On Wednesday, I ran a column in the Wall Street Journal noting that President Joe Biden was imposing a race and gender qualification for the Supreme Court that has been rejected as either unconstitutional or unlawful by the Court for schools and businesses. While I noted that Biden could have made diversity a preferential rather than an exclusionary rule, the response was furious as commentators claimed that other presidents made the same pledge. Specifically, they claimed that Presidents Ronald Reagan and Donald Trump also confined their choices for seats to women. In fairness, both presidents did make public comments on the expected gender of their possible nominees. However, as I wrote later, the underlying claims are false. Now commentators have claimed President George H.W. Bush did the same thing with the appointment of Clarence Thomas. That is also untrue. Indeed, it is an even weaker historical defense.
The response to my Wall Street Journal piece initially focused on Reagan for a fair reason. Reagan did say that he wanted to appoint a woman to one of the vacancies in his next term. However, Reagan did not promise to only consider women and did not commit to such a nominee in the next vacancy. In fact, Reagan had a short list with various male candidates and the White House repeatedly said that Reagan’s desire to appoint a female was “no guarantee.” He did what other presidents have done. He made diversity a preference while not refusing to consider people on the basis of their gender.
Commentators then insisted that Trump did the same thing. He did not. Trump actually released a series of short lists that were updated as his staff did initial vetting and inquiry. While diverse, most on the list were men. Trump told a crowd shortly before his announcement on the replacement for the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg that the nominee would be a women. However, he never limited the list to women and actively considered men for the position. Indeed, his 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 included a majority of male candidates. 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.
Reagan and Trump show precisely that it was unnecessary to exclude others on the basis of race or gender, as did Biden. Other presidents have sought diversity on the Court while maintaining that they are seeking the best candidates regardless of such criteria.
During the primary, Biden wanted to garner support with black voters by saying that he would only consider black women for the next seat. He made the pledge after Rep. James Clyburn pushed him to do so during a break the presidential debate — Biden turned around and made the commitment when the debate resumed according to a new book. Clyburn then gave Biden his critical endorsement that many (including Biden) attribute his victory to in the key South Carolina primary.
Instead, the latest claim is that George H.W. Bush did the same thing. “Whataboutism” is something that we all do. However, it can backfire when the “whatabout” turns out to be “that not what it’s about.”
That is the case with George H.W. Bush. While many in the media painted Clarence Thomas as someone entirely picked due to his race (something that they would unlikely do with a Democratic nominee), Bush never said that he would only consider African-American nominees. Indeed, New York Magazine acknowledged as much (while curiously still citing this as support for Biden): “George H.W. Bush did not openly say he needed a Black jurist to replace Thurgood Marshall, but it would take heroic levels of delusion to believe Clarence Thomas was selected on the basis of his career accomplishments.”
The distinction proves the opposing point. Bush never did what Biden did. He never said that he would exclude other candidates based on their race. Like other presidents, he clearly viewed race as a factor but never publicly declared it would be an exclusionary factor. As with the replacement of Ginsburg with a woman, the replacement of Thurgood Marshall was viewed as likely to be an African American. However, Bush did consider other non-black candidates.
Indeed, in his prior pick (that went to Justice David Souter), Bush reportedly wanted to appoint the first Hispanic to the Court. However, he did not limit the search and decided Souter was the best qualified. The New York Times reported on that short list:
Mr. Bush’s list included about nine people of varied backgrounds and degrees of ideological conservatism, including several Hispanic judges, two women, at least two white men and at least one black man, Judge Clarence Thomas, 43 years old, of the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. ‘An Interesting Mix’
Several suggested that Mr. Bush was leaning toward nominating a Hispanic judge for the seat. “It’s an interesting mix, I think,” said a senior Administration official who has seen the list but refused to disclose its contents.
Then came the vacancy with Marshall. Again, Bush never pledged to exclude any other race. That short list also included non-African Americans. Indeed, the media reported that Bush was still interested in appointing a Hispanic candidate and the list included figures like Ricardo Hinojosa, a federal trial judge in Texas and Ferdinand Fernandez, a federal appeals court judge in Los Angeles.
The argument that “we all knew it would be an African American” is entirely untrue. However, regardless of his preferences, Bush did not declare that candidates would be excluded on the basis of their race or gender. Indeed, his small list was not racially exclusionary.
The preference given to diversity is not a new factor. What is new is the categorical promise not to consider anyone else due to their race or gender. That may seem a subtle difference to many but it is precisely the difference that has motivated thousands of lawsuits. While courts struggle with patterns of discrimination in hiring, they have consistently rejected threshold, express exclusions on the basis of race or gender.
Notably, in all of the commentary that followed the column, no one is contesting the primary point: that this type of exclusionary rule has been found unconstitutional or unlawful in schools or businesses. While there may be legitimate points of distinction with a Court appointment, there is little discussion of why we should use a threshold exclusionary rule for admission to the highest court that the Court would not allow in any admission to a school or business.
OT
…and 2020 was stolen from President Donald J. Trump.
____________________________________________
“Pennsylvania Court Says State’s Mail Voting Law Is Unconstitutional”
The decision, which could deal a blow to voting access in a critical battleground state, was immediately appealed.
– NY Times
Weisberg asks of Turley:
“Is he naive? Or are his ears just too aesthetically delicate for political language? Or is he just a disingenuous right-wing propagandist?”
At times, Turley is disingenuous but not a propagandist. Case in point: after a Trump campaign rally, Turley made the following warranted criticism:
“However, the President called up Hannity and Pirro to the stage and made things worst for Fox News by saying “I have a few people that are right out here, and they’re very special. They’ve done an incredible job for us. They’ve been with us from the beginning, also.” Referring to Fox anchors as his people who are doing “an incredible job for us” is a serious problem for the network.”
However, Turley thereupon made an utterly disingenuous remark:
“Hannity then declared (likely in jest), in pointing at reporters at the rally, “By the way, all those people in the back are fake news.”
https://jonathanturley.org/2018/11/06/covering-or-campaigning-fox-news-anchors-appear-with-trump-at-missouri-rally/
Anyone who has ever watched Hannity on Fox or listened to his radio show knows full well that he was NOT speaking in jest! I defy anyone on this blog to claim otherwise!
Because Turley rightly objects to ANYONE accusing the media of being “fake news,” he claimed that Hannity must have been joking.
