Diversity and Biden’s SCOTUS nominee pledge
Biden pledged that his first nominee to SCOTUS would be a black woman. He did exactly the same with his vice president spot, and see how that’s turned out. Kamala Harris’ performance as Veep has been so abysmal that it’s set back the cause of black women, if anything.
And if I were a black man I’d be spitting angry. What are they, chopped liver? How many black men have there ever been on the Court? I count two: pioneer Thurgood Marshall and reviled-by-the-left Clarence Thomas (who doesn’t even count as black in the left’s playbook because he’s conservative). Ah, but Joe wants firsts.
By the way, Scalia was the first person of Italian descent on the Court. Alito is the second. And lest you think that people of Italian ethnicity haven’t been long-term victims of discrimination, think again.
Or what about that grab-bag combination category, Asians? That would be a first. Hispanics already have Sotomayor (Cardozo didn’t count, being Jewish-Spanish). There have been no Slavs whatsoever, either – I hereby suggest Rod Blagojevich, of Serbian and Bosnian ancestry, and he’s a lawyer as well.
And speaking of diversity, nineteen states have never produced a SCOTUS justice. One of them is Delaware, and so I hereby propose that Biden appoint himself (he moved there at the age of ten, anyway, and has been based there). He did go to law school, didn’t he?
But alas, whatever Joe Biden identifies as, it’s not a black woman. And so he’s about to fulfill the pledge that actually seems to have gotten him elected:
At President Joe Biden’s lowest moment in the 2020 campaign, South Carolina Rep. Jim Clyburn came to him with a suggestion: He should pledge to put the first Black woman on the Supreme Court.
After some cajoling, Biden made the promise at a Democratic debate, a move Clyburn credits with turning out the Black support that helped Biden score a resounding victory in the South Carolina primary and ultimately win the White House.
I actually think that although Clyburn’s support was indeed a major turning point, it was also a reflection of a turning point that had already occurred within the Democratic hierarchy, whose members realized with panic that the less-electable Bernie Sanders might just win the nomination, and that everyone needed to back off so pretend-moderate Joe could make it. I believe Clyburn’s support was a step – probably the first step – in the execution of that plan.
All of that is secondary to the question of what this sort of pledge means. An approach that designates and narrows the possibilities leads almost inevitably to the perception that the person is less qualified and was only chosen because of his/her group identity. That’s not good. It’s not necessarily true, either, but it’s a perception that is unavoidable.
But actually, these days the Court is so political that – except for “swing” justices – members of the Court are overwhelmingly defined by their politics and judicial philosophies, irrespective of race. In other words, I suspect that any Joe Biden pick of any ethnicity would vote just like any other. The rest is optics.
It’s not about black female diversity on the highest court in the land; it’s about two horrible old swampers, Biden and James Clyburn, horse-trading. Dignified and not at all dehumanizing!!
After Breyer leaves the court, it will be the first time in over a century that there won’t be a Jewish male justice. I’d ask my liberal Jewish friends if they think it would ever again be politically viable for a Democrat president to nominate a Jewish male to SCOTUS?
I’m seeing commentary, from Paul Mirengoff at PowerLine and other places, I think, that SC Supreme Court Judge Michelle Childs might be, actually, a better nomination than some of the other women on the list, because she is NOT the product of the lawyer elite/Ivy League club. I think her nomination is likely, because Lindsey Graham is a shoo-in to vote for his home state nominee.
And if I were a black man I’d be spitting angry. What are they, chopped liver?
If I were a black man, I’d be devoting very little thought to which stranger I’d never heard of would be occupying a position of an appellate court. If I’m in family court being hit up for child support payments or have been hauled in to municipal court for leaving the scene of an accident, I care who the judge is and what his attitudes are. Otherwise, it’s someone else’s problem.
Right now, if I were an average black man, I’d be pondering whether or not I should get a 2d job to pay down my credit card debt or pay off my car loan.
And if I were a black man of the modal type, I might be asking myself if my woman is really worth the injury she does to my piece of mind and my enjoyment of my time off. Last night she was after me about something my kid did, the night before we had a fight over something her kid did, the night before that we had a fight over the amount of money she put on the card to buy clothes and she says I don’t work hard enough. Last week we had a fight over bowling night when she says I was fresh to one of the other women and what did I have in mind….
The other, obvious problem with Biden’s announcement is that the new Justice will be forever marked as an “affirmative action” appointee. It’s demeaning.
