Poll: Only 36 Percent Support Biden’s Pledge To Exclude Supreme Court Candidates on the Basis of Race and Gender

We previously discussed the ABC poll showing that 76 percent of Americans opposed President Joe Biden’s pledge only to consider black women for the seat being vacated by Justice Stephen Breyer on the Supreme Court. The pledge was unnecessary as it was unprecedented as a categorical exclusion of any candidates on the basis of their race and gender.  While many in the media and academia have attacked those raising concerns over such a threshold exclusion, the public continues to oppose the pledge according to a new poll.  Only 36 percent stated that they thought that the pledge was “a good idea.” 
      The poll found that 55 percent believe that nominating a Black woman is either “not very” important (19 percent) or “not at all” (36 percent) important to them. Only 23 percent said it was very important as a criteria.The poll reflected that most citizens are uncomfortable with such threshold exclusions as opposed to diversity as an element to be balanced.
      One of the more interesting questions in the poll was whether “the best possible candidate should be chosen regardless of race, gender or sexuality” or whether “the best possible Supreme Court should include qualified justices with a variety of backgrounds and experiences.” Almost half (49 percent) of those polled did not want race, gender or other criteria to be weighed in the selection. Some 41 percent supported the inclusion of such issues as an element in the selection of a nominee. That is just 5 percent more than the core 36 percent who thought it was a good idea to exclude candidates on the basis of race or gender.

 

282 thoughts on “Poll: Only 36 Percent Support Biden’s Pledge To Exclude Supreme Court Candidates on the Basis of Race and Gender”

  1. Makes you wonder. Why SociALISTS DUMP THE LARGER 12% and growing smaller for the 35% and growing larger? Remember Latinos include iberian peninsula and a number of other Caucasians. Third place has no such growth potential. Comes down to self incrimination of the left.

    They know they are socialist communists or socialist fascists and lie about it. They know they are for Northern Democrats who sold slaves not just slaves sold. They know they are the former slave sellers and buyers. They hide behind phony names such as liberal progressives. The list grows on including supporting wiping out large chunks of their own using abortion. Relying on the socialist fascist slogan it’s our turn. When it isn’t. And do it not at small risk. They do it at their masters bidding.

    Latino s slated to be 50% of the population no less than even plus with the caucasian current community. They have leader like SenATOR Sinema VS SOCIALIST NUT CASES LIKE Ocasio.

    No it is not Their turn. It is the best and brightest turn. One side failed the other is picking up the slack. What ne3d of socialist fascism when they can live FREE as Citizens. Best answer is shun those who wasted their opportunity instead of taking handouts. Who brought the wonders of coalitions instead of more failures of the party system.

    So why is Ocasio and the former leader of the DNC. Both latinos, on the wrong side? They didn’t earn their turn as did Sinema . After all they have never produced much. Just rode the welfare horse like Ocasio and the loser leader of the far left. they shouted for their turn as a freebie based on nothing.

    1. Have those who identify as black women been given consideration equal to biological black women by the Prez for nomination to the Supreme Court.

  2. Here’s the problem.

    If you have a representative selection of the population, by race, among 10 potential nominees, only 1 or 2 (actually 1.5, as 15% of the population are black women) would be a black woman. Assuming all these 10 nominees are of identical qualifications, the odds of picking the black woman is 1 out of 10 (or 2 out of 10 if you want to quibble). To assure a black woman is nominated, you can’t just pick a name out of a hat, it’s truly unfair to black women, who’ve been historically not served by a place on the Court.

    I’ve said it before. Trump won. He got to nominate THREE justices, all confirmed. Biden won. He gets to nominate a justice for the current opening. Elections have consequences. Both got to pick their choice, using their criteria. That’s how it works. The only thing in the way of a non-qualified person being put on the bench is the consent of the Senate.

    That’s how it is in the Constitution.

    As far as I’m concerned, Biden has not disqualified any candidates, but is picking someone with the experience and attitude of his choosing.

