“This the Constitution Forbids”: Biden’s Race and Gender Criteria for the Court Were Rejected By The Court in Past Cases

Below is my column in the Wall Street Journal on President Joe Biden’s promise almost two years ago that he would only consider a black female for the first vacancy on the Supreme Court. The column produced a significant response from commentators. However, 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. It is worth discussing even if one believes that the Court membership is a type of bona fide occupational qualification or if one simply rejects the very premise of the Court’s barring such criteria in past cases. The benefit of having a diverse Court is obvious but, if we want to use an express exclusionary rule, we should be able to discuss why it is appropriate for the Court and those institutions or businesses barred in past case.

Instead, commentators suggested that I ignored that prior presidents made such preferential picks. That is not true. My point was that Biden’s pledge was entirely unnecessary since he could have stated that he wanted to appoint a black female without barring consideration of other candidates on the basis of their race or gender. It is the difference between a preferential and exclusionary process. Commentators insisted that Ronald Reagan, Donald Trump, and George H.W. Bush made the same pledge. That is also false. While seeking to appoint women and African Americans, none of the three excluded other races or genders from consideration and had diverse short lists. Yet, even if they did, the question remains: should admission to the Court be based on an exclusionary threshold qualification that the Court has rejected as unconstitutional or unlawful for schools and businesses?

Here is the column:

The announcement of Justice Stephen Breyer’s retirement has whistled the start of that Washington blood sport known as a Supreme Court confirmation. While the filibuster-free process guarantees President Joe Biden that he has the votes to pick anyone acceptable to all Senate Democrats, this fight is different from any in history in one respect. As a candidate, Mr. Biden pledged to select the next justice first and foremost on race and sex.

“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,” he said in a South Carolina debate. This reportedly helped win him the key endorsement of Rep. Jim Clyburn, the House majority whip.

With the court set to rule on racial preferences in college admissions, it raises the question of whether it is appropriate for a politician to use a criterion that the court itself has found unconstitutional for public educational institutions and unlawful for businesses.

It also means Mr. Biden’s short list will be much shorter than usual. The three leading candidates are Justice Leondra Krueger of the California Supreme Court, U.S. Circuit Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson and U.S. District Judge Michelle Childs. These are all worthy candidates who could have been considered for any vacancy without declaring that they were qualified by virtue of filling a quota—an unfortunate implication for the ultimate nominee.Mr. Biden could have learned something from the universities now defending their admissions policies in Students for Fair Admissions v. President & Fellows of Harvard College and Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina. For decades, universities have avoided the type of outright quota the court held unconstitutional in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978). “Preferring members of any one group for no reason other than race or ethnic origin is discrimination for its own sake,” Justice Lewis Powell wrote. “This the Constitution forbids.”

In the following years, the court struck down some racial preferences in college admissions, but others survived such scrutiny by relying on “diversity” rationales, in which race was a factor but not the dominant one. While critics have argued that these universities evaded Bakke and later cases, the stated rationale of preserving a “critical mass” of diversity has made it difficult for challengers to allege racial discrimination.

In 2003 the justices considered two different University of Michigan admissions programs. In Grutter v. Bollinger, they upheld one that evaluated applicants based on individual merit, then used race as a “plus factor.” In Gratz v. Bollinger, they rejected one that applied individual considerations after a “threshold” use of race. (Justice Breyer voted with the majority in both cases.) Mr. Biden, by contrast, promised not only to take account of race (and sex) before all other criteria, but to exclude all male or nonblack nominees regardless of their credentials. Similar uses of race—including prioritizing black farmers for pandemic relief—have prompted courts to strike down Biden administration programs as raw racial discrimination.

