The Gipper Model? Biden’s Pledge to Appoint a Black Female Justice Has Liberals Citing Reagan

With the retirement of Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, President Joe Biden was immediately challenged by Democratic members to make good on his pledge during the 2020 presidential campaign to only consider black females for his first vacancy on the Court. When he made that pledge, some of us raised concerns that he was adopting a threshold racial and gender qualification for the Court that the Court itself has found unconstitutional or unlawful for admissions to schools or private employment. I raised the same concern with Breyer’s announcement in a column that was immediately challenged by some (including the New York Times) who insisted that Ronald Reagan made the same pledge to only consider a woman for his first vacancy. While it is always interesting to watch liberals citing Reagan as authority, the claim is misleading and indeed the Reagan example shows why Biden’s pledge was both unprecedented and unnecessary.

Notably, these critics do not contest that the Court would declare this threshold exclusion to be unlawful for any school or business. Instead, they insist that past presidents have also pledged diverse selections. The historical claims, however, fudge the facts a bit. Past president have pledged to seek diverse nominees but did not exclude candidates based on their race or gender.

The Biden Pledge

In his debate with Bernie Sanders, 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. Notably, Sanders avoided such a categorical promise to exclude any male or non-black candidates from consideration.

As previously discussed in columns, the Supreme Court has repeatedly rejected such threshold exclusions on the basis of race or gender as raw discrimination.  In 1977, the Court ruled in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, that affirmative action in medical school admissions was unconstitutional.  The justices declared that preferring “members of any one group for no reason other than race or ethnic origin is discrimination for its own sake” while adding that “this the Constitution forbids.”

Biden’s controversial use of racial and gender criteria will only grow in the coming months as the Supreme Court considers two new cases involving racial preferences in college admissions. Those cases may now be heard before a Court with one member who was expressly selected initially on the basis of not a racial preference but a racial exclusionary rule.

The response to this objection was fast and furious. Various commentators insisted that Biden did exactly what Reagan did in 1980 when he pledged to appoint a woman to the Court. The comparison, however, shows the opposite. Reagan did not exclude anyone other than women in being considered while making clear that he wanted to give one of his vacancies to a female candidate.

The Reagan Pledge

On Oct. 15, 1980, Reagan declared that “I am announcing today that one of the first Supreme Court vacancies in my administration will be filled by the most qualified woman I can possibly find. … It is time for a woman to sit among the highest jurists.”

Notably, it was Jimmy Carter who pounced on that pledge as creating a threshold gender criteria. Others noted at the time that Reagan was simply pledging that he would select a woman in “one of the first Supreme Court vacancies” rather than the first vacancy. Indeed, when a vacancy did arise, aides told the media that there was “no guarantee” that he would select a woman.

Reagan never pledged to only consider women and in fact considered non-female candidates for the first vacancy. One of the leading contenders was Judge Lawrence Pierce, an African American trial court judge. Newsweek and other media sites listed an array of males being actively considered including Robert Bork, Dallin H. Oaks, Malcolm R. Wilkey, Philip B. Kurland, and Edwin Meese III.

Nevertheless, Reagan clearly wanted a female candidate and reportedly told White House Deputy Chief of Staff Michael Deaver to “find a woman who was qualified and come back and discuss it if that wasn’t possible.” That person was Sandra Day O’Connor.

Reagan did what many universities do in seeking to add diversity in admissions while not excluding other applicants. The Supreme Court has allowed universities to use race or gender as a factor in seeking to create a diverse “critical mass” on campuses.

The Court may be on the brink of a bright-line rule that curtails the use of race in admissions after accepting review in  Students for Fair Admissions v. President & Fellows of Harvard and Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina. Justices have complained for years that universities are effectively gaming the system after Bakke but continuing to put too much weight on race.

The Trump Pledge

Commentators have also claimed that Donald Trump made the same pledge. After Ruth Bader Ginsburg died, Trump announced that “I will be putting forth a nominee next week. It will be a woman.” However, he had already publicly released three lists of possible nominees of different races and genders. His staff had been working on vetting those on the list and the process led to Amy Coney Barrett. However, the final short list included a majority of male jurists.