I don’t believe that Turley could have been so naive not to know that Hannity unmistakably and undeniably believes that “all the people in the back are fake news.” And even if he was joking, is there any doubt that the Trumpists at the rally took him seriously?
Is there a Trumpist here who does NOT believe that the mainstream media is “fake news”?
Does anyone honestly believe that Turley is so clueless?
The present day Democrat Party has become irrelevant. Liberals like Bill Maher, James Carville, former Clinton advisors, Bar Weiss, Matt Taibbi, and others have mercilessly and brutally attacked the Dem Party. It has become a far worse circus show than Trump’s performative antics. Mean tweets pale compared to the s*** show we see daily with the DNC. Biden’s handlers, party strategists and their fawning Think Tanks, are detached from Blacks, Hispanics and traditional blue collar Whites. Since Biden took office, Democrats have been hemorrhaging support, according to successive nonpartisan pollsters, which is perilous. Pelosi, Schumer and Ron Klain are counting that their Jan 6 inquisition “findings” to be released this summer will cinch the Nov elections. They are gravely mistaken considering no one cares about the Jan 6 riot but rather are preoccupied with their visceral concerns: inflation, violence, COVID, mental health, schools, polarization, etc. Independents have abandoned the Democrat party while Hispanics and Blacks have distanced themselves from the party as well. See Virginia’s recent election results, against a gorilla Democrat party heavy weight like McAulifee, who had extensive support from Obama, Kamala Harris, Biden, and the MSM.
Let them. Do not push back against them. Entertainment aside, they are committing Hare Kari. With all of their theatrics as to Jan 6 supposedly endangering our republic, their drama has engulfed them with flames. Pelosi should take note considering her extensive cosmetic work
😜
A Political Scientist Warns the Democratic Party Is Off Course – The New York Times
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/25/us/politics/ruy-teixeira-democrats.html
*** Can you give an example of (liberal cultural bubble) ? ***
In the aftermath of the George Floyd murder, there was a distinct, almost inflection point in the intensity of this professional-class hegemony on race, to the point where it became completely routine for people in and around the party to talk about white supremacy, systemic racism, how America has always been a benighted country and still is, we haven’t made any progress, everybody who is white has work to do in terms of discarding their racism.
*** You write about something you call “the Fox News Fallacy,” which you say is “blinding Democrats to real problems.” ***
The basic idea is when one of these criticisms appears — like, Democrats are allowing the intrusion of race-essentialist ideology into curriculum and teacher training — the first reaction is to deny it and just to say it’s simply a racist dog whistle to constituencies who aren’t that happy about the way the country has changed.
The same thing goes for crime. I mean, who wants to be tough on crime? Well, no one could possibly want to be tough on crime except for people who want to put a lot of Black people in jail; whereas actually, this is a huge matter of concern for people across races, and particularly in poor Black and Hispanic communities. The idea that concern about crime and a desire to be tough on criminals is simply a reflection of a bigoted, reactionary type of politics is completely ridiculous.
*** The base of the Democratic Party in many ways is older Black voters who are quite conservative on a lot of issues. And those are the people who elected Joe Biden. ***
Right. And the extent to which this is completely ignored by the dominant liberal Democratic discourse, to me, is completely astonishing. Do they really believe that the Black voters who formed the base of the Democratic Party think like Ibram X. Kendi, or the leaders of BLM? Are they crazy? I mean, how can they not understand there’s enormous sort of diversity among the worldviews of people within the Black community? They vary by class, they vary by age, they vary in all kinds of ways. And the idea that they are sort of all on board with this crusade against the superficial aspects of so-called systemic racism, that that’s really what they care about, is fanciful, really.
The establishment in the democrat party is desperately trying to hang on to control of the party. This should be quit a spectacle to behold.
Biden is clearly getting away with behavior no liberal reporter would have allowed Trump to. From Afghanistan to the US border fiasco, the liberal media are giving him as much cover as they can without completely blowing their ratings. But Democrats have a very large BS capacity, so the gullible base will hang in there as the country goes to ruin. Crossing lines and pushing envelopes are what this administration is about — until it gets caught, but by then it’s often too late and some damage has been done. The race and gender discrimination issues are constitutional issues, and the left has already made it clear that it despises the (white supremacist) Constitution, and it has nothing but contempt for the Supreme Court (unelss they can pack it and own it). We’re in a period of lawlessness, where the highest powers in the country openly flout the constitutional foundations of this society. Dems have turned their party over to extremists and identity politics robots, and for that they’ll pay heavily in upcoming elections.
“The race and gender discrimination issues are constitutional issues.”
No, they aren’t.
The Constitution says next to nothing about the qualifications for judicial nominees, really only that they “shall hold their offices during good behavior” and that the President “shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint … Judges of the Supreme Court…”
Please do quote the text of the Constitution that you believe makes it a constitutional issue.
“Please do quote the text of the Constitution that you believe makes it a constitutional issue.”
No debate. Instead, questions.
Amendment #14 Equal protection clause: Foundation for much of the civil rights legislation which works in both directions.
S. Meyer,
“ No debate. Instead, questions.
Amendment #14 Equal protection clause: Foundation for much of the civil rights legislation which works in both directions.”
Mmmm… nope. Because that the equal protection clause applies to laws equally applied to everyone. The constitution has no requirement that a Supreme Court nominee HAS to meet certain qualifications in order to be nominated.
Biden had sole discretion on who he chooses. If he wants to nominate a qualified black woman he can certainly do so. Why would his choice be controversial at all? The only people making it about race are republicans and conservatives.
Biden had sole discretion on who he chooses. If he wants to nominate a qualified black woman he can certainly do so. Why would his choice be controversial at all? The only people making it about race are republicans and conservatives.
Go gaslight somewhere else, because that won’t fly here. While no one is disputing that Biden has the sole discretion to choose a black woman, it is Biden and only Biden that stated that the only decision he’s already made is that his nominee would be a black woman.
Olly, there no gaslighting going on. You seem oblivious to the complaining that Biden made up his mind that he would nominate a block woman.
What exactly is wrong with that if you are admitting that, “ While no one is disputing that Biden has the sole discretion to choose a black woman,.. “?
Obviously there are a lot of conservatives and republicans disputing his choice because he said he wants to nominate a block woman.
