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. re: Young’s comment at 10:55am 1-28-22

    Everyone should check out these two excellent films based on true events:

    “Hidden Figures” (2016) about NASA’s top mathematicians that helped with John Glenn’s space mission working in the Jim Crow south, that happened to be women and African-American. John Glenn himself wanted them working on his project.

    “Knights of the South Bronx” (2005) starring Ted Danson. True story about African-American kids from inner city NYC that won the Chess Championship for the entire State of New York.

    There is no shortage of qualified and competent African-American women to serve on the highest court of the land.

    1. AZ:

      Probably not though Biden will never call on them. (Activists scream louder.) How about every other qualified minority. Since you patronizingly suggest only immutable characteristics matter as the first screening, how’s about we use only Italian-Americans since Nino is now off the court? Where’s our representation? How’s about some left-handers too and a blue eye/brown eye contingent. When merit doesn’t matter except in a narrow context of a pre-determined class, all manner of absurdities are possible. Oh and may you be operated on by an average but diverse surgeon!

  2. How many years has this been the system and NEVER changed? President nominates Senate Confirms or doesn’t. The only rules.The senate may chose anyone of any age or gender and any background or education. 12 year old martian with a penchant for eating flys as a delicacy no problem it Has NO bearing except to the President and the Senate. None, zero, zip, nada, goose egg.

    The citizens know this before they select Senators. So they won’t select rotten flys like their martian selectee might not like. Ocasio or socialist scum like a Hitler or a frothing at the mouth idiot like those who fill the Representatives.The Pelosillyni’s or a street corner dumbquat who might end up as the next President.

    President Selects
    Senate Confirms or rejects or ignores. There are no time limits.

    Next time think of Ocasio or Pelosi or any of the Squats or any of you next door neighbors as the next LBJ.

    Maybe think about choosing some meaningful changes so that the words of the Oaths of Office have meaning and teeth.

    Thus the true meaning of self governing citizen suddenly means something..

    It’s not just rights, it’s rights and responsibilities.

    You are going to get what you asked for.

    Too late to cry, whine, moan and quibble.

    Constitutional Centrist Coalition instead of the failed party system.It’s your choice to make changes and your responsibilities until you no longer have that opportunity and only get to do the stiff arm salute when the socialists take over for good.

  3. Exhibit A on consequences of Leftist policies:

    California trans child molester, 26, gets 2 years in juvenile facility thanks to progressive DA Gascon

    In 2014, a 17 year old young man dragged a 10 year old girl into a Denny’s bathroom and molested her. He is also accused of assaulting 2 other girls.

    He was linked to this crime in 2019 when he had to give DNA for an assault charge.

    Once he was taken into custody for the sexual assault of a minor, he suddenly identified as trans. He is now treated like a woman.

    DA Gascon decided the trans child molester might be mistreated in an adult prison, let alone housed with males. So he charged him as a juvenile.

    The law only allows 2 years max sentence for people over 25 serving time in juvie.

    So this 26 year old man, who had a beard at capture, will be sent to the girls’ section of juvenile hall for 2 years. Efforts will be made to keep the male assaulter of little girls away from little girls in juvie. He will not have to register as a sex offender.

    People of CA who voted for this extremist Gascon – you’re irresponsible.

  4. The circumstances surrounding Biden’s endorsement by Jim Clyburn seems to hinge on race. Did Biden really select Kamala Harris as his running mate because of her qualifications ? Or was her selection a condition to that endorsement ? During the Democrat primary, Biden announced that he intended to run as a one-term president . . . well with Kamala as his VP, wouldn’t it be likely that SHE would be the Democrat front-runner in 2024 ? . . . become the first black, woman US president ? It was also common knowledge that Biden would likely have the opportunity to nominate a Supreme Court Justice during his tenure; and so, was this ALSO possibly a pledge that Biden had to make to Clyburn in order to get his endorsement ?? Actually, just WHO is pulling the strings ??

  5. If Roe Is Overturned..

    Black Women Will Be Disproportionately Affected

    Yet here, on Johnathan Turley’s Blog, it is repeatedly suggested that not enough Black women really qualify for a seat on the court. Decisions like Roe, we are told, can only be made by carefully vetted Federalists.

    1. Anon,

      You say “If Roe Is Overturned. Black Women Will Be Disproportionately Affected.”

      Please explain why black women are disproportionally affected.

      1. Anti-abortion laws disproportionately affect poor women. (Wealthy women will always be able to fly somewhere that they can obtain a legal and safe abortion.) Poor women are disproportionately Black. Hence, Black women will be disproportionately impacted if Roe is overturned.

        1. Stop. Abortion will not disappear. Maybe it will become slightly less convenient, but perhaps that is a good thing as it teaches us to respect life. Tossing a life away without considering what that means makes people less thoughtful of what life means.

          It’s strange how one group will protest the execution of a mass murderer while being willing to kill millions of babies.

          1. REGARDING ABOVE:

            Notice that gray Anonymous feigns ignorance when asking why Black women would be ‘disproportionately affected’ if Roe was overturned. Then, when told that poverty is the leading motivation for most abortions, he, or she, goes into that now familar rant about ‘mass murder and genocide’ .