Indeed, Trump’s choice was unclear to the very end and the short list included a male, Judge Amul Thapar of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, who would have been the first South Asian appointee,

Trump’s announcement at the rally came on September 19, 2020 after months of scrutiny of the public short list.  That was just a week before the formal nomination and after many of us identified Barrett as a leading contender on the short list due to her conservative academic and judicial writings.

What is most striking about the Reagan-Biden comparison is how unnecessary it was for Biden to categorically rule out non-female and non-black applicants. He could have simply made clear that he wanted to add a black female to the Court and would make that a priority without promising that the first vacancy would be barred to other genders or races.

It was popular for many voters to say that “whites or males need not apply,” but it also meant that Biden would reject a Louis Brandeis or even a Thurgood Marshall because they are the wrong gender or race. It also meant that minority groups that have never had a justice would be also barred from Native Americans to Asians.

The Biden Record

Biden’s record on racial discrimination as president has not been good. It is the same type of threshold use of race that resulted in federal programs in the Biden Administration being struck down as raw racial discrimination, including prioritizing black farmers for pandemic relief.

There is also a current controversy in the Biden Administration’s use of race in distributing scarce Covid treatments. As with cities like New York, the Biden Administration has endorsed the use of race to give priority to African Americans in receiving such treatments. It was entirely unnecessary. The CDC has described those who are “more likely to get severely ill from COVID-19.” The obvious conditions are cancer, diabetes, obesity, heart conditions and other medical ailments. However, the CDC also discussed race as a factor due to “long-standing systemic health and social inequities.”  Yet, there is no reason to make race itself a factor as opposed to the medical conditions. The Administration could simply prioritize on the basis of those conditions regardless of race. Ironically, given the higher rate of these conditions (and the lower rate of vaccinations) in minority communities, there would still be a higher priority given to many minority patients.

It is equally baffling why Biden needed to exclude other races and genders rather than include those issues as what the Court called a “plus” on admissions. Nothing, of course, prevented Biden from, like Reagan, seeking and selecting a female black candidate. That is why Biden’s decision to impose a racial and gender exclusionary rule was a political, not a practical choice. Yet, it will now unnecessarily add a controversy to this nomination. The short list of judges include some who would be natural candidates on any vacancy. President Biden has undermined a nominee is not required or request such a threshold exclusionary standard.

197 thoughts on “The Gipper Model? Biden’s Pledge to Appoint a Black Female Justice Has Liberals Citing Reagan”

  1. The confirmation process is going to be a circus.

    As others noted, how would it feel knowing you were selected not for your performance, ability, knowledge, intellect, but by a chromosome and skin pigmentation?
    That person is also going to have the pressure of having to fulfill their role in wokeism.
    I already feel sorry for her.

    1. Ding, Ding, Ding–Turley’s little sh*t piece did what it was calculated to do: feed into the Fox narrative that a black female nominee to the SCOTUS would not be qualified and would only be nominated because of the color of her skin. Where the hell do you get off ASSUMING that a black woman would not be qualified by virtue of performance, ability, knowledge or intellect? Oh, I know: Fox and other alt-right sources. This stupid comment proves you are a gullible disciple, and it is exactly the sort of theme promoted by Fox that Turley is paid to support. Turley throwing in references to race in other contexts being unconstitutional is intended to be misleading: the POTUS can nominate whomever he wants to the SCOTUS.

      BTW: Tucker and Hannity won’t tell you this, but the frontrunners for the nomination are all judges already, one of them is a Federal appeals court judge, some clerked on the SCOTUS, some are from Ivy League schools, like Harvard Law School.

      1. Natacha,
        I dont watch Fox. I have not had cable since 08′ nor do I go to their website. As I have noted in the past many times, I support alt-media, like Glenn Greenwald, Matt Taibbi, Bari Weiss, Sharyl Attkisson and others.
        I have no doubt there are qualified candidates.
        What I am pointing out is they are going to be considered first by their chromosome and second by their skin pigmentation.
        Then for their performance, ability, knowledge, intellect.
        I would find that insulting.

