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.
If I was her, I’d be upset/embarrassed, or reconsidered accepting the offer that, if confirmed, a cloud will always be over her head that maybe she wasn’t the best candidate.
I doubt she cares what racists think for they are the only ones who couldn’t process Biden’s announcement as a Black woman being qualified to sit on the court. They were the ones stuck on race and gender. Everyone else was wondering which qualified Black woman it would be.
Turley is offering weak (biased?) opposition to President Biden’s statement. Reagan indeed did state that he wanted to appoint a woman to the Court. No, he did not say that would would absolutely not appoint a man. But so what. He made his intentions clear. So did President Trump before nominating Justice Amy Barrett. Trump pledged to appoint a woman tio replace Ruth Ginsburg. (See “The Guardian” 9/19/20.) And Trump did. So why is Turley making such an effort to discredit Joe Biden??
Agreed!
This was an especially disappointing read because the reasoning was so weak.
Notice how things have changed in this country since day one, but basically our constitution hasn’t. A few amendments, but when was the last time was passed a new amendment?
Ironically, Reagan opposed the Equal Rights Amendment, then appointed the first woman to the Court. His right. He won the election.
For almost 180 years, the Justices were all white men.
Does Turley truly believe that the Presidents who appointed them didn’t impose race and gender qualifications?
Turley objects to the pledge, but is silent about the acts.
White men are still overrepresented on the Court relative to their numbers in the general population. It’s not because Presidents can’t find equally qualified nominees who aren’t white men.
For almost 180 years, the Justices were all white men.
Does Turley truly believe that the Presidents who appointed them didn’t impose race and gender qualifications?
***************************
It really galls you that they, as the best educated and most qualified beings of their time, were selected doesn’t it? They helped build the greatest nation on earth but since they don’t fit your rainbow world, then “white man bad.” The most pathetic racist is the one who never see it in themselves. The truth is white males were never overrrepresented given the compostion of the country for years and the limited qualification pool. As that pool expanded by operation of law — made in large part by those same white men — so did the applicants and hence the numbers of minorities on the Court.
“It really galls you that they, as the best educated and most qualified beings of their time, were selected doesn’t it?”
It’s pretty easy to be the best educated and most qualified if you deny others an education and determine the qualifications. We still ended up with Roger Taney. James Clark McReynolds, and Melville Fuller; two of whom were Chief Justices.
You assert without evidence that they were “the best educated and most qualified beings of their time.” There’s no reason to assume it, and plenty of reasons to conclude that they weren’t. Are you also going to argue that John Roberts was the best educated and most qualified person in the U.S. to become Chief Justice in 2005?
Correlation is not causation.
Sometimes it is.
“ 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 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.”
So what’s the big deal? According to Turley either way minorities will receive priority due to their higher risks. The only complaint is that race is mentioned as a factor, but is not THE sole factor as is being implied by critics of the policies who are just using it as an excuse to make broad criticisms and claim racism.
Seeing’s how Latinos are more numerous than blacks in America, I wonder if they feel like they are being ignored in all this identity crap that’s going on.
Latinos can be Black too! Also you must not be familiar with the very strong identity of Dominicans, Mexicans, Puerto Ricans, Colombians, Panamanians etc. Is it identity crap when all the Irish celebrate their identities or when the Italians do or…. you get the drift.
It’s amazing all the vitriol and pretentious rage conservatives or republicans for that matter over president Biden’s sole prerogative to choose who he wants to appoint to the Supreme Court. There no constitutional qualifications for who may be nominated to the SC. None. If president Biden wants to nominate a QUALIFIED black woman why would that be an issue? It seems like every conservative or Republican is ironically more focused on the race and gender of his pick. Notice how almost none mentions the qualifications of the choices he has for a black woman to nominate. If they all have the qualifications to be nominated why all the fuss over race and gender by conservatives and republicans?
What has happened is the racists and bigots are complaining about it by ironically mentioning qualifications should be a priority regardless of race or gender. However it’s somehow a problem if president Biden chooses to stick to his promise to nominate a block woman to the SC.
The senate will ultimately decide if his choice deserves the position. Would republicans in the committee be considering her confirmation based on the fact that Biden chose a black woman or her qualifications? If they are being honest about their concerns they shouldn’t care if it was a woman or what race. But obviously they are the ones who are more focused on those two criteria than actual qualifications.
“. . . why all the fuss over race and gender . . .”
Because race and gender are biologically given facts, over which one has no control. They are deterministic factors that have nothing to do with the only thing that counts: legal acumen. And because using gender as a criteria is sexist. And using race as a criteria is racist.
You know you’re culture is collapsing when influential people use chromosome make up and melanin content to determine an individual’s worth.
Sam,
“ You know you’re culture is collapsing when influential people use chromosome make up and melanin content to determine an individual’s worth.”
The problem is it’s Biden’s critics who are making that distinction, not Biden.
He can choose to nominate whoever he wants. If he wants to nominate a black woman because he promised to do so in the past he has qualified candidates at his disposal. Are Biden’s critics objecting to a qualified black woman as a SC justice?
The irony in questioning Biden’s choice of a black woman implies they wouldn’t be qualified because they it’s a black woman. All that matters is that a nominee is qualified, right? So what if he chooses a black woman?
It seems conservatives or republicans are more concerned about race than qualifications since they are the ones doing the most complaining about who he wants to nominate.
The question is, did BIden promise to choose a Black female to help the advancement of “diversity,” –or did he do it to secure the Black vote.? -Not that he would be the first or the last to pander to certain groups–Hillary was probably one of the worst. But let’s stop all the praise and glory…Where did he announce his plan? In critical South Carolina, I believe….consummate party politicking.