Mr. Biden’s use of such threshold exclusions is neither unlawful nor judicially reviewable. Yet it’s also unnecessary. Mr. Biden could have selected a black woman for the court while maintaining, as universities do, that he would consider all possible candidates on the totality of their records. He wanted to go beyond other candidates and expressly pledge to apply what is by definition a discriminatory threshold criterion. It was a pledge meant to blunt criticism from other Democrats, including Sen. Kamala Harris, that he had opposed school busing and affirmative action early in his career. In 1975, for example, Sen. Biden declared “I do not buy the concept, popular in the ’60s, which said, ‘We have suppressed the black man for 300 years and the white man is now far ahead in the race for everything our society offers. In order to even the score, we must now give the black man a head start, or even hold the white man back, to even the race.’ ”

Mr. Biden is now going to create one of the more jarring and incongruous moments in the history of the Supreme Court. This fall, in the Harvard and University of North Carolina cases, the justices will hear arguments that the use of race in admissions is unlawful discrimination. One of them will have gained her seat in part through exclusionary criteria of race and sex.

Justice Powell declared in Bakke that “preferring members of any one group for no reason other than race or ethnic origin is discrimination for its own sake.” By keeping his 2020 pledge, Mr. Biden will engage in discrimination for his own sake.

Mr. Turley is a law professor at George Washington University.

182 thoughts on ““This the Constitution Forbids”: Biden’s Race and Gender Criteria for the Court Were Rejected By The Court in Past Cases”

  1. Many may have already heard this new Kid Rock song, but in considering what I’ve heard/seen myself before & this weekend, well, I think as always be on guard & ready, I think they want us all gone off the lands they intend to steal though building codes, regs & violent force against us. I don’t think they can get away with it if their plans are pointed out & explained to people.

    Just think, Multiple Multi Family Dwellings close into Walmarts & a Hospital, all they lack is a fence & then they are just another form of a concentration camp. Most no one shows up at those meetings about tax abutments & Zoning Maps. Do you really think the people that do show up do it because they love & your family. If you do you need to go get a tat on your forehead that says Gullable’s Gullable.

    We The People – Kid Rock (LYRICS) #WeThePeople #KidRock #Lyrics
    Jan 27, 2022

    1. & one other thing, most no one will likely notice my typo of the word abutment when it should have been abatement.

  2. Affirmative action originally had noble goals: Providing equal outcomes over time between equally qualified candidates. Today, affirmative action is used to provide a privilege to one race not provided to another. That has resulted in two negative outcomes: The unqualified are promoted often resulting in ultimate failure, which ultimately reflects negatively on that race as a whole. Second, if enough unqualified applicants are promoted it stains the qualified for the rest of their careers with an asterisk.

    Even if Biden is successful in appointing a qualified candidate, because he publicly announced that race and gender will be primary consideration, that candidate will serve out their career with a cloud over every decision they make. Biden will have done her no favors.

    1. Exactly right, Brian. Imagine being Biden’s appointee, knowing that you were selected to serve on Supreme Court explicitly because of your race and sex. Knowing that you were selected as a political prop by a President who has fallen into the abyss of cognitive decline in a desperate attempt to rally his fading political base in time for the midterm elections. Knowing that the tiebreaking vote for your confirmation will likely be cast by a overmatched, historically unpopular vice president who was also selected explicitly because of her race and sex. That your lifetime of hard work and achievement will be forever soiled by the circumstances of your appointment. You know it. The other justices know it. Even Anonymous knows it. What an unfair position for the justices involved. Worse yet, what an unfair position for the millions of Americans who have to live with the consequences of their decisions.

      1. Epstein,

        I agree. I believe that Biden’s announcement that only black women will be considered is nothing but a weak attempt at virtue signaling to his shrinking base.

        Biden should simply have stated that he will choose the most qualified candidate of all possible candidates. If he then announced that he had chosen the most qualified candidate and this person is a black lady this would have elevated this lady above ALL other candidates. She would have been pronounced to be ‘the best of the best’ that America has to offer. This would be have been a proud moment for all black Americans, women and men alike.

        As it now stands, the best that his choice can claim is that she was the best choice out of a narrow 7% slice of the population. While some blacks may appreciate the formal recognition of their race, albeit through affirmative action, it will by no means be the same as seeing one of their own achieve great success on merit alone.

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

      – Karl Marx, Communist Manifesto

      Freedom, free enterprise, free markets, privacy and private property.

      – U.S. Constitution

    3. Reading the top three vitas for the black female candidates commonly noted in press, they all have much more judicial and legal practice than Bush’s appointment of “Silent” Thomas!