  2. What, no Asian American Jurists selected? Check this one out. She’s a cutie!

    Chief Justice Tani Gorre Cantil-Sakauye is the 28th Chief Justice of the State of California. She was sworn into office on January 3, 2011, and is the first Asian-Filipina American and the second woman to serve as the state’s chief justice.

    Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye was nominated to office in July 2010, unanimously confirmed by the Commission on Judicial Appointments in August 2010, and
    overwhelmingly approved by voters in the November 2010 general election. At the time she was nominated as Chief Justice, she had served more than 20 years on California trial and appellate courts, including 6 years on the Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, in Sacramento.

    When Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye took office in 2011, the state was deep into a fiscal crisis that arose out of the Great Recession of 2008. The judicial branch was absorbing the single largest budget cut in its history. In her first year, the Chief Justice traveled 30,000 miles meeting with community and business groups, students, elected representatives, judges, and attorneys. The meetings resulted in the Open Courts Coalition, in which the judicial branch works with bar associations, consumer and defense attorneys, prosecutors, criminal defense attorneys, large and small law firms, and legal services organizations, to advocate on behalf of the public who rely on the courts.

    1. Why not an American? What do you have against Americans? The pool of Americans, by definition, must be so large as to completely eliminate any possibility of a dependent foreign female being appointed on any coherent rationale. Don’t they have jobs in the Philippines – was this entity expelled? It gets weird. Why and how are Americans persona non grata in America? Of course, we all know intellects and pseudo-intellects are garbled and comminuted by exposure to California. Exactly where are your loyalties?

      1. Hey George,

        I had a Philippine NCO in charge of Telecom Security operations at Ft. Bragg, NC. Real nice guy…Until you piss him off. George, don’t piss me off either.

  3. OT


    H.O.T. Wisconsin-Honest-Open-Transparent

    “Dominion never had a case in the first place. They filed to direct the attention at the defendants calling them conspiracy theorist. Now they’re in a real Court case and Discovery is looming. Now they’re looking to settle by saying they can’t settle.”

    – Telegram

    “Powell and Giuliani are open to settlement discussions once discovery is complete and Dominion realizes that its claims are without merit and that it has no damages legally attributable to Powell and Giuliani,” the filing said. “Powell and Giuliani have nothing to show remorse for and dispute that they have lied about anything.”

    – Business Insider

    Phillip Kline

    Pennsylvania’s governor, AG, secretary of the commonwealth, and their high-powered law firms are all coming after tiny Fulton County and The Amistad Project just to prevent state lawmakers from inspecting Dominion voting machines.

    It’s like David vs. a whole army of Goliaths.

    5:40 AM · Dec 18, 2021·Twitter Web App

  4. OT but must be said….you know who should be CENSORED and CANCELLED, like years ago??

    The absolute horrible, no good, loudmouth, ignorant, divisive, nasty, just-plain-stupid ladies on The View.

    They are a poisonous, public nuisance and N.B.T. (nuttin’ but trash)

    1. Remember when Whoopi thought “Dr. Jill” was a medical doctor and would make a phenomenol pick to be Surgeon General? Yeah, they are THAT stupid with large megaphones. A crime against humanity happens right there, every day on that awful show.

      1. Perhaps if Dr. Jill hadn’t insisted on the use of her title quite so stridently, people would not have made that error.

    2. The American fertility rate, being so low as to be in a “death spiral”, is the cause of the vacuum, which nature abhors, that is being filled by parasitic, foreign invader, hyphenates, and the reason why America is being “fundamentally transformed” into a third world s-hole?

      Women, such as those on The View, are the cause of the “vacuum” of Americans, which nature abhors and is filling with everything but Americans. If women have careers, they don’t make Americans, they don’t have babies sufficient to defend and grow the country. Women have killed their country for the roles of men. That is the most insidious and deleterious form of treason.


      “According to most census estimates, an American woman had on average seven to eight children in 1800. By 1900 the number dropped to about 3.5. That has fallen to slightly more than two today.”