    I’m not some left wing liberal, fan of Democrats by any means. I’m more of a Libertarian, but pragmatic. I didn’t vote for Biden. He’s been the worst or 2nd worst president in my lifetime (Carter, tough choice). I didn’t vote for Trump either time, and wouldn’t.

    The ironic thing is I expect some right wing nut to call me names or try to intimidate me from posting. Talk about cancel culture some more, hypocrites.

    1. Actually, black women comprise only six percent of the US population — half the total black population. Hence, Biden is excluding 94 percent of the US population from the selection process, which itself is illegal and unconstitutional. Consequently, these nominees should be blocked for that reason alone.

      1. All Presidents create a shortlist with just a few people, excluding 99.99999999% of the population from their consideration.

        1. What a bunch of malarky from this joker. The creation of the list was not supposed to exclude any races. You are either ignorant or a liar. Choose your poison. Many say both.

        2. But heretofore that consideration has not been based on race or gender. Yes, all presidents have a long and short list of candidates. That is completely different from what Biden is doing. As Professor Turley noted, Biden didn’t have to publicly proclaim that his selection process was going to be racist and sexist. A smart or wise president would have simply chosen the nominee of his choice. The result would have been the same, but without the current discussion and naturally-inflammatory response from the opposition and independent observers.

    2. So, you’re doing some preemptive name calling. Because, you just know anyone who disagrees with your misguided ideas about this race and gender based criteria Biden is employing yet again to select this token for the highest court in our land is a “right wing nut”. Except, regardless of what you call it he endangered all Americans when he selected a woman with no qualifications at all to be VP already. Nobody really wants to impeach Biden, as he should be. Because, their terrified of the country being stuck with her. It is a lie to suggest this pick would look like America. If, a Black woman was put in the role. She would look like the Democrat party, but not the entire country.

  3. Mespo says:

    “if a person truly believes an election is stolen it is just as valid an argument that that person has a moral obligation to fight his oppressor.”

    I agree. Just one little problem.

    IT WAS ALL A BIG LIE.

    1. JS:

      So you say. There are lots of ways to steal an election. We’ll see how it plays out in cases in Pennsylvania, Arizona, Georgia and Wisconsin and remember nobody works off perfect knowledge.

      1. Trump has said:

        “Just remember, what you are seeing and what you are reading is not what’s happening. Just stick with us, don’t believe the crap you see from these people, the fake news.”

        Trumpists will NEVER believe anything unless Trump says it. That’s where we are. You know it, and I know it.

        If Trump says that the election was stolen, then it was stolen.

        1. 4 million illegal aliens who must have been compassionately repatriated to Africa, aka deported, by law were ultimately allowed to skew American elections.

          1863 constitutes the inception of mass election corruption and election theft, and vote tampering.

          It has been all down hill ever since.
          ___________________________

          “I’ll have those ——- voting democratic for 200 years.”

          – Lyndon Baines Johnson
          ____________________

          He did…

          along with millions of other illegal aliens.

        2. Millions of people from both sides of the aisle and Independents support President Trump. It is a common trait of people like you to pretend like you know what motivates our beliefs. As an adult, I don’t just believe what anybody says, unlike yourself. Within, the period between November 20th and January 6th, the Trump legal team presented the evidence of election fraud to legislators in the swing states with voting irregularities. Anyone, who cared to could have watched each of those hearings. For the left to keep insisting there was no evidence, when there was hours of it presented in multiple cities is absurd. Not to mention, if somebody was calling me a cheater, and I knew I didn’t cheat. I would tell them to show their evidence to everyone with an interest in it. Since, they were lying . They’d make fools of themselves when they couldn’t produce any. Except, no one on the left has ever done that. Instead, they get mad every time anyone mentions it and refuses to say President Trump is lying. They especially hate it, because he refuses to bow down.

          1. I think you are S.Meyer. Be that as it may. I stand with NeverTrumper Turley who is also unconvinced there was massive voter fraud.

            1. Turley doesn’t fit the definition of a Never Trumper, but that doesn’t stop you from saying anything you want. No one can stop a fool from shooting himself in his foot.