Turley is comparing the president with schools and businesses in choosing a black woman as a nominee by stating that it’s unconstitutional for schools and businesses to choose based on race. It’s a shoddy attempt at equivalence, especially from a constitutional “expert”.
You seem oblivious to the complaining that Biden made up his mind that he would nominate a
blockblack woman.No Svelaz, the issue that people are “complaining” about is that he has openly admitted that the only qualification for nomination as Associate Justice of the Supreme Court that he requires is that it be a black woman. That means, as if you weren’t aware, that list of candidates is only comprised of black women. That is blatant racial and gender discrimination, which has been rejected as unconstitutional or unlawful by the Supreme Court. That was our constitutional scholar’s point.
Olly,
“ No Svelaz, the issue that people are “complaining” about is that he has openly admitted that the only qualification for nomination as Associate Justice of the Supreme Court that he requires is that it be a black woman. That means, as if you weren’t aware, that list of candidates is only comprised of black women. That is blatant racial and gender discrimination, which has been rejected as unconstitutional or unlawful by the Supreme Court. That was our constitutional scholar’s point.”
It’s not discrimination and it’s certainly not unconstitutional. The constitution literally says nothing about how or who the president chooses a nominee for SCOTUS. So how would it be unconstitutional?
Discrimination applies to the hiring of employees by schools and businesses because the law explicitly states they cannot do that. The law doesn’t state the president must consider nominees for a Supreme Court position to be equally considered. He can choose literally anyone he wants for any reason.
If Biden requires his nominee to be a black woman and only a black woman it is perfectly constitutional. It’s his prerogative as president. It’s not racist or discrimination because he is not choosing from applicants to the position. One does not apply to be a Supreme Court justice. The president has the constitutional prerogative to choose anyone he wants. If he wants only a black woman he will choose a QUALIFIED black woman.
Turley is erroneously using constitutional restrictions on discrimination for schools and businesses who consider APPLICANTS to a position to a president choosing anyone for the position. There’s a reason why they are called NOMINATIONS. It’s the act of choosing someone for a position. If he is only using one list of black women to choose from he has the constitutional right to do so.
He could nominate former president Barack Obama for the position if he wanted to. Even if the only criteria was that he has to be black and a former president.
There’s absolutely nothing discriminatory or unconstitutional about that.
It’s not discrimination and it’s certainly not unconstitutional. The constitution literally says nothing about how or who the president chooses a nominee for SCOTUS. So how would it be unconstitutional?
So your argument is because the constitution does not explicitly forbid the president from nominating an associate justice to the supreme court based on their race and sex, then it’s not discrimination and not unconstitutional? That’s what you’re going with? Alrighty then.
All Presidents discriminate in their nominations. They’ve discriminated in favor of people whose rulings and publications and statements are reasonably consistent with the President’s values. They’ve discriminated in favor of white men, often exclusively. They’ve discriminated in favor of people who are smarter than average. It is legal and sometimes wise for them to discriminate in their nominations.
It’s silly to suggest that discrimination in choosing a nominee is something new. It isn’t.
It’s not unconstitutional. The Constitution doesn’t place restrictions on who the President can nominate.
It’s silly to suggest that discrimination in choosing a nominee is something new. It isn’t.
Then you shouldn’t have been so silly to suggest it, because I clearly didn’t. What I specifically referred to was discrimination based on race and sex.
Now go ahead, make your best argument that Biden is morally, ethically and principally justified in discriminating based on race and sex.
Ready? Go.
“What I specifically referred to was discrimination based on race and sex.”
That’s not new either, which is why Justices were exclusively white males for almost 200 years. According to you, was that unconstitutional?
As for your demand, earlier you told me “GFY. I’m not your research assistant.” I’m not yours either.
It’s a federal job.
You are unable to put two things together and therefore ignorant of the law, ethics and morality.
“ It’s a federal job.
You are unable to put two things together and therefore ignorant of the law, ethics and morality.”
It’s a presidential appointment. Not a job that one applies to. There’s a distinction.
You are incompetent.
Being a Supreme Court Justice is a federal job paid for with taxpayer funds.
It’s odd that you can read the following text — “No, they aren’t. The Constitution says next to nothing about the qualifications for judicial nominees, really only that they “shall hold their offices during good behavior” and that the President “shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint … Judges of the Supreme Court…”” — and then falsely claim “No debate.”
(Well, admittedly, it’s not odd for YOU to ignore text that undermines your argument, or for YOU to make false claims.)
Here’s more debate:
The 14th Amendment states that “No state shall … deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” There is no law regulating SCOTUS appointments other than what I already quoted. Thus, no potential nominee is being denied equal protection of the actual laws regulating SCOTUS appointments. The Constitution allows the President to nominate whoever he wants.
As I have said before, you are very shallow, so you don’t understand the deeper meaning of the words.
Your lengthy response should have been short and only four words; my statement was wrong.
S. Meyer says,
“ As I have said before, you are very shallow, so you don’t understand the deeper meaning of the words.
Your lengthy response should have been short and only four words; my statement was wrong.”
That’s good OL’ S. Meyer. Challenging you to a debate and then running away from it when it’s actually answered. Shocking, shocking I say.
Svelaz, there are no words to adequately describe your ignorance.
Today Alan Dershowitz entered his opinion into the debate. He also mentioned the 14th Amendment and more.
“Imagine a president announcing that since no Muslim has ever been appointed to the Supreme Court, he pledges to nominate the first Muslim justice. That would undoubtedly be unconstitutional since Article VI of the Constitution specifies that “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” The spirit of that prohibition — coupled with the 14th and 19th amendments—would certainly seem to apply to race and gender as well. It is wrong, and perhaps unconstitutional, for a president to impose a racial or gender test for nomination to the Supreme Court. If a president were to announce that he intended to nominate only a white male, constitutional scholars would rightfully object. So, what is the difference?”
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/18178/can-the-president-constitutionally-restrict-his
Did he mention that secession is not prohibited by the Constitution and that secession is fully constitutional. That everything Lincoln did, from denying secession on, is unconstitutional including the “Reconstruction Amendments” which were improperly ratified with a gun to America’s head and under the duress of brutal, post-war military occupation (is that part of the amendment process?).
George, I think you are talking about a different discussion rather than this one, so with that in mind, I will respond.