            This exchange illustrates the tone deaf nature of Anti-Abortion forces. They are incapable of recognizing that poverty can lead mothers to make decisions unthinkable to happily married affluent moms.

            Because to acknowledge that poverty really exists in America, would mean a frank conversation on issues like healthcare, the minimum wage and collective bargaining, to name a few. Conservatives don’t want to go there!! They would rather pretend that ‘free market solutions’ offer the best hope.

            Therefore when the topic is abortion, conservatives will simply kick-up sand while screaming about ‘mass murder and genocide’. That’s how they avoid discussing poverty.

            1. You are full of it.

              You created words and ideas never stated by me. That is poor form and despicable. Are you unable to discuss items of significance truthfully? There is a type of immorality in what you just did, and likely you don’t recognize it. It is strange because you demonstrated a moral failure even before you got to your opinion on abortion.

              What I said was: “Maybe it will become slightly less convenient.”

              What is not true in that statement? Provide an example. Redeem yourself.

              Your statement in response to my words, “It’s strange how one group will protest the execution of a mass murderer while being willing to kill millions of babies.” was the angry reply of one who is unable to deal with the facts provided. Some have insinuated some bad things about you, and now I know why.

            2. This exchange illustrates the tone deaf nature of Anti-Abortion forces. They are incapable of recognizing that poverty can lead mothers to make decisions unthinkable to happily married affluent moms.

              As usual, you ignore cause and effect.
              Poverty does not lead women to make decisions, married and affluent women affluent moms dont have to .

              Those women make bad decisions which lead to their economic situation. And guess what? Getti9ng 4 free abortions never improves their economic situations

          2. Like all moralistic male right-wingers, you have the gall to say out loud that women who choose to abort a pregnancy haven’t considered what it means. I know where you got that–the usual alt/right media to which you are a faithful disciple, but you are wrong. This mentality is behind things like forcing women seeking abortion care to be given pamphlets showing fetuses, mandatory waiting periods, mandatory ultrasounds and other obstacles, because it just HAS to be the case that they either don’t know what they’re doing or don’t really understand. Undeveloped fetuses are not unborn BABIES–they are an undeveloped mass of tissue that cannot live outside of the womb. There is thoughtful dispute about the rights of an undeveloped fetus–certain religions hold that it is a life entitled to protection under law, regardless of the stage of development. Others disagree and believe that a woman has the right to decide whether, in early stages of pregnancy, she wishes for the pregnancy to continue, and this belief is their right, but where do you get off forcing someone else to live according to your beliefs? Every woman I’ve known who has obtained an abortion thought very carefully about what she was doing before she did it. Assuming she is either stupid or uninformed is misogynistic.

        2. “Anti-abortion laws disproportionately affect poor women. (Wealthy women will always be able to fly somewhere that they can obtain a legal and safe abortion.) Poor women are disproportionately Black. Hence, Black women will be disproportionately impacted if Roe is overturned.”
          “Kill your babies; Avoid Poverty.” There’s a bumper sticker for ya!

  6. No reasonable person would let Joe Biden drive their car. So why do we let him pick a Supreme Court justice?

    1. No reasonable person would believe the USG would provide free boxes of N95 masks — that are MADE in CHINA! I kid you not. I have here a free box of 20 ‘Made in China’ masks. Do we not make N95 masks in the U.S.A.? Unreal. I will be tossing these in the trash.

        1. forgot to add….*we know President Trump would never allow masks made in China to be distributed by the government on his watch.

          1. Trump would be pragmatic and do what is best for America in the present. Trump would make sure we weren’t reliant on China in the future.

      1. No reasonable person, in the case of an accident such as the “accidental” release of a virus, would allow the responsible party to evade judgement and elude awards for damages.

    2. Joe Biden, like the Clinton’s, has been chauffeured around, at taxpayer expense for over 40 years.

      Nobody believes Joe Biden is making the decisions or running his own administration. About the only thing they let him pick is what flavor ice cream cone he gets.

  7. ABC evening news just announced that Kamala Harris will be prepping the nominee for confirmation hearings. Oh boy…..

    1. Prepping the nominee: That seems right up Kamala’s Alley. I’m sure she knows how to make a well-Laid plan.

          1. I guess that isn’t it, then. Maybe its because they’re holding the female Indian slot open for Elizabeth Warren?

  8. There are about 47 million African-Americans in the U.S. We can easily find qualified black candidates and it’s long overdue to add more diversity to the court.

    1. add more diversity to the court.
      Yea. That’s the ticket. Because the whole diversity thing has absolutely zero measurable metrics.

      I’m all for taking all comers into consideration. But just for diversities sake, is a loser.

      1. The system isn’t designed to ever end up with a diverse result without pressure. A President (all of whom have been fairly rich white men) must submit a candidate to be approved by a group of majority rich white men, most of whom attended one of two law schools that until recently in their storied histories graduated mostly if not all white men from wealthy families. Until recent history within my lifetime they were all men. Never before has their been a Black woman. Many people here believe no Black woman is actually qualified and could only achieve the position through affirmative action and no matter what is revealed during the confirmation process, they couldn’t possibly be there because of merit.