              Jeff, Ebony is not S. Meyer, even if we have some agreement. You assume he is me because he, like others, knows a person is filled with BS when they make claims that are Stupid and can’t prove. It seems that you and Anonymous the Stupid keep attributing comments to me made by others. That is OK since generally, those comments agree with my own.

              1. S.Meyer insists:

                “Turley doesn’t fit the definition of a NeverTrumper”

                If Trump knew that Turley had called him a “carnival snake charmer” and reacted to the idea of Trump moderating a presidential debate as “obscene,” that’s right, OBSCENE, you know what Trump would say about him- “He’s a nasty NeverTrumper.”

                When you or any lying Trumpist here can cite me one- just one- example of Turley complimenting Trump’s character, I’ll consider that Turley has a different opinion of Trump then the one he had years ago.

                So far, crickets…..

                1. “If Trump knew that Turley had called him a “carnival snake charmer” and reacted to the idea of Trump moderating a presidential debate as “obscene,” that’s right, OBSCENE, you know what Trump would say about him- “He’s a nasty NeverTrumper.”

                  Jeff, your mind-reading ability isn’t any better than your ability to gather the facts or get your definitions straight. Trump is a promotor and was uninvolved in politics. Turley didn’t think a promotor was suitable for the job. Sometimes Turley is wrong, but that is his opinion. That opinion doesn’t make Turley a Never Trumper.

                  Trump has a lot of characteristics that can disturb a lot of people. Still, when he was President, he reduced the possibility of a world war, improved the economy and the ability for businesses to thrive without significant deviations from the Constitution.

                  What do we have now? Inflation. That will become a lot worse. We also have the potential for a war or a restart of the cold war. Russia is entering portions of Ukraine and possibly going further. How did an economically unstable Russia get the money to do that? Biden is making Americans pay for Russia’s costs by changing America from an oil-independent nation to one dependent on other nations, including Russia. The oil price has risen, and high prices are a cash cow for the Russians who now have money to fund a protracted war or stand-off. Are you too dumb to realize what that means?

                  Next, Russia has moved closer to China. If Russia takes Ukraine, there is a good chance that China will take Taiwan within the year. When Taiwan goes, Asia has to reconsider who its allies are. China, too, is benefitting from Biden’s policies which help alleviate China’s economic problems, which are more severe than people imagine.

                  When it comes to the discussions on this blog, you are an absolute nincompoop.

                  1. Meyer says:

                    “Sometimes Turley is wrong, but that is his opinion. That opinion doesn’t make Turley a Never Trumper.”

                    Doesn’t help.

                    1. That is an improvement. It doesn’t help. It’s meaningless. Turley isn’t an expert on political theory, though he is an expert on civil rights, something the old Democrat party understood.

                    2. Turley may not be an expert on political theory, but he knows a BS artist when he sees one. You don’t call an individual a “carnival snake charmer” and then take it back! It’s one of the most damning assessments that I have ever heard of Trump’s character.

                      You want to believe that Turley’s valid criticism of his employer’s media competitors (on the Left only) evidences his support for Trumpism. It doesn’t. If Turley had something positive to say about Trump’s moral fitness, he would have said so. He hasn’t.

                      Only a NeverTrumper would call upon Congress to censure Trump for his “reckless” 1/6 speech. You simply don’t want to accept the fact that Turley has the utmost contempt for Trump.

                    3. “Turley may not be an expert on political theory, but he knows a BS artist when he sees one.”

                      A BS artist can be a good leader.

                      “It’s one of the most damning assessments that I have ever heard of Trump’s character.”

                      That is because your life experience is childlike.

                      “You want to believe that Turley’s valid criticism of his employer’s media competitors (on the Left only) evidences his support for Trumpism. It doesn’t. If Turley had something positive to say about Trump’s moral fitness, he would have said so. He hasn’t.”

                      You are making things up and not even making sense in the process.

                      “Only a NeverTrumper would call upon Congress to censure Trump for his “reckless” 1/6 speech. You simply don’t want to accept the fact that Turley has the utmost contempt for Trump.”

                      Trump’s speech was not reckless. Pelosi’s actions were. Turley might not like Trump or might even have respect for Trump. Some like chocolate, and some like vanilla. So what?