      “The world’s population is accelerating towards collapse, but few seem to notice or care.”
      ”I try to set a good example. Gotta practice what I preach (Musk has 6 kids).”
      “If people don’t have more children, civilization is going to crumble. Mark my words.”
      “There are not enough people.”
      “I can’t emphasize this enough, there are not enough people.”
      “[Low and rapidly declining birth rates are] one of the biggest risks to civilization.”
      “Good, smart people [think there are too many people in the world and that the population is growing out of control]. It’s completely the opposite.”

      – Elon Musk

      Pope Francis Decries Italy’s Record-Low Birthrate as a ‘Tragedy’ – 26 Dec 2021

      ROME – Pope Francis lamented Italy’s plummeting birthrate Sunday, calling the situation a “tragedy” on the day the Catholic Church celebrates the Feast of the Holy Family.

      “I have a concern, a real concern, at least here in Italy: the demographic winter.”
      “It seems that many couples prefer not to have children or to have only one child. Think about this. It is a tragedy.”
      “Let us do everything possible to regain an awareness to overcome this demographic winter that goes against our families, our country, and even our future.”
      Ten days ago, the Italian statistics bureau ISTAT reported that the nation’s birthrate fell to a record low in 2020, with the country registering just 1.17 births per woman among Italian citizens.

      Italian births in 2020 dropped well below a half million (404,892), falling by 15,000 from 2019 figures.
      Italy’s fertility rate of 1.17 children per woman is significantly below the replacement level of roughly 2.1 children per woman. Globally, Italy is ranked 216 out of 227 countries for new live births as a percentage of the total population, with just 8.4 live births per 1000 citizens.
      On Sunday, Pope Francis published a letter to married couples in which he urged them to see the arrival of children as a gift of God.
      “Children are always a gift; they change the history of every family.”
      “Being parents calls you to pass on to your children the joy of realizing that they are God’s children, children of a Father who has always loved them tenderly and who takes them by the hand each new day.”
      “Children need a sense of security that can enable them to have confidence in you and in the beauty of your life together, and in the certainty that they will never be alone, whatever may come their way.”

  5. Flashback


    Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1798 and 1802 (four iterations)

    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



    “[We gave you] a [restricted-vote] republic, if you can keep it.”

    You couldn’t.

  6. Flashback


    “Do I have stupid written on the back of my shirt? We know what this is all about. This is the wrong BLACK GUY, he has to be destroyed. Just say it.”

    1. If Joe Biden wants a more diverse Supreme Court, why did vote no to confirm Clarence Thomas?

      Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE), Voted “Nay”

    2. I believe that you have this backwards, this quote is Joe Biden speaking about Thomas, not the other way around.

  7. Turley says:

    “What is most striking about the Reagan-Biden comparison is how unnecessary it was for Biden to categorically rule out non-female and non-black applicants. He could have simply made clear that he wanted to add a black female to the Court and would make that a priority without promising that the first vacancy would be barred to other genders or races.”

    A distinction without a meaningful difference because as Turley honestly concedes:

    “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.” (My emphasis)

    In other words, like Trump was wont to do, Biden made a faux pas by stating the quiet part out loud.

    1. Jeff,

      I am equally confused by Turley’s position. Reagan and Trump pledged to nominate women and they did. Turley seems to be ok with this.

      Biden has pledged to nominate a black woman. Turley apparently sees a distinction due to the addition of the racial requirement. To be clear, Turley does not object specifically to the requirement to be black, he objects to any race being a requisite.

      This quote had me scratching my head;

      “Those cases may now be heard before a Court with one member who was expressly selected initially on the basis of not a racial preference but a racial exclusionary rule.”

      What is the difference between a racial preference and a racial exclusionary rule? If you have a racial preference, will you not exclude races that are not preferred?

      Also, if acting on a racial preference is preferred, as the Turley quote suggests, why does he object that Biden has expressed a racial preference? Would it be different if, instead, Biden excluded every race except the one that he prefers?

      I am certain that Turley is not.a racist. But, he sees a distinction that I do not. What am I missing?