Secession isn’t permitted or not permitted to my understanding. However, I look at it this way Once scrambled, the thirteen eggs cannot be put back together again.
If you ask what Dershowitz thinks on the matter, let me know when you find out.
Thank you professor for bringing facts to light.
Who’s the racist?
“Kavanaugh has engaged in one of the most diverse hiring practices of any federal appellate judge. Of his 48 law clerks, a little more than 25 percent have been nonwhite. And as a justice, he has already hired one African American clerk. She is one of only three blacks clerking on the Supreme Court this year — two of whom previously clerked for Kavanaugh on the Court of Appeals.” . . .
“Ginsburg, on the other hand, has hired only one African American law clerk in her 25 years on the Supreme Court. This is an improvement from her 13-year tenure on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, when Ginsburg never had any black clerks.”
https://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/ruth-bader-ginsburg-can-learn-from-justice-kavanaugh/
38 years of hiring law clerks and only one Black
Iowan2,
“ 38 years of hiring law clerks and only one Black”
How many black clerks were available to hire during her time as a judge?
“ Who’s the racist?”
Nobody. Because your Wikipedia source of information lacks one important context. Ginsburg started her tenure as an appeals court judge in the early 80’s. Less than 2% of the available pool of law clerks were black.
Thurgood Marshall himself wrote a letter in 1989 regarding that problem.
“ For the second year in a row, the high court has no black clerks. Although minorities constitute 20 percent of law school graduates, less than 2 percent of the 428 clerks hired by current justices during their respective tenures were black. Of them, only John Paul Stevens has ever hired more than one black law clerk. Justice Clarence Thomas, the court’s sole black justice, has had only one black clerk in his seven-year tenure.”
https://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/fl-xpm-1998-12-10-9812210473-story.html
It wasn’t racism. Kavanaugh had the benefit of being able to have a much more diverse pool of law clerks when he was a judge because the pool of law clerks who were minorities was much larger than in Ginsburg’s time. So accusing her of being racist because she hired only a few you would have to accuse justice Thomas of being racist as well.
Svelaz,
Everbody is talking about Blacks being underrepresented on SCOTUS ( 0ne out of nine is 11% Blacks in US ~12%). Now you tell me the pool is too small to find qualified applicants.
How do we enlarge the pool, when even the leftist refuse to hire Blacks? Kavanaugh and Ginsbergs hiring histories overlap, and Kavanaugh found lots of qualified candidates.
But we’ll take your analysis. Not a large enough pool of Blacks. The very best are not Black so we are forced to hire Whites. Corporations and judges, across the globe thank your for getting that “diversity” monkey off their back. Thank you for the logical return to meritocracy.
Iowan2,
“ Everbody is talking about Blacks being underrepresented on SCOTUS ( 0ne out of nine is 11% Blacks in US ~12%). Now you tell me the pool is too small to find qualified applicants.”
We are talking about law clerks, a subject you brought up. I told you the pool WAS too small at the time of Ginsburg hiring clerks during her time in the appeals court which YOU mentioned accusing her of being racist because she didn’t hire any black clerks.
“ “Ginsburg, on the other hand, has hired only one African American law clerk in her 25 years on the Supreme Court. This is an improvement from her 13-year tenure on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, when Ginsburg never had any black clerks.”
What’s the pool makeup now?
Kavanaugh had the benefit of a more diverse pool vs. Ginsburg. When Ginsburg was an appeals judge Kavanaugh was still in Yale learning.
Svelaz,
The pool for SCOTUS candidates is much smaller than the pool of law clerks.
You are forced to allow the defense of “we just can’t find qualified minorities to fill the diversity quotas required by the woke.
Figure out what your core position is , before you attempt to discredit the simple stating of facts.
Iowan2,
“ The pool for SCOTUS candidates is much smaller than the pool of law clerks.”
You are changing the subject. Your post was about law clerks, not SCOTUS candidates.
Your post:
“ Who’s the racist?
“Kavanaugh has engaged in one of the most diverse hiring practices of any federal appellate judge. Of his 48 law clerks, a little more than 25 percent have been nonwhite. And as a justice, he has already hired one African American clerk. She is one of only three blacks clerking on the Supreme Court this year — two of whom previously clerked for Kavanaugh on the Court of Appeals.” . . .
“Ginsburg, on the other hand, has hired only one African American law clerk in her 25 years on the Supreme Court. This is an improvement from her 13-year tenure on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, when Ginsburg never had any black clerks.”
38 years of hiring law clerks and only one Black“
I responded by pointing out why your assertion is inaccurate. You made no mention of SCOTUS candidates on that post.
“I told you the pool WAS too small at the time of Ginsburg hiring clerks during her time in the appeals court ”
The pool for the conservative justices today is likely much smaller than it was for Ginsburg. How many qualified black conservative jurists are there that want to hold such a position? When dealing with numbers, you do not understand the process of selection. That is why you provided an abysmal response.
“It wasn’t racism. Kavanaugh had the benefit of being able to have a much more diverse pool of law clerks when he was a judge because the pool of law clerks who were minorities was much larger.”
The pool of blacks for nomination as clerks or The Supreme Court is many times greater for those of Liberal Democrat persuasion. The pool for conservatives is tiny and almost non-existent.
Therefore Liberal-leaning judges should have many more black clerks than their Right-leaning counterparts. They don’t and that demonstrates the hypocrisy both you and they have.
S. Meyer,
“ The pool of blacks for nomination as clerks or The Supreme Court is many times greater for those of Liberal Democrat persuasion. The pool for conservatives is tiny and almost non-existent.”
Huh? Clerks aren’t nominated. The pool for blacks for the Supreme Court is pretty large even for conservatives. Any judge or lawyer can be nominated by the president for a Supreme Court seat. Literally anyone. A law degree is not even required to be nominated. Now that’s not saying they should be, but the law doesn’t specify they have to have any knowledge of the law.
“ Therefore Liberal-leaning judges should have many more black clerks than their Right-leaning counterparts. They don’t and that demonstrates the hypocrisy both you and they have.”
S. Meyer, here you’re just demonstrating what an idiot you are. The discussion was about Ginsburg’s record of hiring black clerks vs. Kavanaugh. Problem is, as it’s been pointed out, that during Ginsberg’s term as an appeals court judge. The pool for qualified law clerks was less than 2%. And that is just our of several hundred.