          1. Enigma, do you know what’s unfair? We never had a plumber on the Supreme Court. They deserve representation, especially with all the sh1t they have to deal with. 🙂

            1. You are comparing plumbers to women with law degrees from prestigious law firms; some of whom have clerked at SCOTUS and others that have tried cases there, some have served as Federal Judges. In other words, far more qualified than Clarence Thomas who was a bureaucrat.

              1. “You are comparing plumbers to women with law degrees from prestigious law firms.”

                Enigma, how many female lawyers from prestigious law firms can fix a broken toilet? Not many, that is why we choose competent plumbers to fix our toilets and competent legal minds to be on the Supreme Court. We don’t check a serum melanin level. Instead, we look for competence. Clarence Thomas is a black male. He is competent whether you agree with him or not. But, somehow, he doesn’t seem to count as a black on the Supreme court in your mind.

                Do the math. If you want to use your % of population calculations which I disagree with, one black is the closest number to parity. Suddenly you want more than parity and don’t count Thomas as black. I don’t either. I count Thomas as a great American jurist who, due to policies you support, was underrated and subject to a high-tech lynching.

                1. I used Thomas as an example because I was familiar with his lack of qualifications. Everything else you assumed. You keep trying to tell me what I think and are almost always wrong. You seem to be saying Black people should be limited to one seat? Isn’t that a racist quota?

                  1. Enigma, the fact that Thomas’s decisions, whether you like them or not, are well written and demonstrate a fine legal mind seems not to affect your opinion. We understand what your criteria are. You will choose the most competent plumber to fix your toilet, but competence is not a criterion when it comes to the Supreme Court. Race and gender are.

                    “You seem to be saying Black people should be limited to one seat? Isn’t that a racist quota?”

                    It certainly is, and I don’t advocate such quotas; you do. I merely pointed out that, with your quota system, one black on the court is optimal for you.

                    1. Enigma, what qualifications made him a worse candidate than the Democrat offerings? He went to Yale. Are you going to say he got into Yale because of affirmative action and prove everyone’s point about how bad affirmative action is? He wasn’t affirmative action. He graduated Summa Cum Laude from an excellent university.

                    2. Not that it’s a bad thing but Clarence Thomas absolutely was affirmative action. You seem to assume it means less than qualified, I see it as giving someone a chance that is qualified but otherwise would have been shut out. Thomas got into both Holy Cross and Yale through affirmative action programs. Maybe he hates it from the negative perception he had to deal with from classmates and employers? I don’t know, but you saying he wasn’t affirmative action is rewriting history.


                    3. “Not that it’s a bad thing but Clarence Thomas absolutely was affirmative action. You seem to assume it means less than qualified,”

                      You made my point, Enigma, the same point made by Clarence Thomas. He was tainted by affirmative action, which caused him harm, but instead of playing the victimhood card, he moved forward and is now a Supreme Court Judge.

                      Let me quote Clarence Thomas, who is a hero, and someone all should look up to: “I’d learned the hard way that a law degree from Yale meant one thing for white graduates and another for blacks, no matter how much anyone denied it. I’d graduated from one of America’s top law schools, but racial preference had robbed my achievement of its true value.”

                      You say Thomas “benefitted.” I understand that Thomas would have gotten into Holy Cross, where he was Summa Cum Laude with or without affirmative action. I can’t say he wouldn’t have gotten into Yale, but his position in his class at Holy Cross indicates he was an excellent candidate.

                      In the end, affirmative action has hurt blacks and made people suspicious of their quality. The Jewish model demonstrates how flawed affirmative action is.

                      Additionally, it is placing many bright black students into schools they are unprepared for and causing them not to achieve their former goals that would have been achieved in a less renowned top-tier school. Being unprepared for the rigors, we see a lot getting degrees in black studies and the like. Those are not the fields that create scientists and engineers. They create race-hustlers that get rich while destroying themselves and the people they represent. It’s a disgrace.

                      There were and continue to be alternatives, but the race-hustlers aren’t interested in any of them. Once blacks are in a better position, the race-hustlers lose their jobs.

                    4. You keep changing the goal post, first he wasn’t affirmative action and now he wouldn’t have gotten into Yale )He wouldn’t have gotten into Holy Cross either).
                      BTWm he was only tainted in the eyes of prejudiced white people who didn’t accept him despite his academic success.

                    5. “You keep changing the goal post, first he wasn’t affirmative action and now he wouldn’t have gotten into Yale )He wouldn’t have gotten into Holy Cross either).”

                      I don’t think you are making any sense. I said Thomas would have gotten into Holy Cross with or without affirmative action. In other words, on merit alone, he was a good candidate. I don’t know if he would have been accepted or not into Yale, but based on his merits and performance at Holy Cross, he was a good candidate for entry. Many brilliant kids don’t make it into Yale, so one never knows.

                      “BTWm he was only tainted in the eyes of prejudiced white people who didn’t accept him despite his academic success.”

                      Actually, affirmative action is what tainted him. I’ve seen that happen elsewhere.