      1. Hi Ray,

        I’m not confused. Turley is simply saying that it is legitimate to take race into account as one factor among others in picking a Justice provided that the President does not explicitly state that a black individual will be selected to the exclusion of all other races. It is one thing to prefer a black Justice; it is quite to say that whites need not apply.

        I think that is the distinction. Biden put his foot in his mouth probably because he is a bit senile. He should have just said that he prefers a black woman, and left it at that.

    2. Jeff, perfectly stated. Making it a PRIORITY without saying it was absolute would have been the better way to go. That and I thought he would have learned his lesson from the Kamala Harris fiasco.

  8. Who ever Biden does nominate, she is already doomed. Biden just announced his VP will lead the team ushering the Black Female nominee through the confirmation process.

  9. “The left falsely believes that the Supreme Court, rather than Congress, is supposed to “represent” the people, rather than the Constitution”

    So the Supreme Court shouldn’t be representative of the people? Throughout history, the court has been overrepresented by rich white men. Should that always be the case? That would reflect originalism. While it’s likely that you will see her as a Democratic shill and a underqualified diversity hire. The likelihood is that she will be over-qualified which is what it took for her to be recognized for her skills and experience.

    ” How can a SC justice be competent to decide discrimination cases when she herself was hired through discrimination?”
    Because she has actually experienced it as opposed to spending a lifetime denying the existence of discrimination. Her first-hand experience and ability to relate it to a body with no experience (except Clarence Thomas who has forgotten his) will be an asset to the court, not only in discussions of race but of gender where the majority of the men have proved themselves clueless in their opinions.

    1. I see your point, but I dunno…look at our current VP for example. Joe said he would pick a black woman for his running mate. So he picked Kamala. (not sure it was his pick, but here we are) Overqualified? Skilled? Maybe as Montel Williams ex-galpal or Willie Brown’s mistress….but other political skills?? Communication skills? Managing/leading her own staff –let alone the country– ‘skills’ ? We’re not finding them to be glaringly obvious, if you know what I mean.

      1. There is a lot of messaging in right wing media tearing down Kamala Harris but I don’t see that she had less qualifications than say a Dan Quayle (though he did have enough sense to understand the Constitution). I’ve seen Harris during questioning on the Senate Judiciary Committee and believe me, nobody wanted to be on the receiving end of her questioning. She gets attacked from the right and some from the left from those that I see as crabs in a barrel but she definitely isn’t dumb.

        1. Kamala’s own staff keep quitting and talking to media themselves. Their feedback ain’t flattering to Kamala as a ‘boss’ or team leader. She gets attacked and criticized from all directions because she is that bad at the job.

          Believe me, Kamala’s ‘hit job’ questioning to ‘trap’ Kavanaugh was unbecoming of her, but he was smart enough to avoid her little trap. She is hyper partisan and it is all she knows. Attack, attack, cackle, cackle, cackle. She is not good at it, either. Inauthentic? Defensive? You bet.

          I will agree she has some smarts. Because you do not get to where she is today, with so little political talent and so much personal un-likeability, without knowing how to play the inside game.

          1. Wholly agree. I posted on this blog last year that when reporters interview her, they should constantly interrupt her with, “Just answer my question, yes or no.” (reference: Kavanaugh’s hearing). THat’s what should be on T-shirts. Cocky, chip-on-her-shoulder, compensatory personality.

    2. Yes indeed….like Kamala said, “that little girl was me.”

      Oh please.

      And t-shirts with her catchy slogan are for sale in souvenir shops in DC, where fans of the first ‘part black’ VP do not know the context in which Kamala used her spiffy slogan — it was used to call Joe Biden a racist on the debate stage.

      1. Dr. Jill reportedly was enraged backstage at the debate after Kamala accused her husband of being a racist. Jill Biden was reportedly heard saying that Kamala could go F herself. That’s Dr. Jill, a Jersey girl with potty mouth, who is still no fan of Kamala.

    3. You make a good point. Unfortunately, if Biden nominates, and the Senate confirms, a Black Woman to the court, that will create a huge problem as Black Women will be over-represented on the court in comparison to their percentage of the overall U.S. population.