Kavanaugh was still in school (Yale) when Ginsburg was a judge.
Clarence Thomas only hired one black clerk in 7 years. At that time.
You have to start thinking. Blacks predominantly are Democrats. That means the pool for conservatives is comparatively tiny. Therefore, Ruth Bader Ginsberg had a bigger pool of black candidates than Clarence Thomas. They are both looking at a very thin layer at the top, which creates great difficulty for a conservative justice of the Supreme Court. It is obvious you don’t care about quality or knowledge. Neither of them represents any of your achievements.
It is difficult to find the appropriate black clerk that is conservative but much easier for the Liberal judge.
You need a book on remedial math and statistics along with a dictionary. I seldom deal with such well-rounded ignorance.
Ginsburg served on SCOTUS for 27 years and a total of 40 years hiring clerks. Apparently you’re too lazy to update your stats.
Also notable that you choose to compare only Kavanaugh and Ginsburg, while omitting stats for the rest of the Justices.
its at the linky thingy
It is not uncommon in statistical analysis to use proxy statistics to arrive at conclusions.
All agree RGB is very much a great representation of progressive jurisprudence. Her ACTIONS speak volumes about minority representation. In fact it is under her term on SCOTUS, that SCOTUS ruled that using hiring statistics was legal proof of racial discrimination. Only that SCOTUS is exempt from their won conclusions.
Are you too inattentive to notice that your “linky thingy” was published in 2018, and Ginsburg served until 2020, and YOU chose not to update the stats?
Are you too inattentive to notice that your “linky thingy” addressed only Ginsburg and Kavanaugh while ignoring the other Justices, and YOU chose not to address the rest either?
Those aren’t “proxy statistics.” People use proxies when the data they wish to focus on are unavailable. But the data for all of the Justices for their entire terms ARE available.
When doing statistical surveys, one must understand the rudimentary things that need to be addressed. You are missing too many.
Facts illuminate the shallow offering of exceptional Black law students that will fill the bill as a SCOTUS Clerks. Across the entire spectrum of judicial ideology Judges were forced to hire White law Clerks, because Blacks lacked intellectual heft, when compared to the White Candidates.
That’s not my opinion. These are facts as determined by more that a dozen Supreme Court Justices choices
Play your silly word games, but the numbers speak the facts.
a) You’re assuming a thing you need to demonstrate (“Judges were forced to hire White law Clerks, because Blacks lacked intellectual heft, when compared to the White Candidates”), also known as begging the question. THAT the justices mostly hired white clerks does not tell you WHY.
b) You’ve introduced a false dichotomy, since a number of the applicants were neither Black nor white.
Iowan2, so on one hand you insinuate that justice Ginsburg was racist because she only hired one black clerk in 13 years and in the other that there were weren’t enough black clerks because it’s a fact that black clerks didn’t have the intellectual heft to be a clerk for a Supreme Court justice so justices were FORCED to hire white clerks.
Clearly you’re just being dishonest or ignorant.
The court is notably lacking male and female sexes, people… persons of orange (POA), representation.
Color and sex. Diversity, inequity, and exclusion (DIE) protocol. Diversity [dogma] (i.e. color judgment, class-based bigotry) of the Pro-Choice religion denies human dignity, agency, and value, and normalizes color blocs (e.g. “people of color”), color quotas (“Jew privilege”), and affirmative discrimination as a progressive condition (PC). People… persons should be wary of exercising liberal license to indulge DIE.
Was Donald Trump a person of color? Or doesn’t orange count.
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.
Anonymous: The SCOTUS is not about “representing” the population. It’s about the Constitution. If you want representation — that’s what the Congress is for. Democrats resort to the “representation” argument because they’re stuck in their identity politics cesspool. But the Constitution is for everyone.
Yours is a straw man argument. I didn’t claim that “SCOTUS is about “representing” the population.”
I stated several facts, including:
* For almost 180 years, the Justices were all white men.
* 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.
Do you deny that those are facts?
I agree that the Constitution is for everyone.
Do you agree that there are many qualified potential nominees who aren’t white men, where part of their qualifications is that they will attend to the Constitution?
“ Anonymous: The SCOTUS is not about “representing” the population. It’s about the Constitution.”
The constitution gives no qualifications for who may be nominated as a Supreme Court justice. None whatsoever. If a president chooses a Supreme Court nominee because he thinks there is a lack of representation on the court of minorities perspective he can do so. It’s ultimately up to the senate to decide whether to confirm or deny the nomination. The question then.is. Is the senate determining the nomination based on race or gender or strictly qualifications. Most of the time nominees are.chosen because of ideology first qualifications second.
White men are still overrepresented on the Court relative to their numbers in the general population
which only makes sense until you realize the pool of candidates in not the general population.
It’s a fact.
You think that fact doesn’t make sense?
Perhaps you meant that that fact is not the most relevant, and that a more relevant fact is: White men are still overrepresented on the Court relative to their numbers in the set of qualified potential nominees.
Thanks for prompting me to note that additional fact.
Here’s a fact.
When the second Black is sworn in to SCOTUS, Blacks will be over represented on the court.
Review HS math and recall that you need to identify the comparison population when determining whether a subset is or isn’t overrepresented in the comparison group.
Which comparison population will you choose? Surely you won’t choose the general population, given that you criticized that comparison, arguing “which only makes sense until you realize the pool of candidates in not the general population.”
White men are still overrepresented on the Court relative to their numbers in the general population.
Judicial experience is also overrepresented on the Court relative to their numbers in the general population. Using your logic, Presidents should seek nominees, in that regard, that are more representative of the general population. None of them are physically handicapped, none of them are low or middle class wage earners, all of them are college graduates, and so on and so on. Relative to the general population, SCOTUS doesn’t “represent” the vast majority of the general population. DUH! That’s because they are there to “represent” the Constitution, On Behalf Of, the general population…period.
As I already noted, a more relevant fact is: White men are still overrepresented on the Court relative to their numbers in the set of qualified potential nominees.
Do you agree that there are many qualified potential nominees who aren’t white men — all of them people who are well-qualified to ““represent” the Constitution, On Behalf Of, the general population”?
Do you agree that there are many qualified potential nominees who aren’t white men — all of them people who are well-qualified to ““represent” the Constitution, On Behalf Of, the general population”?
I’m not racist. I don’t consider skin color in determining who is qualified for anything.