                      You should watch your racist type of talk. It’s talk like that that stirs up hate between the races. Blacks are not immune from racism, and we note that when we see their anti-Semitic, anti-Asian and Anti-Hispanic sides. Some are even prejudiced against darker colors. All of this is foolishness unless someone is trying to play the victimhood game or feels they can climb the ladder faster by pulling the guy in front down.

                      Time for you to grow up and look at what your type of thinking has created among people with similar melanin to you. I think the hate you promote with your words is ridiculous.

                    6. The article was clear that Thomas needed the affirmative action program to get into Holy Cross. Yes you said differently, twice. That dopesn’t make it so,
                      Now you’re blaming Black people for creating racism, you say they want to climb the ladder faster when previously they weren’t allowed on the ladder at all. You view affirmative action as hurting white people when the previous position was to deny all minorities. Affirmative action tainting recipients is all a white thing, putting Blacks and Asians into competition is part of the system designed to ensure white people remain in control. By 2045, white people will no longer be a majority in this country. That’s why the race id on to control the courts and the voting system to ensure their is no shift in power. We are getting closer to Apartheid South Africa all the time.

                    7. “The article was clear that Thomas needed the affirmative action program to get into Holy Cross. ”

                      The Seattle Times is not the arbiter of truth. Nor are you the arbiter of what the Seattle Times actually wrote. Read more carefully.

                      Enigma, Thomas had good grades in high school and was a hard worker. He didn’t need affirmative action to get into a good college. That Thomas may have received a financial scholarship is not affirmative action. Nowhere does your article say he didn’t get into Holy Cross based on merit. You need to be careful when you promote race-hustling.

                      “Now you’re blaming Black people for creating racism”

                      No, that is untrue. I am blaming the race-hustlers.

                      “You view affirmative action as hurting white people”

                      No, I view affirmative action as racist and a program that injures those it is supposed to help. I’m interested in making public schools better for black children so they can go to college based on merit and hard work. You don’t show such interest. I don’t want them facing life tainted by affirmative action.

                      “Affirmative action tainting recipients is all a white thing”

                      That sounds like a racist comment to me. In fact, the theme of most of what you say sounds racist as well. We moved in a direction far away from Apartheid South Africa. Still, today with the type of racist attitudes you display and the race-hustlers, we are moving towards a fascist society where good people of all colors become the underlings, and the elites promote racism and fascism to keep themselves in power.

                    8. “As an undergraduate at Holy Cross College, Thomas received a scholarship set aside for racial minorities.” -from the article

                      You accidentally said the quier part out loud.
                      “the elites promote racism and fascism to keep themselves in power.”
                      That is the whole point of the voter suppression laws being voted in everywhere that Republicans control state legislatures. Not that Democrats haven’t done it before or looked the other way when it suited them. Please don’t raise the issue of voter ID and ignore all the other laws designed to restrict minority and youth votes. We are becoming more like South Africa because the need is growing greater.

                    9. The statement I made, “the elites promote racism and fascism to keep themselves in power.” is what I believe and is valid.

                      Enigma, you don’t seem to understand that the elites use different tactics, including race to divide people and pay race-hustlers to promote their point of view. Those race-hustlers earn a lot of status and money while doing little to nothing to aid their people or community.

                      You are a follower of elitist games (a sucker) that doesn’t know the difference between propaganda and the truth. There is little to no voter suppression. Instead, we see an attempt to add to the voting rolls additional false votes in support of the elites. That is why there is election fraud, but the big guys are generally not arrested, and when they are, their penalty is minor for the elites protect those that help keep them in power.

                      Let me tell you a bit about propaganda. It only works well on those predisposed to the beliefs being promoted. Those people are looking for confirmation of what they would like to believe. That is why such people rely so heavily on trying to censor the speech of others and refuse to deal with facts directly.

                      I neither like Democrats nor Republicans. I like individuals who believe in civil liberties and understand how free markets work. I also like those that want America strong because strength can avoid war. Biden’s weaknesses have brought the likelihood of war very close in several areas of the world that could all erupt simultaneously. We are unprepared, and our leadership has already demonstrated their absolute lack of ability in protecting America.

                    10. “We are becoming more like South Africa because the need is growing greater. ”

                      This statement of you is an example of propaganda that you are repeating. It is easy to say, but it is an empty statement devoid of reality and facts.

                    11. For a minority group to hold power they need to control the courts, the vote, the economy, and law enforcement; I see America’s current power brokers tightening their hold on all of the above. It will take decades to recover from what Mitch McConnell did to the judiciary (I’d say Trump but Mitch started during the Obama years and Trump isn’t that bright, he just did what he was told). Republicans are setting up controls of the election system which began by rigging the census and using Gerrymandering, redistricting, and voter suppression laws (often with Democratic cooperation). We are becoming more like South Africa during Apartheid, not less. You don’t see it because a) you aren’t looking for it and b) you are the beneficiary.

                    12. “For a minority group to hold power they need to control the courts, the vote, the economy, and law enforcement.”

                      Enigma, you’re mistaken. That idea is similar to building a house without a sound foundation. It falls apart. Instead of first building a foundation, you wish to head straight for the top. You want your “person” to be the consulting doctor or lawyer before going to medical or law school—pure foolishness.