      1. And blacks as a hole grossly over-represented, while Asians, as Prof. Turley notes, are once again personae non gratae with the left.

          1. They are overrepresented in crime statistics. I’m not being racist saying that, for it is the truth. You are more interested in pushing a single black person, qualified or not, into a high position than helping millions of blacks advance in society. I think you are picking a bad trade-off.

            1. You certainly didn’t name a position of power. Some of that overrepresentation is due to over policing Black neighborhoods, policies like Stop & Frisk which only happen in minority communities, harsher sentencing, disparities between crack and powdered cocaine sentencing. Laws introduced to specifically target minorities, etc.

              1. They are in a position of power and control people’s lives in their neighborhood.

                “policies like Stop & Frisk “

                It is actually stop, question and frisk. Minorities love their children and don’t want them killed by monsters carrying guns for evil purposes. We have seen an increase in murders and violent crimes wherever those in power think like you.

                Enigma, it’s strange, but I am considered the evil right-winger. I’m the one pushing charter schools in NYC so that minorities can get a better education. I’m the one trying to get guns out of the hands of hoodlums to protect minority children. I’m the one calling for more police protection to protect minority families. You don’t seem interested in those things. You seem to think that the limelight of power and status creates safe communities and educated people. It’s the opposite. Safe neighborhoods that educate their young cause them to end up in those positions.

                And by the way, blacks were pushing for higher penalties for crack cocaine. They were trying to save the children where they came from.

              2. Some of that overrepresentation is due to over policing Black neighborhoods
                NYC did an analysis. They found 70% of 911 calls came FROM black neighborhoods. So its no the cops overpolicing blacks, its blacks asking to be policed.
                Kind of exposes the lie. Crimes are over represented by black perpetrators….according to the victims calling 911

              1. How about Asians (a minority) with better admission scores than whites, blacks or Hispanics? Why do you think they should be discriminated against?

                1. I think that Asians, Blacks, and Hispanics are fighting for a relatively small slice of the pie while white people are overrepresented and have advantages like legacy admissions which further give them an edge. If affirmative action was say 15% to be divided up among all minorities, that typically served as a cap, leaving 85% for white people.

                  1. “I think that Asians, Blacks, and Hispanics are fighting for a relatively small slice of the pie”

                    Enigma, I don’t understand. What is that pie you are talking about? Is it some sort of entitlement? Is it a gift?

                    If we have ten people sitting and not working, their pie will eventually grow smaller no matter the race, religion or color. If we have ten people sitting and working hard, whether they be of the same race, religion or color or all different in those respects, their pie will grow larger.

                    “If affirmative action was say 15% to be divided up among all minorities, that typically served as a cap, leaving 85% for white people.”

                    How would that work in basketball? Would people of short stature be demanding their fair share of basketball stardom?

                    1. I can tell you how it worked in American corporations. Initially there were 0% minmorities except in the most menial positions, then they were forced to do a little which they did but no more, which amounted to far less than their percentage of the population. The judiciary is a perfect example of what happens without standards.

                    2. Enigma, many members of my own family, were discriminated against. My wife was hired for a position few were qualified to fill. When they found out about her religion, they made excuses for why they couldn’t hire her. The last reason was she did poorly on the exam that all people, technical or not, took (this national company was known by those who worked there for their prejudice). Another international company immediately hired her as an executive. They also gave her a test, except that test was only given to engineers and high-tech people. She was taken out to dinner because she had the highest scores they had ever seen.

                      Your attitude would be to sue or complain. Her attitude was the opposite. She loved them, for she realized that they were good people who didn’t want her dead or hurt despite their prejudice.

                      She’s an immigrant. To get into this country, she had to risk her life doing a deed all of us would be afraid of doing and then had to face minefields and the like (including arrest). She did so with great joy. Poor, without government entitlements, she went to school with little knowledge of English. The only thing provided was flashcards and a teacher who teased her for her accent and lack of English speaking abilities.