When you noted that Barrett is a woman, were you being sexist? (I don’t assume so. I think it’s possible to first assess whether people are qualified and then notice other aspects of those qualified people — including race and sex — without being racist or sexist.)
When you noted that Barrett is a woman, were you being sexist?
If you are referring to my reply to enigma, in context, what I stated was that Trump was explicit in his preference for Barrett, and that it was Trump that announced his choice would be a woman. So no, I wasn’t being sexist, I was objectively reporting publicly available facts.
I think it’s possible to first assess whether people are qualified and then notice other aspects of those qualified people — including race and sex — without being racist or sexist.)
Good for you. The next step in your intellectual evolution will be to know that it is not just possible, but that it actually happens.
My first parenthetical sentence implies that I already know it happens, and I was, in fact, assuming that to be the case for you. Odd that you cut that sentence off in order to tell me to learn something I already know.
Since you agree that that can happen, now revisit my earlier question that you didn’t answer: first identify all of qualified potential nominees — all of the people who are well-qualified to ““represent” the Constitution, On Behalf Of, the general population” — and now notice the race and sex of each of the well-qualified potential nominees. Can you now agree that many aren’t white men?
now revisit my earlier question that you didn’t answer: first identify…
GFY. I’m not your research assistant. And since I’m neither racist or sexist, I wouldn’t even entertain as significant that race and sex were criteria to be well-qualified. But by all means, you do you.
FFS, I haven’t suggested that “race and sex were criteria to be well-qualified.”
I’ve pointed out the fact that for every person who’s well-qualified (using criteria that are unrelated to race and sex), one can then identify that person’s race and sex, and one can NOTE that many of the well-qualified people aren’t white men. NOTING this doesn’t turn it into a criterion for qualification, any more than noting that some dog breeds are small turns smallness into a criterion for being a dog breed.
If I NOTE that all of our Presidents have been men, that doesn’t imply that being a man is one of the qualifications for being President.
If you think that asking you to notice something that should be obvious constitutes research, that suggests that you’ve never worked as a researcher.
Blacks are in the Democrat camp, and relatively very few are conservative. That means white Democrats had a large selection of black candidates and should be blamed for the lack of diversity and prejudice. One can’t blame conservatives very much since the pickings are very small.
That you for making the point that Democrats are very prejudiced against blacks.
Clarence Thomas was a conservative pushed by a Missouri senator. He replaced Thurgood Marshall. That says it all.
So there is already a black man on the court. Breyer is a Jewish man. Kagan is a Jewish woman. Why is it critical for there to be a black man and woman but not a Jewish man and woman?
Who said that it’s critical for there to be a black man and woman on the Court?
Not Biden.
Who said that it’s critical for there to be a black man and woman on the Court?
Not Biden.
Biden limited himself to Black Female. (must assume a trans female would also work) The only inference can be Biden considers Black Female as critical, or his reasoning delves into the non sequitur. A very real possibility for Joe (or have we given up pushing the lie Biden is making any decisions? asking for a friend)
First, would someone teach JT some grammar? “While diverse, most on the list were men.” Has JT never heard of dangling modifiers? Second, JT renders his own argument absurdly trivial because it really is only about what was explicitly said, as opposed to what everyone knew was Bush’s motive and sense of imperative.. A Republican President asks the public to believe he really is considering other categories of candidates. JT purports to believe this. Is he naive? Or are bis ears just too aesthetically delicate for political language? Or is he just a disingenuous right-wing propagandist?
Or are
bishis ears just too aesthetically delicate for political language?Speaking of absurdly trivial, did you get your “talent” for mind-reading from Schiff?
“bis ears”
Would someone teach this person how to spell?
“disingenuous right-wing propagandist”
And how to use commas?
That doesn’t require commas. Just like you don’t need a comma in tall blond man.
“That doesn’t require commas. Just like you don’t need a comma in tall blond man.”
That is incorrect.
When two or more adjectives modify the same noun, those adjectives are separated by commas.
Not always, no.
It depends on whether they’re coordinate adjectives or cumulative adjectives. Coordinate adjectives do, but cumulative adjectives don’t.
“disingenuous right-wing propagandist” involves cumulative adjectives, where “disingenuous” modifies the phrase “right-wing propagandist.” In some cases, one can write it either way, but the meaning changes depending on whether there’s a comma (e.g., “deep, religious experience” versus “deep religious experience”).
Granted.
I took “disingenuous” as modifying “propagandist.”
roberg weisberg: So you were a fly on the wall, or are you telling us that you have clairvoyent powers? The Dems habitually use the “everybody knows” argument in lieu of facts. As for the personal attacks on Turley, spare us. There are enough trolls on this thread.
Thank you, giocon1
Giocon,
Is the Democrats’ “everybody knows” any different than Trump’s “people are saying” argument in lieu of facts?
I can always tell those coming from the Left because of their repetitive use of the word “disingenuous,”–a word that’s been around for years but seldom-and I do mean seldom-used–until Saint Obama used it. Now it comes up quite frequently. Thank you, Mr. Obama, for teaching your “disciples” (as Natacha would say) new words.
What bunk.
Here’s its frequency of use over time: https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=disingenuous&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=26&smoothing=3&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cdisingenuous%3B%2Cc0
If he did he’d be a Democrat.
Huh, I have been unable to find a pre-president Biden saying he will name a black woman to the Supreme Court. What I have found is this clip, but it does not say Supreme Court”, but “courts”. https://youtu.be/QeT6aHYMHd4
Noone is so blind as he who will not see. He was explicit and the clip is all over YouTube and was broadcast by NBC, ABC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN, FOX, etc., etc., etc., etc.
If I am elected President I will nominate a blind left handed transgender native American who has dementia to the Supreme Court. I implore you to vote for me.
The left’s futile attempt to find precedent for Uncle Joe’s “decision” somehow reminds me of the comic strip “The Family Circus”. Not sure why
In 2003, then-President George W. Bush nominated Janice Rogers Brown, an associate justice on the California Supreme Court to serve as a Judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
But Joe Biden, champion of civil rights and the president who has gloried in naming the first minorities to several positions in his administration, filibustered against her nomination and voted twice against her. When Biden had the chance to vote for a black woman, he declined.
Democrats are such racists.