                      You are looking for tribal wars, as all the different groups fight to gain and hold power. Political propaganda is what you are serving, and you have become part of the menu in the process.

                    13. “You didn’t acknowledge that Thomas wouldn’t have gotten into Holy Cross without a minority set-aside?”

                      I wrote: “Enigma, Thomas had good grades in high school and was a hard worker. He didn’t need affirmative action to get into a good college. That Thomas may have received a financial scholarship is not affirmative action. Nowhere does your article say he didn’t get into Holy Cross based on merit. You need to be careful when you promote race-hustling.”

                      How do you know he “wouldn’t have gotten into Holy Cross without a minority set-aside”? I think he would have and if not Holy Cross another good school.

              2. EIB,

                Please explain how a person who has been a SCOTUS clerk, who has tried a case before the SCOTUS, or who has been a Federal Judge, all lesser roles than a SCOTUS judge, could be considered more qualified than Justice Thomas who has served on the SCOTUS for over 30 years.

                1. Ray,

                  Enigma was talking about Thomas’s qualifications when he was nominated, not now.

                  There are a number of Black women who would be more qualified as nominees than Thomas was as a nominee.

                  1. Whatever you thought in the past, we have learned that he is brilliant whether one likes or dislikes Thomas. We cannot say that for any of the nominees. Thomas’s problem was too many people believed he was affirmative action.

                    That is the problem with affirmative action. There are better ways, but the race hustlers won’t get their 10%.

        1. By “rich white men”, do you mean Americans, like the rich white men who founded America for Americans, which we can know from the Naturalization Act they passed, requiring citizens to be “…free white person(s)….”

          Has there ever been a country which was established by indigent men?

          Why do some people in this country identify as “African” and “black”? What is that an admission of?

          How about those Israelite slaves in Egypt? They were gone with the wind, huh?

            1. Unfortunately not. George is one of the blog’s bigots (racist, sexist, xenophobic, …), probably the most prolific bigot here, though extremely repetitive.

              1. Is having an opinion unconstitutional? Are only your “opinions” constitutional? What I reference is the Constitution. Apparently, you can’t provide any citations to prosecute your position so you immediately resort to bizarre ad hominem. Please provide the location in the Constitution of the prohibition of holding opinions.

        2. Many people here believe no Black woman is actually qualified and could only achieve the position through affirmative action

          NO ONE thinks that. It is an intentional lie on your part. Or just too dense to grasp the debate.

          By limiting the pool of potential candidates, it is certain more able candidates are denied. And yes this is the very definition of Affirmative Action. Advancing a person due to their skin color, because by objective standards they would otherwise not be chosen.

          (also, there are no qualifications for SCOTUS, some are just more qualified than others. So any Black woman would be “qualified”)

          1. “NO ONE thinks that. It is an intentional lie on your part. Or just too dense to grasp the debate.
            By limiting the pool of potential candidates, it is certain more able candidates are denied.”

            You obviously aren’t reading the comments here. Some are saying any Black woman would only be an affirmative action choice with lesser qualifications, only there because of the color of their skin. You are certain there are more able candidates that the Black woman who hasn’t even been identified. Continue on.

            1. WHY did Joe Biden filibuster and vote TWICE against the nomination of a black woman to the federal bench in 2003?? Why is he all for it now?? Because it is a political ploy and that is all the left has. They have nothing but the race card, because they know with just the right words, they can strike that match that will set off the anger in this country that they have been adding the kindling to.

              1. Which woman, I’d like to look up the facts for myself? This nomination isn’t about striking anger it’s political expediency. Some of you are just angry about everything.

      2. Even if you are a good white male of religion (love your neighbors, don’t hate anyone), a white male may even have empathy for his fellow citizens but can never fully relate to the issues of women and non-white citizens (and vice versa).

        It’s impossible to fully relate to someone of a different race, gender or culture even if you wanted to. They live it every hour of every day. The only way to have that perspective on the court (or any organization) is to have those persons, with real world experience, sitting on the court.

        White males have been fairly well-represented for over 200 years, it’s long past time to have other perspectives on the court that more closely match the U.S. population.

        The entire issue is framed in racist terms. For example: if Biden appointed Obama to the high court (intelligent and competent) but Obama is bi-racial but considered 100% black. Why isn’t a nominee like Obama considered white? We no longer have racial purity laws but still view these things in racist terms (even unintentionally). Many white racists still discriminate no matter the degree of blackness or someone not totally white.

        In previous generations, many white Protestants discriminated against white Irishmen, white Italians, white Catholics and white Jewish people. Americans of color can lose a foreign accent but can’t change their skin color or appearance. Discrimination decreases with these other white groups but still happens to persons of color.

        “Driving while Black” is a real problem. “Playing Paintball while non-white” landed many non-whites on terrorist watchlists after 9/11. Years ago, in Virginia, an African-American lady was arrested for “Walking on a taxpayer-owned street while Black” (her taxes partly paid for the street and sidewalk). White kids in the suburbs smoke marijuana at near equal rates as non-white kids in poorer neighborhoods, but white kids rarely get arrested or convicted (resulting in lifelong criminal records affecting lifelong income). The U.S. Supreme Court desperately needs this perspective on the court.




