odd to stack the courts with justices unrepresentative of the country

          66% of the country cannot pass a basic civics exam. Should we stack the courts based on that representation, or should we strive to nominate justices that aren’t prone to being bulldozed by the pandering political class?

        4. The Supreme Court of the United States is not supposed to conform to any quota system. Rather, it is supposed to be comprised of qualified individuals who can decide difficult cases.

          What matters more to you, mind or skin? Seems superficial.

    1. “disproportionately white male”?

      What would the proportion be if appointments were based on the number of legal scholars who are qualified to sit on the Court?

      If we are going to do racial proportions combined with education and experience and ability the Court would probably be proportioned about as it is now and, maybe, a little more white male.

      I don’t think Stacy Abrams–who would allow you to check two boxes (three if fat or gap-toothed are included)] is actually qualified.

    1. “Generational Welfare and Affirmative Action Privilege”

      Don’t Leave Home Wiffout It!

  10. Just listened to President Trump field press questions at the end of todays virus update.

    Incredible performance and ability.

    I tried to picture Biden or any of the other Dem candidates in that role. Impossible. We would be in terrible trouble, greater than we now have, if any of those folks were in his place.

  11. Yeah right – reminds me of Colbert saying to African-American guest – “You are black? Ok, if you say so.. I do not see color”.

    For the couple of hundred of years only white, protestant male got to be there just because they were the best. Understood.

    As goes president bozo with Chinese virus, so goes Turley.

Comments are closed.