Iowan2,
“ But Joe Biden, champion of civil rights and the president who has gloried in naming the first minorities to several positions in his administration, filibustered against her nomination and voted twice against her. When Biden had the chance to vote for a black woman, he declined.
Democrats are such racists.”
Republicans are intentional idiots.
Turley as usual is being disingenuous with the facts. The biggest irony is that It’s Turley and other Biden critics that are imposing race and gender qualifications on who he nominates to the Supreme Court.
Biden is not imposing a gender and race qualification at all. If Biden chose to nominate a black woman its his constitutional right to do so. In fact literally anyone can be nominated to the Supreme Court bench. Literally anyone since the constitution itself has no qualifications spelled out on who may be nominated.
Turley is just pushing back on rightful criticism of his claim that Biden is just using race and gender as qualifications when it’s in fact not true. What Turley and the majority of Biden’s critics who are losing their minds over his choice are only focusing on those two criteria. None that I have seen so far mentions actual qualifications of his options for nominees. What is being clearly implied by Turley and other critics of his choice to nominate a Black woman to the SC is that his choice will not be qualified because she just a black woman. Turley is more focused on the race and gender himself than the actual qualifications of Biden’s choices of black women jurists.
So what if Biden wants to put a black woman on the Supreme Court? If she has the qualifications why shouldn’t it be opposed? Unless it’s racists pushing the idea that she’s just being nominated because of race or gender?
Svelaz: Once again you completely misstate the argument, completely misinterpret Turley, and completely post gibberish. Comic relief.
Giocon1,
Nope. Turley is claiming Biden is imposing race and gender as qualifications for nominating a Supreme Court justice. That’s a blatant false claim. Turley never mentions qualifications at all. He is solely focusing on the race and gender aspect of his choice rather than the fact that Biden has the constitutional right to choose whoever he wants. Obviously there ARE qualified black women to nominate to the SC. Why shouldn’t he be able to nominate a black woman if he wants to? Everyone is implying he’s only choosing the nominee because of race and gender and therefore the choice will not be a qualified person.
Turley and other critics of Biden wanting to choose a blank woman are delegitimizing the nominee’s qualifications simply because she was chosen by her race and gender. If Biden is wrong for stating who he wants to nominate will others be as well because they chose a minority?
Turley is claiming Biden is imposing race and gender as qualifications for nominating a Supreme Court justice. That’s a blatant false claim.
So you’re asserting Biden is not imposing race and gender as qualifications? 🤔 Hmm? Let’s go to the tape and see if Biden, in his own words, has declared any specific qualifications as beyond debate.
While I’ve been studying candidates’ backgrounds and writings, I have made no decision except one.
The person I will nominate will be someone with extraordinary qualifications, character, experience and integrity.And that person will be the first Black woman ever nominated to the United States Supreme Court.Now apologize to Turley for projecting your habit of lying onto him.
Olly,
No need to apologize since Turley’s claim os still a false claim.
Here’s the whole statement,
“ Wednesday, I ran a column in the Wall Street Journal noting that President Joe Biden was imposing a race and gender qualification for the Supreme Court that has been rejected as either unconstitutional or unlawful by the Court for schools and businesses.”
President Biden is not a school or business. The constitutional right to nominate a SC justice has no limitations on how one might choose a nominee. Turley, who is a constitutional scholar should know the distinction clearly. Here he is being deliberately disingenuous.
Nothing prevents Biden from choosing whoever he wants. If he wanted to nominate a black woman to the SC. it’s his right as president. What Turley and others criticizing him are only focusing on is race and gender. Not the fact that he is choosing a qualified black woman.
Are qualified black women not worthy of consideration? Turley seems to imply Biden is only choosing a black woman because of her race. So what of he is? As long as she is qualified why should it matter?
I gave you exactly what Biden stated as the only decision he has made: And that person will be the first Black woman ever nominated to the United States Supreme Court.
This means that while Biden is …studying candidates’ backgrounds and writings,… and that The person I will nominate will be someone with extraordinary qualifications, character, experience and integrity… he is only going to nominate from his list a black woman.
That’s not a maybe, or he’s considering, or even a high priority. He is stating without any equivocation, that his nominee will be a black woman. Perhaps you don’t like the word imposing. Replace it then with requiring and the sentence reads the same.
Olly,
“ I gave you exactly what Biden stated as the only decision he has made:..”
Nope he stated that it was the decision he settled on. He mentioned qualifications first and foremost.
So what is wrong with Biden settling on choosing a qualified black woman? Turley compared his choice while mentioning that it is unconstitutional for a schools and businesses. Biden is not a school or business so what does that have to do with his choice?
You have reminded me of a joke I heard long ago.
A platoon sergeant was ordered by his company commander to inform Private Jones that his parents had died in a car wreck. The sergeant marched over to his platoon as they were standing in ranks and he shouted; Private Jones, your parents are dead! The company commander was notified of what the sergeant had done and he reprimanded him for his insensitivity. A month later the sergeant was told he had to inform Private Adams that his entire family had died in a house fire. So as he struggled to find a way to bring the news gently to private Jones, it suddenly came to him. Once again he marched over to his platoon standing in ranks and shouted; all of you with family back home, take one step forward…Private Adams, stand fast.
Problem solved. Lesson learned? It would be a great idea to consider things from a different perspective, before opening your mouth.
Anyway: Nope he stated that it was the decision he settled on. He mentioned qualifications first and foremost.
🤣 Great. So let’s pretend Biden published a 100 page job announcement detailing all the requirements that he would use to determine who he would nominate. He would expect to receive tons of applications from men and women of all races, colors, creeds, etc. etc. etc. But what he’s done in this case, is to tell all of them, all qualified applicants, take one step forward, if you ain’t a black woman, stand fast. At least he was compassionate enough to put that on the cover letter and not at the bottom of page 100.
“Biden is not a school or business so what does that have to do with his choice?”
I can only laugh at the idiocy this guy brings to the table.
Yes, his nominee will be a Black woman with extraordinary qualifications, character, experience, and integrity. Don’t cherrypick from what he said were essential characteristics.
If you read “While I’ve been studying candidates’ backgrounds and writings, I have made no decision except one. The person I will nominate will be someone with extraordinary qualifications, character, experience and integrity. And that person will be the first Black woman ever nominated to the United States Supreme Court,” and you know that it was transcribed from what he said, there are a couple of possibilities:
* He’s decided on multiple characteristics, even though he said “I have made no decision except one.”