      Upon the issuance of the emancipation proclamation in 1863, freed slaves must have been immediately and compassionately repatriated per the Naturalization Act of 1802 which was in full force and effect requiring citizens to be “…free white person(s)…,” as the status of slaves had changed from deeded and recorded “property” to that of “illegal alien” bereft of any right to immigrate or obtain citizenship.

      Abraham Lincoln taught Americans to disobey the laws they don’t like.

      If Americans were not required to obey the law then, Americans cannot be required to obey law now.

      What is “long overdue” is enforcement of the Naturalization Act of 1802 which Lincoln failed to accomplish, and which constituted gross and egregious dereliction of duty on Lincoln’s part as president.

      In a society of laws, all citizens obey all of the laws, all of the time.

      “Distrust diversifications, which usually turn out to be diworsifications.”

      – Peter Lynch, One Up Wall Street, 1989

    3. Ashvroft: “We can easily find qualified black candidates…”


      Not so easy.

      They are about 14% of the population. Black women about 7% of the population. The average IQ for blacks in the US is 85 so only about 3.5% of the black women are 85 or above. We probably don’t want anyone with less than 120 on the bench so we are down to less than 1%, many of whom appear to be unwed mothers or school dropouts. The pool of those who are truly eligible other than by skin color is very small and probably conservative and poison to Democrats. Look what Red Guard leftists keep doing to Justice Thomas.

      Not so easy.

    4. People familiar with the matter are saying that Amy Schneider is on the short list of supreme court candidates. Smart. Transgender. Historic. Except Biden won’t pick her because she’s not black. Hardly seems fair.

  9. Forget all the other arguments. If you take Democrats at their word, there is only one issue here: how will people who have publicly insisted that gender is fluid intend to make a solid determination as to who is a woman and who is not?

  10. Ronald Regan said ““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.” Joe Biden said “I’m looking forward to making sure there’s a Black woman on the Supreme Court, to make sure we in fact get every representation,” — Mr. Turley, you are really pushing the envelope to say that Biden’s words significantly limit his choice to “ONLY” a black woman. Let’s see who he considers and let’s see who he chooses when he gets a second chance too.

  11. Why is there a contradiction? What is the problem?

    If America seeks the finest juridical mind available in a pool of American candidates, it could be a person of any race.


    Answer: Dubious. The highest percentage result would likely be an American; so be it.

    It’s merit that matters.

  12. Why is it not a surprise to see you coming to the wrong and disingenuous conclusion? Yet again. How are you still employed at GWU?

  13. There seems be a two part test. When Reagan would only appoint a woman, he had the “constitutional” authority under Article II to choose anyone he wanted to. Reagan could have chosen a lawyer, judge or someone with no experience at all.

    The “democratic” part was that the voters gave Reagan that authority to choose anyone he pleases, for whatever reason. Then Congress (Senate) had to confirm that pick. The U.S. Senate is supposed to confirm most picks unless the nominee is corrupt or incompetent. Voters already chose the political part by choosing the president.

    This is essentially what the term “republic” – which Republicans name themselves after – means. We choose a leader to make those decisions, we don’t have legally binding referendums where voters choose directly and it passes into law.

    Roughly half the population is female so it seems we would want that perspective on the highest court in the land. There has never been a 50% percentage of females on the court. A large percentage of the population is African-American and disproportionately discriminated against, so we need that perspective also on the high court.

    Everyone should check out the true life movie “On the Basis of Sex” and it shows precisely how tone-deaf judges can be without diverse points of view. It’s absolutely shocking what the all-male court said to Ruth Bader Ginsburg inside the courtroom. Biden probably should have said less but the Constitution gives him the authority to choose whomever he pleases.

    1. “A large percentage”? As in 13%, +/-? Why does 13%+/- hold the disproportionate sway over this country in this manner? How you can prove that they are “disproportionately discriminated against” when there is much evidence to the contrary, such as the Haitians who came here illegally last summer – did they appear worried about this “discrimination”? Hispanics are a larger share of the population, so why not a Mexican-American woman? Sotomayor is Hispanic, but not Mexican-American, and Mexican-Americans comprise the lions’ share of the Hispanic population in the US. Why discriminate against this large and growing section of the electorate? If we’re looking for the oldest grievance points, why not a native American woman? How about a Sioux jurist? But then, are they the same as the Navajo? Who was treated worse, the warrior peoples of the plains, or the Eastern tribes, such as the Cherokee or the Seminoles? Black Americans were owning land in this country while the Cherokees were marched to Indian Territory on the Trail of Tears. Do you see what an idiotic game this identity politics stuff is?

  14. “Congratulations, Supreme Court Nominee. Once we arbitrarily eliminated about 98% of qualified candidates from consideration, you were one of the leftovers.”

    High praise indeed.

  15. Here’s a simple idea: Americans nominate the most capable candidate based on merit.

    And the actual American majority rejects and ignores the attempts to assign phantom guilt to Americans and “fundamentally transform” America through the incessant, frivolous caterwauling of dependent, hyphenate minorities.