      1. You have 30 years of Authored Majority opinions to show that Thomas was not qualified to serve. Nobody ever does that. For some reason you pick a non sequitor in a weak attempt of a smear.

    4. Brian, I agree entirely but there are other costs:

      1. By choosing the less qualified over the more qualified there is a net loss to our society: a subtle and perhaps even unmeasurable but virtually certain diminution of quality and competence over time.

      2. The racially privileged groups will have less incentive to work hard and do well, since their race rather than their competence will be their ticket to success. This too will reduce quality and competence over time, and reduce the likelihood that the capabilities of the racially privileged groups will improve, further justifying the system of racial privileges.

      3. The racially disfavoured groups will become demoralised and angry as their accomplishments are disregarded in favour of the less qualified.

      It is hard to imagine a political ideology more likely than “anti-racism” as practiced by today’s elites to undermine and ultimately destroy a socioeconomic system based on decentralised decision making relying on judgments of effectiveness and competence.

  3. Jonathan: Following up my earlier comment you are probably surprised to hear Lindsey Graham, the GOP Senator from S. Carolina, has apparently come out in support of Michelle Childs who is on Biden’s short list of potential nominees to the SC. He says he “can’t think of a better person” to serve on the Court. This doesn’t mean Graham will vote for whoever Biden nominates. Childs is also from S. Carolina and it would be awkward if Graham didn’t support a nominee from his home state. This is not the first time Graham has gone off the GOP reservation by mostly voting for Biden’s picks for judicial appointments because he believes that a president who wins an election gets to pick well qualified judges, in spite of their race and even though Graham may not agree with the candidate’s political philosophy. Obviously, Graham didn’t get your memo or, if he did, he has chosen to ignore it. Clearly, you still have a lot of work to do among Senate Republicans!

  4. JT may be making it more difficult for the conservative justices to further limit or get rid of preferences and affirmative action in admission to schools in the pending cases. After all, he keeps reminding everyone that there is nothing wrong with the use of racial and gender preferences by several Republican Presidents in their Supreme Court nominations.

      1. Brian, Not sure why you think the JT article you cite does not support my statement. I’d be willing to work with you in revising the statement if you think certain wording could be improved. Thanks.

  5. Speaking of what the Constitution forbids …

    Brad Heath of Reuters, in response to a statement released by Trump tonight: 
    “In case there was any lingering doubt about whether President Trump really did want his vice president to overturn the results of the 2020 election and keep him in power despite having lost. … [quoting Trump:] ‘Mike Pence did have the right to change the outcome [of Congress’s certification of the Electoral College vote]… Unfortunately, he didn’t exercise that power, he could have overturned the Election!'”

    Trump is lying that Pence had a legal right to do that. Trump is telling the truth that he wanted Pence to overturn the election.

    Trump will go down in history as a shameful con artist who tried to convince his VP to act unconstitutionally. May he end up in jail, where he belongs.

    1. So tell me. What does one do when there is obvious evidence that election laws were broken, unconstitutional acts committed and because of that hundreds of thousands of votes for your political opponent could be fraudulent? Say “Oh well?”

      See Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Arizona, Georgia

      Trust me, I will remind you of that the next time progressives complain about Republican blithely dismissing corruption claims about their actions.

      The Left’s, propensity to run away from, block, and delay any transparency on their actions speaks volumes.

      See John Durham’s indictment of Michael Sussman for a succinct summary of same. Its a tale of slow moving treason and insurrection far worse than a protest gone out of control.

      1. Brian, I agree with your concerns about the election, but the VP does not have the power unilaterally to reject certification by states as Trump has asserted. To the extent that power resides anywhere in the Federal political branches, it is with Congress as a whole.

      2. First, there’s a difference between “could be” and “are,” and what I’ve read about the audits in your chosen states shows that there weren’t hundreds of thousands of fraudulent votes. Since you didn’t include what you’re taking as evidence, there’s no way to know if we’re looking at the same evidence. Second, don’t pretend that saying “Oh well” is the only alternative.