* The transcriber introduced a sentence break where there shouldn’t be one, and the “one” thing he decided is “The person I will nominate will be someone with extraordinary qualifications, character, experience and integrity, and that person will be the first Black woman ever nominated to the United States Supreme Court.”
Either way, it’s dishonest to ignore multiple characteristics that he said he’d decided on.
We know you are hoping people get lost in your words and circuitous statements.
Most intelligent people on the blog are used to that type of BS.
Let’s go back and look at this. Biden mentioned those “qualifying” traits on 27 January 2022. Almost two years prior, @ 25 February 2020, Biden,- on the edge of losing the Democratic primary and with sinking numbers, pledged to South Carolina’s Black voters that he would nominate a Black female to SCOTUS (after private conversations with Jim Clyburn). I suggest he made no mention of those qualities or traits at that time. Please correct me if I am wrong.
I’m discussing Olly’s quote and the false claim that Olly made about that quote.
Whatever Biden said on multiple other occasions, that’s not going to change the statement that Olly quoted or the fact that Olly is ignoring several of the characteristics in the statement he quoted. He literally used strikeout text and pretended that it wasn’t relevant to interpreting the quote.
Anonymous, be happy. Biden screwed up more than you.
I literally struck out the text instead of omitting it to reflect that that text had become subordinate to his race and sex discrimination.
You’re welcome.
Olly, Biden didn’t say that the qualifications you struck out are subordinate.
He said that potential nominees have to have all six characteristics, not just the two you focus on. That’s his one decision so far: potential nominees have to have all six characteristics.
That’s his one decision so far
That is a flat out, provable lie. In his own words, the only decision he had made regarding his nomination is that it be a black women.
Now that you have embarrassingly retreated back to square one, try again with someone else.
Olly, he literally said “While I’ve been studying candidates’ backgrounds and writings, I have made no decision except one. The person I will nominate will be someone with extraordinary qualifications, character, experience and integrity. And that person will be the first Black woman ever nominated to the United States Supreme Court.” His one decision is a nominee with all 6 characteristics: extraordinary qualifications, character, experience, integrity, Black, woman.
If you think my claim is “a flat out, provable lie,” then prove it.
You’re the one who is ignoring his own words and pretending that his only decision is the last two of the 6 characteristics he explicitly identified. If someone should be embarrassed here, it’s not me.
” His one decision is a nominee with all 6 characteristics: “
extraordinary qualifications: Can be any race or sex
character: Can be any race or sex
experience: Can be any race or sex
integrity: Can be any race or sex
Black: Excludes all Hispanic, Asians, Caucasians etc.
Woman: Excludes all men
Racism and sexism.
Turley is being paid to use his credentials as an alleged “legal scholar” to support the Fox News anti-Biden and pro-Trump narrative. Trump only nominated people vetted first by the Federalist Society because of their anti-abortion stance, because this reels in the Evangelicals, a sure-bet for Republicans. That’s the simple answer here, and it’s sad. I’ve said it before: Trump’s not worth losing your credibility.
Giocon, one cannot expect more from Svelaz. Despite the FDA report in front of his hands stating that only Comirnaty was approved, Svelaz continued on his merry way. He does the same thing over and over again. His emotions dominate his eyes and ears. He interprets few things correctly.
The biggest irony is that It’s (sic) Turley and other Biden critics that are imposing race and gender qualifications on who (sic) he (sic) nominates (sic) to the Supreme Court.
Your English grammar utilization is atrocious
If she has the qualifications why shouldn’t (sic) it (sic) be opposed?
Take the time to think about what you wish to convey in your words since your comments are loaded with ironic contradictions
Anonymous,
I was rushed and was using talk to txt to post that. Nevertheless the point I was trying to make is still intact.
I think it actually is common practice now in some businesses to hire based on race especially when clients demand a certain percentage of minorities. It’s kind of hard to avoid. Or maybe making a ‘diversity hire’ allows enough variety that it’s not just saying you will hire from one race – so not as exclusionary.
If you want the real story, check out the documentary “Boogie Man…the Lee Atwater Story” that came out about 2009. It’s top Republicans, including former White House cabinet members, telling the truth about Republican strategy.
Ash….I would greatly enjoy reading an insider’s account of Democrat Strategy….but have had to settle for Indictments and IG Reports, or the odd Special Counsel Report in lieu of the Insider’s account as they all take the Fifth or plead failed memories…..or in some cases get hung up to dry.
” Trump told a crowd shortly before his announcement on the replacement for the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg that the nominee would be a women. However, he never limited the list to women and actively considered men for the position. Indeed, his 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,”
Turley double-speak. If Trump said the nominee would be a woman before making his final choice, what difference did it make if there were men on a list provided by the Heritage Foundation?
If Trump said the nominee would be a woman before making his final choice,…
If, if, if,…well sure. All of your wish-casting however won’t make it true.
Trump told a crowd shortly before his announcement,…
That’s “announcement” not “choice.” Meaning nothing more than he had made his choice and it was a woman.
Did you read the story, Trump hadn’t made his choice yet.
Did you read the story, Trump hadn’t made his choice yet.
I did. He had a short list and he stated his preferred choice was Barrett. He wanted to name his nominee before the next debate, but only after Gingsburg had been buried. So without naming names, he announced his choice would be a woman. That’s a far cry different from announcing he would only consider a woman that was black.
We’ll, maybe.
enigmainblackcom: Trump was describing the person he had already chosen. That’s very different from saying a priori that he was only going to consider women for his future choice.
Trump didn’t know any of these people, and didn’t, and still doesn’t, know much about the SCOTUS or how it works. He did what his handlers told him would bring in Republican votes, and that was to get a list from the Federalist Society. He actually thought that the SCOTUS would award him the election in 2020 because he nominated 3 of the judges. He was quoted as saying that Kavanaugh was “nothing” until he made him. So, please stop trying to make Trump sound like he’s some kind of statesman or leader.
During the primary, Biden wanted togarner support with black voters
Oh no! You’ve made a fellow Constitutional law Prof’s ire by using ‘garner’ in a sentence. Althouse will not be happy when she gets back from her run. God have mercy on your soul if you wear shorts! You may never get out of the blogosphere pillory, for multiple sensory offenses.