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

    – Ben Franklin

    You couldn’t.

  16. President Biden is not in charge of who gets selected. He didn’t choose kamala harris — she was chosen for him by his handlers. The same will prevail in this instance. In fact, his narrow pledge was made at the insistence of Jim Clyburn back in 2020, and the carrot at the end of that stick was Clyburn’s endorsement. And Turley is right that whoever this black female appointee is, she will have an asterisk next to her name.

    1. President Susan Elizabeth Rice* and Vice President Valerie June Jarrett are in charge of who gets selected and everything else that transpires in the Altered States of Asylum.

      …that is until they and the entirety of co-conspirators in the Obama Coup D’etat in America is convicted by John “Will-He-Dudley-Do-Right” Durham.

      Let’s be clear.
      Remember when Suzie sent her “note to file” at the same time Trump was sworn in?

      “Republicans have seized on the document as potential evidence that the outgoing president had ordered the FBI to spy on the new administration, as Trump has alleged.”

      – Betsy Woodruff Swan

      “Rice’s Inauguration Day ‘Note to File’ in Final Hours of Obama Admin Declassified”

      WASHINGTON – The Office of the Director of National Intelligence today completed a declassification review of an email President Obama’s National Security Advisor sent herself during her last day in office. Susan Rice’s “note to file,” sent on January 20, 2017, described an Oval Office meeting from several weeks prior regarding the FBI’s investigations into Russian interference and Lt. General Michael Flynn.

      Sens. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) have inquired about the email. In February 2018, Grassley and Graham sent a joint letter to Rice, who responded the same month. The email in question was time stamped around the same time President Trump was sworn into office.

      1. In the end, whether you like him or not, Blum was doing the correct thing. He was fighting against racial discrimination and the ACLU is fighting for racial discrimination.

        1. “Fighting against discrimination” on any and all private property is unconstitutional.

          Discrimination is a contradiction in terms on public property.

  17. the first question should be whether she RAPED anyone? Followed by 1301 Questions!
    Sep 28, 2018 — Judge Kavanaugh answered nearly 1,300 written questions submitted by senators after the hearing, more than all prior Supreme Court nominees.
    I assume the GOP will find a person that has a memory of them raping them…30 years ago.

  18. After Reagan made that pledge to appoint a woman, there has only been one woman appointed by a Republican since.

    Shows you what Republicans mean when they oppose Affirmative Action – pretty much everything goes to white males like Turley.

    1. Aren’t your “women” busy making Americans? If Americans aren’t made, there won’t be any Americans. Is that your goal? If not them, who?

      And exactly what is affirmative action, alms for the supplicating poor? It would seem one would be embarrassed.

      Isn’t it more gratifying to build something of one’s own, rather than steal something owned by another?

        1. Your dislike for Justice Thomas I question. Why? I think the simple answer is that he is not a devote Democrat. Quoting from Justice Thomas’s ‘My Grandfather’s Son’ pages 124/125’:

          “It wasn’t exactly fashionable to be a black person working for a Republican,… My new friends and I also made an effort to develop relationships with black staffers on the Democratic side of the aisle, many of whom viewed us with a mixture of curiosity and disapproval. Since nearly all of us were political moderates or outright liberals, I couldn’t see why they should be so disapproving, but they were, not because of our political view but simply because we were willing to work for Republicans. This sentiment ran deep among blacks…” Paraphrasing after Coretta Scott King visited Senator Danforth and Justice Thomas walked her to a waiting car and asked Mrs. King why few blacks voted for him. Mrs. King replied “Well, he is a Republican”… “It didn’t surprise me, for I, too, had reflexively disliked most Republicans… prior to going to work for Senator Danforth…” “Still, I found it hard to accept. “”Black is a state of mind” one black Democratic staffer told me, by which I assumed he meant being a liberal Democrat. That kind of all-us-black-folks-think-alike nonsense wasn’t part of my upbringing, and I saw it as nothing more than another way to herd blacks into a political camp.”

          To imply that Justice Thomas hasn’t represented all Americans equally is pure NON-SENSE.

            1. Indians were nomadic and migrated from Asia. They are Asian if anything. Americans did not exist until 1789 and Indians were here before that year. Indians cannot possibly be “native” or “American”. You are a fraud who is attempting to brainwash the weak-minded among us by changing the facts and the language. Shall we ask the Indians, the Sioux, the Apache, the Comanche et al. if they are Americans? You speak with forked tongue. Don’t most “black people” identify as “African”? That’s way over the Atlantic to the east. What the —- is his panic? I don’t find his-panic-a on the map. You just make it up as you go along. The American Founders generally restricted the vote to males, European, 21 with 50 lbs. Sterling/50 acres. Which vote criteria do deem appropriate? The Founders’ first concern was to deny the vote to those “…of indigent fortunes and in so mean a situation as to have no will of their own, and under the dominion of others”. Sounds about right to me. Oh, and the Israelite slaves were out of Egypt before the ink was dry on their release papers, but then, they had the ambition, capacity and acumen sufficient to the task. What kind of person who had been abducted would not want to immediately return HOME? Seriously! You’ve got to be kidding me.