                      What did she have? Parents who believed in education and didn’t mind working two jobs each, both underpaid and in low positions, because none of their degrees would ever be permitted out from where they came. You keep talking about what you had to face with a scholarship etc. She had an academic scholarship through merit, and if she didn’t go to one of the few universities offering her program, she would have gone elsewhere and succeeded. If she weren’t as bright, she would have succeeded as well. It’s in the mind, not in the amount of melanin one has.

                      Victimhood is not a road to success. Such continuous complaints of victimhood should cease, and you should work to educate the children. Read Thomas Sowell’s autobiography and learn from one of the most brilliant Americans. Then read his other books and think. It is painful to hear you do all the things that kill the spirit of those that wish to grow their minds.

    4. Enigma said, “Her first-hand experience and ability to relate it to a body with no experience (except Clarence Thomas who has forgotten his)…”

      You know what Clarence Thomas has NOT forgotten?

      The ‘high-tech lynching’ he endured at the hands of then Sen. Joe Biden, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

      “Do you have anything you’d like to say?” asked Sen. Joe Biden.

      Thomas replied, in part:

      “I think that this today is a travesty. I think that it is disgusting. I think that this hearing should never occur in America. This is a case in which this sleaze, this dirt, was searched for by staffers of members of this committee, was then leaked to the media, and this committee and this body validated it and displayed it at prime time over our entire nation.

      How would any member on this committee, any person in this room, or any person in this country, would like sleaze said about him or her in this fashion? Or this dirt dredged up and this gossip and these lies displayed in this manner? How would any person like it?

      The Supreme Court is not worth it. No job is worth it. I am not here for that. I am here for my name, my family, my life, and my integrity. I think something is dreadfully wrong with this country when any person, any person in this free country would be subjected to this.”

      We know Clarence Thomas has NOT forgotten exactly who Joe Biden is.

      1. Clarence Thomas had more to say to Sen. Joe Biden:

        “This is a circus. It’s a national disgrace.

        And from my standpoint as a black American, as far as I’m concerned, it is a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves, to do for themselves, to have different ideas, and it is a message that unless you kowtow to an old order, this is what will happen to you. You will be lynched, destroyed, caricatured by a committee of the U.S. — U.S. Senate, rather than hung from a tree.”

        Justice Thomas is a national hero.

        Joe Biden is a national disgrace and a dishonorable man. (always was, still is).

        1. Of course! And did you hear there is at least one witness ready to come forward and tesify under oath that they were sexually assaulted sometime back in high school by Joe Biden’s next SC nominee? There’s another that swears Biden’s nominee raped them in high school, though can’t recall many details. Oh and they are afraid of flying so they will give sworn testimony over zoom.

  10. The key word leftists are using to justify their demand for a black female is “representation.” The left falsely believes that the Supeme Court, rather than Congress, is supposed to “represent” the people, rather than the Constitution. The optics on this decision will harm both the Court and the chosen justice. In fact, it’s another step in the Dems’ assault on the Court. In the eyes of the people, the new justice will be seen as:

    — a shill for the Democrats;
    — an underqualified “diversity” hire (just as Kamala was);
    — an anti-white bigot;
    — a judge hired contrary to the “non-discrimination” clauses in the Constitution and all civil rights acts.

    How can a SC justice be competent to decide discrimination cases when she herself was hired through discrimination? But when the Squad screams about hiring a black woman, they’re telling Americans that racism and discrimination are fine, as long as you’re a Democrat. RIP Supreme Court.

    1. Of course, Mr. Biden could find a nominee who is a descendant of enslaved persons without a scintilla of evidence she has a non-African ancestor, and is a deeply devout Christian conservative with ten children.

      1. Certainly he could – but if he did, he’d rip her off the list. The part he left unsaid was that black-she has to be a far-leftist, preferably having defended BLMantifa rioters as an advocate or dismissing violent criminal charges against them from the bench despite hard evidence.

  11. The Biden Administration has a clear track record of racial and gender discrimination.

    This reflects the general trend of the Left, unfortunately.

    Just because a party describes itself as one of tolerance and inclusion does not make it so. Ask any Asian college applicant or resident of San Francisco.

Leave a Reply