        What do you do if you believe your claim? You convince someone with legal standing to file suit and offer to support them in doing so (e.g., by paying the legal costs), and then when the courts reach their final rulings, you accept them. Some election laws are always broken — we know this, because after every election, some voters are convicted of voter fraud. The issue isn’t whether there was some fraud, but whether there was sufficient fraud to change the results. That is determined in court.

        What you do NOT do as President is pressure your VP to act unconstitutionally, betraying your own oath of office and asking him to betray his.

        Just what do you think I’m “blithely dismissing”? I’m pointing out that Trump is publicly lamenting that Pence did not unilaterally “change the outcome” of the 2020 presidential election and “overturn[] the election.” What he wanted Pence to do is unconstitutional. Fortunately, Pence didn’t do it.

        I’ve read Durham’s indictment of Michael Sussman. I’ve also read careful analyses of the indictment AND subsequent court filings (https://www.emptywheel.net/tag/michael-sussmann/). I disagree with your opinion that “Its a tale of slow moving treason and insurrection far worse than a protest gone out of control,” and I’ll wait and see what the court says.

        1. “What you do NOT do as President is pressure your VP to act unconstitutionally, betraying your own oath of office and asking him to betray his.”

          But you can do that to your attorney general or IRS head or the FBI etc.

          Presidents don’t always act as they should, but you only recognize the minor faults of Trump that do not lead to a loss of liberty or strength of the nation, but you neglect those that do as long as it is the left doing it.

  6. OT

    Congress must impeach President Joe Biden, Border Czar Kamala Harris, Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkis et al. for treason and dereliction of duty.

    Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Haiti, Cuba et al. are enemies of the United States that have allowed and facilitated criminal crossing of an international border and invasion of a sovereign foreign nation.

    President Joke Biden, Border Czar Kamala Harris, Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkis et al. have willfully and deliberately engaged “…in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort…”, those enemies being Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Haiti, Cuba et al.

    U.S. Constitution

    Article 3, Section 3

    Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

  7. HINT – IT’S NOT BECAUSE HE WAS A GREATER THREAT TO DEMOCRACY: Why is it that the January 6 Buffalo Horn Guy got four years in prison, while Kevin Klinesmith, the FBI lawyer who altered documents submitted to the secret FISA court in support of the Russia Collusion hoax, was let off with probation?

      1. No, because in order qualify for prison the prosecution had to prove intent. His “alteration” was unintentional. Therefore it didn’t warrant prison time.

        1. No, Klinesmith chose to plead guilty, so the prosecutor didn’t have to prove intent, and Klinesmith admitted that the alteration was intentional. The actual contested issue is whether he altered it with intent to deceive. He believed the alteration to be a true description, and he regretted that it was misleading.

          It’s often the case that people serve less time for white collar crime than for other crimes. Chansley also chose to plead guilty and was convicted of obstructing the certification of the EC vote — the peaceful transfer of power that’s central to our democracy. He used his bullhorn to rile up other protesters, refused police orders, joined others in forcing Pence and Senators to leave the Senate, gave an interview saying about members of Congress “The fact that we had a bunch of our traitors in office hunker down, put on their gas masks and retreat into their underground bunker, I consider that a win.” It’s not surprising that a judge considers this more serious.

          1. Yeah, just an innocent little faux pas when an FBI lawyer alters the fundamental meaning of a document submitted to the undercover FISA court to support secret spying on the deep state’s most hated political opponent. If you can’t trust Jim Comey’s FBI, who can you trust?

            I’m with Mespo.

            1. He didn’t submit it to the FISC. He submitted it to someone within his own agency.

              He also didn’t knowingly change the meaning. He believed that he was accurately describing Page’s relationship with the CIA. The CIA doesn’t refer to people as sources.

              1. Sure, Klinesmith wasn’t a threat to democracy at all. Just another misunderstood victim who suffered far too much. 400 hours of community service was just piling on.

        2. No, because in order qualify for prison the prosecution had to prove intent. His “alteration” was unintentional.

          I learned very early in my career, NEVER alter a source document. That lesson was taught to me by government regulators. And the explanation was short NEVER, followed by the the punishment of fines and prison.

          There is NEVER a reason to alter an email used to support a warrant.