                    4. Meyer waves his hands around saying:

                      “Trump’s speech was not reckless. Pelosi’s actions were. Turley might not like Trump or might even have respect for Trump. Some like chocolate, and some like vanilla. So what?”

                      Turley says Trump’s speech WAS reckless. I’ll stand with Turley.

                      Now, you are accusing Turley of having a TDS affliction?

                      You don’t call someone a BS artist whom you respect!

                      So what? So, Turley is a NeverTrumper. That’s what!

                    5. Jeff, Turley is entitled to his opinions, but I note that when his statements favor Trump, you go apoplectic.

                      “Now, you are accusing Turley of having a TDS affliction?”

                      No, I find Turley weak when his political ideology is in charge rather than his legal mind.

                      “You don’t call someone a BS artist whom you respect!”

                      Turley has respect for the law, and I am sure Turley would call you a BS artist if we could find a more polite term.

                      “Turley is a NeverTrumper.”

                      I couldn’t care one way or the other, but you continue to misuse the words Never Trumper. I guess ignorance and a six-pack are bliss. You seem to be happy.

      2. Keep in mind there are still a few people like JS that only get their info from the now known fake news outfits ……….ABC, NBC, CBS, NPR, NYT, Wapo, etc.

        It’s funny listening to what the Fake News was saying back then compared to now as Durham releases some of the results.

        People should be very interested at who the key officials & there friends are that have been blocking key info for movement to the legislators & courts. Those aholes are trying to keep much of the 2020 election fraud evidence buried until I think September 2022 so they can legally delete much of the election results/Docs. The states will have already had their primaries with the much the same results in recent decades & the same ole creeps likely getting back in by the same fraud as last time if things have not been fixed.

        Among everything else the govt 1/6/2021 time stamps coming out publicly are very interest. We’ll see.

  4. 20 million black women, and 250 million Americans exist in the United States.

    It is a physical axiom that the most qualified candidate exists in the largest pool of Americans.

    An inferior candidate exists in the smaller pool of African women.

    Joe Biden will willfully and deliberately pick an absolutely inferior candidate if and when he chooses from a pool of black women.

    Joe Biden, in conjunction with his mentor, Barack Obama, is bound and determined to destroy and “fundamentally transform the United States of America” into a third world country.

    The wholly antithetical, anti-American and unconstitutional political disease, affirmative action, and its goal, “fundamentally transforming,” have spread too far and must be terminated with extreme prejudice.

  5. Here’s another poll that should horrify Turley given his forceful condemnation of Trump’s conduct on 1/6:

    “Among both Republicans and Democrats, there have been declines in the shares who say Trump bears responsibility for the violence and destruction at the Capitol. The share of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents who say he bears a lot of responsibility has declined from 18% a year ago to 10% today. Nearly six-in-ten Republicans (57%) currently say he has no responsibility at all for the violence, up from 46% shortly after the riot. Among Democrats and Democratic leaners, seven-in-ten say Trump bears a lot of responsibility for last year’s violence at the Capitol, down from 81% a year ago.”

    https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/02/08/fewer-americans-now-say-trump-bears-a-lot-of-responsibility-for-the-jan-6-riot/

    Only 12% of Democrats believe that Trump bears none of the blame for 1/6 whereas 57% of Republicans do. I would venture to say that 100% of the Trumpists here believe that 1/6 was “legitimate political discourse,” and nothing for which Trump should be blamed.

    Are there any dissenters among the Republicans/Conservatives here?

    Anyone?

    Lin?

    Olly?

    1. The Jan. 6 Committee needs to have more public hearings. I understand why they’re doing them in private right now (in terms of the people who are being called to testify not hearing the others’ testimony and eliminating the political grandstanding), but eventually they need to bring some people back for public testimony.