              “the people are nothing but a great beast…

              I have learned to hold popular opinion of no value.”

              – Alexander Hamilton

              “The true reason (says Blackstone) of requiring any qualification, with regard to property in voters, is to exclude such persons, as are in so mean a situation, that they are esteemed to have no will of their own.”

              “If it were probable that every man would give his vote freely, and without influence of any kind, then, upon the true theory and genuine principles of liberty, every member of the community, however poor, should have a vote… But since that can hardly be expected, in persons of indigent fortunes, or such as are under the immediate dominion of others, all popular states have been obliged to establish certain qualifications, whereby, some who are suspected to have no will of their own, are excluded from voting; in order to set other individuals, whose wills may be supposed independent, more thoroughly upon a level with each other.”

              – Alexander Hamilton, The Farmer Refuted, 1775

                  1. You define Americans as the founders and how they are the Americans. Abe Lincoln’s ancestors were colonials, so by definition, they represent the founding people of America. Abe Lincoln would therefore be a great President, and he was.

            2. Dumb. The Constitution was designed expressly to be modified as time went on, through its amendment process, allowing for organic and yes, democratic change to occur and be written into law. This has happened, and the country has adapted using those mechanisms. To pretend otherwise is to lie to yourself.


                Mr. Madison has a few succinct words for you; you should pay close attention and take heed, or risk the American restricted-vote republic, rationally established for the appropriate, right-sized self-governance of man by the American Founders.

                James, go ahead, James.


                “…as will not injure the constitution,…”

                ” And if there are amendments desired, of such a nature as will not injure the constitution, and they can be ingrafted so as to give satisfaction to the doubting part of our fellow citizens; the friends of the federal government will evince that spirit of deference and concession for which they have hitherto been distinguished.”

                – James Madison, Proposed Amendments to the Constitution, June 8, 1789

                The entire American welfare state is unconstitutional and exists under a mortally “injured” Constitution.

                “Crazy Abe” Lincoln’s communist successors not only “injured” the Constitution, they killed it, and American freedom, and without purpose, as slavery could have and must have been ended through advocacy, boycotts, divestiture, etc. Lincoln’s successors were the “tip of the spear”, the catalyst, for the progressive journey to the current communist welfare state through the “injuries” they inflicted on the Constitution. Lincoln’s successors “modified” the Constitution into the Communist Manifesto. Marx’s edict is the motto of modern America under the “modified” and “injured” Constitution:

                “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”

                – Karl Marx

                Note: The Ten Commandments have never been amended. Neither should the Constitution have been.

                Note: Letter to Abraham Lincoln from Karl Marx:

                The International Workingmen’s Association 1864
                Address of the International Working Men’s Association to Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States of America
                Presented to U.S. Ambassador Charles Francis Adams
                January 28, 1865 [A]

                Written: by Marx between November 22 & 29, 1864, and included in the Minutes of the General Council on 29th November 1864;
                First Published: The Bee-Hive Newspaper, No. 169, January 7, 1865, and in German translation in Der Social Demokrat on 30 Dezember 1864;
                Source: The General Council of the First International 1864-1866, Progress Publishers;


    2. They appointed a woman to replace a woman, Clarence Thomas was appointed to replace Thurgood Marshall. Quota’s are fine when Republicans fill them. This much and no more.

      1. Which law or precedent must we obey today? Lincoln taught America to disobey the law to get what you want. Laws have been egregiously violated since 1860 in America, including the clear violation to impose bias that is “affirmative action”.

        Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States of America told Abraham Lincoln that he had no authority to suspend habeas corpus, a brazen crime of high office in which Lincoln persisted, and that he was irrefutably in violation of the fundamental law of the United States, for which Lincoln must have been immediately impeached, convicted and removed (to delay law is to deny law). Denial of secession, illegal war, denial of free speech and press, confiscation of private property, dereliction of duty to enforce the Naturalization Act, etc., were among the numerous egregious violations of law of Lincoln.

        Certainly, the moment the bank robber robs the bank he has immutably committed a crime – I could be wrong. I presume you believe law in a society of laws.

          1. Brilliant! Simply brilliant.

            But you didn’t answer. Lincoln taught America to disobey the law. Which law or precedent must we obey today – or do we just get our arms out and go kinetic like “Crazy Abe”?

    3. After Reagan made that pledge to appoint a woman, there has only been one woman appointed by a Republican since.

      Amy C. Barrett is more woman than Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor could ever hope to be, for she is a mother, wife, full time career academic professional and she is a woman of strong Catholic identity.

      Senators Sinema and Manchin will have the last laugh if/when they switch to the Republican Party after Biden makes his nomination known. Karma, baby.

  19. Sure, Biden could have pledged to appoint a black woman as one of his first SCOTUS vacancies – but what if there is only one vacancy during his first term? What if Republicans again block any Democratic President from a nomination when they control the Senate? Then Turley would be saying it was a broken pledge.

    And Reagan was saying if you can’t find a qualified woman come back to me? I mean, half the population is women – certainly not finding one qualified would be a bit of a stretch.

Leave a Reply