      2. I guess you’ve already heard what one old Boob said to the other old Boob, ” That if we don’t find support soon people are going to think we’re Nuts!”

        Speaking of Old Boobs, I hate to have to inform you guys, Prof Turley, Mostly Honest Lawyer, Cindy, You & even I are now disqualified from being considered for this Supreme Court seat as we’ve not Tanned enough Boobs.

        My God, where the hell the door out of this Idiocracy 2.0. LOL;)


        Main part 2:44 seconds:

        IDIOCRACY 2: Prophecy Fulfilled


        Jan 28, 2022
        Darrin McBreen
        Darrin McBreen

        The disturbingly hilarious film has become a reality.


    1. They think Horn guy is just another Chattel Slave & that crooked lawyer is a wannbe member of the Praetorian Guard & they, the Elite Globalist, demand you/us b- stards know it & know our new place in this collapsed society.

      But they’ve, ( Klaus Schwab/Kissinger’s proteges), Failed so far.

  8. The Russia Collusion Hoax: What did Hillary know and when did she know it?

  9. The Russia Collusion Hoax: What did Biden know and when did he know it?

    1. Where are the progressive trolls on this one? If one of them had said that Biden was too cognitively impaired to understand the plot, we could have found common cause. As more and more Americans are beginning to realize, Biden is coming awfully close to uniting the nation. Yet we still let him pick the next Supreme Court justice. What could possibly go wrong?

  10. The ABA proclaimed it proudly


    Left Turn Permitted

    Move over Federalist Society members. There’s a new kid in town.

    If early appointments are any indication, the American Constitution Society for Law and Policy, the left-leaning equivalent of the Federalist Society, will be heavily rep­­re­sented in the administration of President Barack Obama. Already, ACS members Eric Holder and Lisa Brown have positions in the Obama White House, as attorney general and White House staff secretary, respectively.

    Translation: Peter Shill needs to troll less and get Hawaiian lei’d


  11. The Democrats use their own liberal activist organization known as the American Constitution Society.

    “ACS was created as a counterweight to, and is modeled after, the Federalist Society, and is often described as its progressive counterpart.” – Wiki


    American Constitution Society statement on Justice Breyer’s Retirement

    Washington, DC —Justice Stephen Breyer’s announcement that he will retire comes as no surprise, but it certainly calls for a moment of reflection, appreciation, and action.

    Justice Breyer’s 27 years on the Supreme Court and his 14 years of service on the First Circuit Court of Appeals were marked by the characteristics that define a thoughtful jurist of great intellect and integrity. In his 2006 book Active Liberty, he urged judges to focus on the Constitution’s “democratic objective” and stressed “the importance of [] considering practical consequences” when interpreting the Constitution.

    As Russ Feingold, president of ACS, said, “I was pleased to vote for Justice Breyer’s confirmation to the Supreme Court, and I praise his commitment to interpreting the Constitution as a living document, influenced by the context of the times in which we live. I applaud his conviction that our laws and legal systems should protect the lives of all people, and not just the partisan interests of a few.”

    We at ACS are grateful for his past appearances at our national convention and hope he will continue to share his wisdom with us in what we know will be a productive retirement.

    We urge the Biden-Harris administration to act quickly to nominate a candidate to fill Justice Breyer’s seat, though he can certainly never be replaced, and we urge the Senate to promptly take up that nomination. We look forward to President Biden fulfilling his commitment to nominate a Black woman to the Supreme Court.

    The President’s and Senate’s responsibility to fill Justice Breyer’s seat on the Court does not, in any way, remedy the Right’s packing of the Supreme Court or the Court’s resulting legitimacy crisis. Our highest court is currently controlled by a conservative supermajority, achieved exclusively through the Right’s theft of Justices Scalia’s and Ginsburg’s seats, that is increasingly hostile to our constitutional rights and the guardrails of our democracy. To protect the legitimacy of our highest court and of our democracy, we must redress the Right’s packing of the Court. This includes by adding seats to the Supreme Court, ending life tenure in favor of term limits for justices, and restricting the use of the shadow docket.