      I imagine that some people’s opinions may also be influenced as the many Jan. 6 defendants start to go to trial. Guy Reffitt’s trial starts on Feb. 28. His superceding indictment: https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/case-multi-defendant/file/1405211/download

      1. I agree with you. Of course, the Trumpist/Q-Anon dead-enders will never be convinced otherwise, but we can hope that some minds may be changed. A lot will depend upon people like Turley. We know that his Fox News will pooh-pooh the 1/6 committee hearings. Will Turley be called upon to cast doubt upon the damning testimony against Trump or will he do the right thing as he did when he condemned Trump for 1/6 and by recently raising the question of whether Trump violated the law by shredding White House documents when all his prime time Fox colleagues ignored the scandal.

        These are times that try men’s souls. I know where I stand. I am confident that Turley will stand with us.

    2. JS:
      “Among both Republicans and Democrats, there have been declines in the shares who say Trump bears responsibility for the violence and destruction at the Capitol.
      (…)
      Are there any dissenters among the Republicans/Conservatives here?

      Anyone?”
      *************************
      Not among the sentient ones, I’ll wager. Not on those terms. What exactly do you mean by the word “responsible”? As in legally responsible? There is no legal basis for his responsibility as long as we have a First Amendment and a dictionary to define operative words in his speech which said “I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.” As for moral responsibility, that is the province of theologians and, last I looked, nobody around here had that on their resume’ much less are blameless in the John 8:7sense. So unless, you can explain what you mean by the word “responsible,” the answer is clearly that Trump is not responsible for the criminal actions other people allegedly undertook. Just like you aren’t; just like I’m not.

      1. Mespo says:

        “As for moral responsibility, that is the province of theologians and, last I looked, nobody around here had that on their resume’ much less are blameless in the John 8:7sense.”

        Well, then, I guess Turley must be a theologian because not only did he call Trump’s speech “reckless”- his word, not mine- but he was so furious at Trump’s conduct that he called upon Congress to censure him.

        Unlike you, a Trumpist, Turley does NOT believe that 1/6 was “legitimate political discourse.” He stated unequivocally that 1/6 was a “desecration” of our Capitol.

        See the difference?

        1. JS:

          As you say, he’s not a theologian either. He’s like you — a guy with an opinion. Not particularly fleshed out at that. You wanna make a theolgical argument, I’m all ears but consider this, if a person truly believes an election is stolen it is just as valid an argument that that person has a moral obligation to fight his oppressor. If you wanna read and discuss David Kopel’s fine book, “The Morality of Self-Defense and Military Action: The Judeo- Christian Tradition” (2017), let me know.

          1. Whether the election was stolen is a factual matter. Either the belief is true, or the belief is false. If someone has a strongly-held false belief, that doesn’t make it true.

            If person A killed person B due to a strongly-held but false belief that person B was literally the devil, we’d say that person A was mentally ill. We would not conclude that person A had a moral obligation to fight their oppressor the devil.

            1. Anonymous:

              “Whether the election was stolen is a factual matter. Either the belief is true, or the belief is false. If someone has a strongly-held false belief, that doesn’t make it true.

              If person A killed person B due to a strongly-held but false belief that person B was literally the devil, we’d say that person A was mentally ill. We would not conclude that person A had a moral obligation to fight their oppressor the devil.”
              *********************’
              That’s just a classic nonsequitur and it doesn’t flow from the first statement which is a truism. We were talking about a genuinely held strong belief that an oppressor was being punished. If Trump is right and the election was illegally stolen, then it is valid to punish the perpetrator. If Trump is wrong, and the perp is punished then the actor is liable in civil damages to the wrongly accused perp. The actor is not criminally liable for holding the false belief, however.

              Take for example, you come across a motorist holding a butcher knife over a state trooper’s throat in the roadway. You look around and see the trooper’s gun under the car and you then produce your own handgun and shoot the assailant dead. It turns out that the trooper was heading home after a shift and had a mental breakdown causing him to unlawfully pull over a traveling knife salesman and threaten him with his service revolver. The motorist pushes the trooper away but before he can flee, the trooper pulls the salesman from the vehicle whereupon a struggle ensues. The gun is flung aside just at the moment the salesman raises the knife to threaten the trooper into submission. Then you come along. In that case, you are not liable criminally because you had an honest belief that a murder is about to be committed even though you are literally dead wrong. If Trump is right, then the effort to punish the perps is legally excusable. This is mistaken self-defense.