    ACS believes that the Constitution is “of the people, by the people, and for the people.” We interpret the Constitution based on its text and against the backdrop of history and lived experience. Through a diverse nationwide network of progressive lawyers, law students, judges, scholars, and many others, we work to uphold the Constitution in the 21st Century by ensuring that law is a force for protecting our democracy and the public interest and for improving people’s lives. For more information, visit us on Twitter @acslaw.

    1. Estovar: Yikes! Thank you for exposing this press release to readers, I likely would not have seen it otherwise.

      1. Yes, thanks Estovar! The existence of the liberal Constitution Society as a source for liberal judicial nominees certainly takes the wind out of leftist arguments that the conservative practice of choosing judicial nominees from the conservative Federalist Society is somehow wrong.

        1. Ray in SC: Ray! I don’t employ the option of “notification by email” of responses to comments, so I didn’t see your question until yesterday, so I truly apologize. By then, I think several other persons had (in their own way) addressed your concerns and new articles/posts replaced the others.

    2. “We interpret the Constitution based on its text and against the backdrop of history and lived experience. Through a diverse nationwide network of progressive lawyers, law students, judges, scholars, and many others, we work to uphold the Constitution in the 21st Century by ensuring that law is a force for protecting our democracy and the public interest and for improving people’s lives.”.

      Complete and utter bovine fecal matter folks……they have it exactly wrong way around.

      Our history and lived experiences stem from the Constitution.and the role it plays in establishing our system of government and laying out the Rights of Citizens and the limitations upon government.

      Supposedly educated people can sure talk stupid.

      We should be very alert to the dangers posed by large groups of stupid people. The amount of damage they can do can never be overestimated.

      1. A lot of relevant history predates the US Constitution. A lot of relevant history that affected both the ultimate text of the Constitution and also people’s lived experiences occurred outside the US.

  12. @anonymous

    Of course, you won’t answer or comment on my points. You don’t have to, you’re on the side of the angels and I am a deplorable. You don’t debate “white supremacists”, right? Trolling (I call it mocking leftist absurdity and double standards) is the only way people similarly situated to myself can fight back. No one with your belief system faces job loss, doxxing and destruction by their political opponents.

    I am not out to debate or change any leftists mind (and that includes YOU); I want a DIVORCE. And as more mainstream conservatives realize that they aren’t going to vote their way out of their current predicament, this divorce will become a reality. I promise once we are gone, we won’t stand in the way of the utopia you believe you are creating.


  13. Republicans Have Appointed Only Federalists To The Court

    Wow, that’s ‘diversity’; 6 Federalists in a row from successive Republican presidents. And we’re supposed to think that Biden’s limiting choices??

    The Federalist Sociey is essentially a finishing school for judges. It’s members carry a political purity seal of approval. If appointed to the bench, a Federalist will rule in lock step with other Federalists.

    Federalists believe in corporate personhood. Though there’s no one to actually put in jail when only the corporation is convicted of wrongdoing. Nevertheless corporations should be thought of as ‘individuals’ with regards to political donations.

    Federalists also recognize ‘Second Ammendment Rights’ as a pillar of our Constitution. Never mind that guns were heavily regulated for much of our history. The Roberts Court believes our Founding Fathers intended for Open Carry laws to prevail in even modern, urban settings.

    But while Federalists are absolute purists with regards to ‘Second Ammendment rights’, women seeking abortions will find no sympathy from Federalists. Because ‘Second Ammendment Rights’ and ‘Right To Privacy’ are two completely different matters. ‘The unborn have the same right to personhood as corporate donors’, if that makes any sense.

    But anyway, Republican presidents shouldn’t be thought of as exclusionary for appointing only Federalist judges. And smart-mouthed liberals attempting to raise this spector should be dismissed at once as far-left radicals.

  14. Jonathan: You are beating a dead horse. You lost the argument with most legal and constitutional experts over your claim that Biden’s selection of a Black female for the SC is illegal “affirmative action” , a “threshold exclusionary rule” or establishing a “quota” system for Court nominees. You admit that there is nothing “unlawful nor judicially reviewable” in what Biden intends to do. Only the Senate can reject a SC nominee. Like Don Quixote–you are tilting at windmills!