              To put it another way, if a person had a strongly-held false belief, it certainly doesn’t make it true but it does make his actions flowing from the belief legally excusable if harm results.

              1. And I’m saying: it might or might not make the actions flowing from the false belief legally excusable if harm results. That depends both on the nature of the belief and on the actions.

              2. In a prior era when crime was low, and men were men, this would have been settled with a gun duel.

                “In this world there are two types of people my friend: those with loaded guns and those who dig”

          1. I once saw Igor Stravinsky walk across the stage after a concert at the old Santa Fe Summer Opera.

            Shostakovich and Stravinsky were later composers than Prokofiev and The Four. I started there long ago, but of course always there is Peter and the Wolf.

            1. When I was in Moscow, I went to the Bol’shoi Theater and the Tchaikovsky Conservatory’s Great Hall. Been to the Goldener Saal of the Musikverein as well.

  6. Obama’s white lawn jockey doesn’t mind playing the racist. He knows leftwing hypocrisy is always trendy.

  7. Meet The Black Woman Dean Of George Washington University Law School

    Professor Turley never mentioned that a Black woman serves as Dean of his law school. One wonders if Dayna Bowen Matthew reads this blog.

    Would Turley be comfortable telling Dean Matthew the talent pool of Black women is too narrow for SCOTUS? He strongly believes this, it seems. Turley keeps revisiting the issue with that same talking point.

    https://www.law.gwu.edu/dayna-bowen-matthew

    1. Anonymous says:

      “Professor Turley never mentioned that a Black woman serves as Dean of his law school. One wonders if Dayna Bowen Matthew reads this blog.”

      What relevance does a black Dean of GWU have to a discussion about Biden’s SC pledge? There is no reason that Turley should have brought it up.

      Turley would prefer that none of his fellow academics or professional colleagues nor his friends or relatives, for that matter, read the hateful posts on his blog! In spite of its popularity, Turley must feel rather sheepish that his blog has become a watering hole for lying Trumpists, Infowars followers and Q-Anon cultists. I wish I could overhear how Turley insouciantly defends the caliber of his following at his family dinner table and in the lounges at GWU! That would be most entertaining!

      You say:

      “Would Turley be comfortable telling Dean Matthew the talent pool of Black women is too narrow for SCOTUS? He strongly believes this, it seems. Turley keeps revisiting the issue with that same talking point.”

      That is not a fair reading of Turley’s point.

      Turley has said in the past:

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

      It is a somewhat trivial distinction given that Turley honestly concedes:

      “There is no doubt here that identity politics played a role in some nominations, but presidents have at least maintained an *appearance* of their selections based purely on merit.” (My emphasis)

      https://jonathanturley.org/2020/03/19/supreme-identity-politics-biden-pledges-to-only-consider-black-females-for-supreme-court-pick/

      In other words, Biden made a faux pas by stating the quiet part out loud. That’s the long and short of it.

    2. Doesn’t have to, Latinos are doing it for themselves. The Ocasios are just along for the ride to suck their party dry. Remember the caucasian who pretended to be black? Ocasio pretends to be brown and much but has no demonstrated abilities..

  8. Why did John “Will-He-Dudley-Do-Right” Durham shade the report on Hillary’s complicity with the Obama Coup D’etat in America, by releasing it late on Friday before the Super Bowl?

    1. Because at this point it appears that the Traitors & their Biden/Dem/Rino supporters will triple down X 1000000 on burying their continuing Treasonous Coup against the American Citizens & their nation.

      They’ve been violently attacking all citizens, even their own, (CV19 Vaxxes, etc) that since the political, legal system & other govt systems have all but completely collapsed, that if anyone responds against them in any way at this point how could I or anyone else on a Jury blame them?

      Nuremberg 2 needs to happen today!

      1. “But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

        – Declaration of Independence, 1776
        _____________________________

        “The long train of abuses and usurpations…” left the station in 1860.
        ______________________________________________________

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

        – Ben Franklin
        ___________

        Can you?

Leave a Reply