    Now let’s get to more important issues. Yesterday at a rally in Texas Trump said he would pardon the insurrectionist who attacked the Capitol on Jan. 6. He had a good reason to make this promise. Many of those arrested and charged have complained that Trump didn’t pardon them before he left office. I mean he did encourage their violet attack. At the time Trump really didn’t care about their legal plight. Now Trump realizes he needs the support of the Proud Boys and other right-wing groups if he intends to run in 2024. Also in his often incoherent, rambling and English mangling style speeches Trump called for a nationwide protest if prosecutors investigating his election fraud, tax fraud and other assorted crimes “do anything illegal”: “If these radical, vicious, racist [?!] prosecutors do anything wrong or illegal, I hope we are going to have in this country the biggest protest…”. Trump also called the prosecutors “mentally sick”. Now Trump is neither a psychiatrist nor a legal expert. Trump has become paranoid over the various investigation of him and his businesses because they may finally hold Trump accountable for all his crimes. As one of country’s leading legal experts what say you about Trump’s spurious claims against the prosecutors?

  15. @anonymous

    What about my comment regarding standards? Of course, you won’t touch that. Just name call, something leftists do best.

    Ok, I am going to further try my hand at “wokespeak”; again I will need help from a member of the “woke” persuasion.

    There are no differences between any group of people other than visible, physical differences. After all, “race” is a social construct. So when certain groups repeatedly fail or underachieve regarding college admissions, hiring, or commit a disproportionate level of crimes, it can only mean that the standards themselves are “racist” and must be lowered or eliminated.

    From a 1970’s liberal at Yale. Guess he would be considered a “white supremacist” now.


    Again, am I misstating any of this?


    1. You may want me to pretend that you’re a good faith discussant, but your consistent choice to refer to people as “S@@tlibs” proves otherwise.

      It is truly ironic that you refer to “S@@tlibs” and then complain about name calling from someone else.

      Your claim that “There are no differences between any group of people other than visible, physical differences” is bunk. Groups can differ in lots of non-physical or non-visible ways (e.g., differences in mean wealth, differences in access to high quality prenatal care, epigenetic differences arising from repeated trauma that are then passed down). But you’re not here to have a good faith discussion of your claims, and I won’t pretend you are.

  16. Ketanji Brown Jackson. Leondra Kruger. J. Michelle Childs.

    Do you know these names? According to media reports, they are the names on President Biden’s short list of Supreme Court candidates. All of them made the President’s cut for two reasons. Because they are progressive ideologues that can be counted on to deliver the vote. And because they are black females.

    Imagine being on the Supreme Court and having to vote on cases involving race and sex-based preferences. Knowing that you were selected explicitly because of your race and sex. Knowing that you were selected by a President who has fallen off the cliff of cognitive decline in a desperate attempt to salvage his political base. That your lifetime of hard work and achievement will be forever soiled by the circumstances of your appointment. You know it. The other justices know it. Everyone in America knows it. And everyone who isn’t afraid to talk about it tries to pretend that it is an advantage.

    What an unfair position for the justices involved. Worse yet, what an unfair position for the millions of Americans affected by their decisions.

  17. Biden doesn’t care whether his selection further divides the country. He’s following Obama’s playbook and doing it because he can. It will meet with approval from his far-left constituents, and that’s all he cares about. His party will take a drubbing in the mid-term elections, but he doesn’t care about that either. He’s gearing up for a run for re-election, and thinks he has to appease black female voters. The selection has nothing to do with diversity, as the very premise of that concept is that all people of a certain race think alike. And since the Court already has Justice Thomas, a true believer in diversity would say that the African-American viewpoint is thus represented. A truly diverse appointment would be of an Asian-American, but they’re considered passive, and will continue to vote Democrat no matter how much the party ignores them. And Kamala is an unlikely choice, as she doesn’t have the academic bonafides. Her parents were both Berkeley PH.D’s, yet she couldn’t get into Berkeley or Berkeley Law as both a black and a double-legacy! She must have had some seriously sad grades and test scores!

    1. President Susan Rice and Vice President Valerie Jarrett are following Obama’s playbook, insofar as it comports with the global communist playbook directed by Dear Leader and General Secretary Xi Jinping.

      Abraham Lincoln began following the communist playbook of Karl Marx in 1860 and America has undergone a “progressive” evolution to full communism since then.

      To wit,

      Letter from Karl Marx to Abraham Lincoln, 1864/1865:


  18. Unqualified and comparatively underqualified, affirmative action nominees must be rejected upon advice and consent.

    Certainly, more highly qualified candidates can be identified and produced from pools of red, brown, yellow and white citizens.

    Joke Biden must be impeached for deliberate sabotage of the judicial branch and America, and for the treasonous acts of “…adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.”

    America’s enemies, China, Russia, North Korea, Vietnam, Cuba et al., fully support, encourage and approve of any and all acts to diminish the United States by Joke Biden.

  19. the question remains: should admission to the Court be based on an exclusionary threshold qualification that the Court has rejected as unconstitutional or unlawful for schools and businesses.

    The Elect are religious zealots who care not a whit about logic (e.g. CRT), the US Constitution (e.g. Ron Klain’s OSHA “workaround”), or laws on violent crime (e.g. George Soros funded DAs). Joe Biden, Biden’s handlers, the Legacy Media, and DNC elitists are part of the Elect that Black academic professor John McWhorter discusses viz. a viz Black victimhood. The Democrats cant stop their lust for keeping Blacks down as their rightful slaves because Blacks are too dumb to know any better.


    …..there are people who exaggerate the degree of their victimhood, and by extension, groups of people who do. …..
    The syndrome manifests itself according to these four facets:

    1) Constantly seeking recognition of one’s victimhood

    2) Frequently ruminating about past discrimination

    3) A sense of moral elitism, as a way to maintain a positive self-image

    4) Lack of empathy for the pain and suffering of others

    It is impossible not to recognize a certain strain of thought in the black American community in those four tenets, let’s face it. The parallel is almost eerie, and too close to be insignificant. The constant seeking of recognition as a victim – i.e. beyond what reality would lead one to expect – is, unfortunately, most writing on race today: the guilty sense you may have that racism exists but a great many thinkers exaggerate about it is stimulated by this facet of the victimhood identity. Too, the sense one may have that black people resist the basic coping strategy of getting beyond the past is due to the ruminating aspect….. Black people, black parents, black students, must understand the nature of this victimhood mindset, the fact that we suffer from it disproportionately, and get out from under it…. We must get past the idea that for the descendants of African slaves and only us, studied defeatism is a strategy for success and contentment.


    1. C’mon, man! Black Americans are NEVER going to let go of their victim obsession so long as it continues to pay rewards. All the racial preferences provide concrete motivation to hang on and squeeze out every last benefit. It’s almost humorous to see American blacks enraged that immigrant blacks and other minorities also receive affirmative action. They want those goodies all for themselves!

      1. As a matter of comparison, Hispanics comprise 20% of the population, Blacks 13%, Asians 6%. Hispanics and Asians do not appeal to victimization but Blacks do. Thing is, those Blacks that do, are a very small but vocal minority. Our neighbors are black, we give each other gifts for the holidays, pick up each others packages from couriers left at our front doors, and many of my coworkers, vendors, church members are black. Considering I live in a city with 50% black population, none of the aforementioned is surprising. My day to day interaction with local blacks does not reflect the narrative stoked by Democrats. In the Caribbean and Latin America, we all consider ourselves simply Cuban, Puerto Ricans, Dominicans, Brazilians, etc. So John McWhorter is absolutely correct.

  20. I would respect leftists if they would admit the following (but won’t hold my breath):

    Standards and merit are racist code words to maintain the system of “white supremacy”. It is good and commendable when individuals from historically marginalized groups ARE chosen due to this membership. And if you disagree you are a “white supremacist” and deserve no place in the public discourse.

    S@@tlibs, did I miss anything? Please advise.


    1. I advise that anyone using the word “S@@tlibs” is a troll who has no interest in truthful, good faith discussion.

      1. What’s wrong with “suitlibs”? They may be irrational, but at least they’re well-dressed! I refer them to the libs in pajama pants and neck tats.

Comments are closed.