Art Deco:
The “if I were a black man” part was a joke, as was most of the next couple of paragraphs up to and including my suggestion that Biden nominate himself for the sake of diversity. I would have thought that the sentence “What are they, chopped liver?” directly following the “if I were a black man” statement would have cued you to the joking aspects.
Shirley you jest, ref: Blago (whose name, when he was IL gov, crowned every automated highway tolling scanner bridge, a prictoice since discontinued by his successor govs). See… https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rod_Blagojevich
Johann Amadeus Metesky:
I bet they’d answer “no” and add that they couldn’t care less.
“these days the Court is so political that – except for “swing” justices – members of the Court are overwhelmingly defined by their politics and judicial philosophies, irrespective of race.” neo
The sole purpose of the Supreme Court is to uphold the Constitution. That court’s sole legitimacy rests upon that purpose.
Thus, a constitutional ‘originalist’ cannot by definition, be motivated by either a political or judicial ‘philosophy’.
Justice Thomas and Justice Alito are constitutional originalists. Justice Gorsuch, more often than not.
Justices Coney-Barratt, Kavenaugh and Roberts apparently have no principled loyalty to any particular judicial philosophy, they tack as the wind blows.
Justices Sotomayor, Kagan and the soon to depart Breyer do hold a political and ‘judicial philosophy’. Which is whatever advances the left’s agenda.
TYPO! “…a practice since discontinued…”
After Breyer leaves the court, it will be the first time in over a century that there won’t be a Jewish male justice.
There were no Jews on the court from 1969 to 1993.
The court’s seven Jewish Justices have as a set some interesting features.
1. Three were childless; one of the seven had more than two children, none more than three. Antonin Scalia had as many children as all of them combined
2. One is a spinster; three intermarried, two of them at a time when that was outre and one when it was a novelty.
3. Five were never on the bench prior to their appointment to the Supreme Court; the two remaining were never state judges and never trial judges. (They were both elevated to the federal appellate bench by Jimmy Carter in the same year). Only one had an extended period in ordinary private practice. The others landed academic positions, worked in the ‘public interest bar’, were granted political patronage. One was in-house counsel to labor unions.
4. All were appointed by Democrats. Pretty much all of them had either been counsel to ‘progressive’ causes or had had discretionary appointments in Democratic administrations or had had positions in putatively professional government offices which were however serving the interests of the Democratic Party.
The sole purpose of the Supreme Court is to uphold the Constitution. That court’s sole legitimacy rests upon that purpose.
I’m going to quibble here. Their opinions have to be congruent with the constitution, but constitutional language may not be what’s at issue in the cases they take. They’re a court of last resort, so their selection of cases needs to pay special attention to resolving disjunctions in binding precedent between one intermediate appellate jurisdiction and another.
Yes, they disrespect the constitution when following it would be injurious to the preferred social policies of their circle of friends.
I don’t think anyone is saying that it would be a bad thing if Biden were to name a “black” woman to the high court. It’s just that he announced in advance what his choice would be — and, as we’ve learned, that choice was part of a deal he made to support his election. So it’s sort of a double layer of lack of principle, masquerading as some kind of virtue. Oh well: three more years.
It seems that by race, the hispanics are the ones who are statistically underrepresented on the court. By religion, it would be evangelicals.
Who is the democrat hierarchy that cleared the competition like promising Buttigeg the cabinet position?
Kate,
You make a good point regarding Graham’s vote, but I think the Democrats would welcome a fight. It wouldn’t be the first time they elevated racial tensions prior to an election to gin up turnout in their base.
Johann Amadeus Metesky,
Prior to Obama winning, and as far back as the ’70s and the ERA movement, I’d occasionally hear people claim the U.S. would never have a female President, or a black President. I would assert they were wrong, and that Americans would readily elect a female or “black” to the Presidency. However, I would state, I think the hurdle that is most unlikely to be cleared is a Jewish President and, unfortunately, I still believe that is the case.
Being such a prominent member of the Church of Latter Day Saints definitely cost Mitt Romney votes.
I think we came close with Joe Lieberman in 2000. I doubt Lieberman cost Gore votes, but I never researched it. However, Lieberman was older than Gore and even if Gore had run, I’m not sure Lieberman would have run for President himself, eight years later.
JAW3,
I assumed it was someone like Axelrod or Rahm, but now I’m not so sure. Rahm has been very quiet and Axelrod seems more than willing to throw Biden under a bus when expedient. I heard news reports Barack had made some calls…
It simply doesn’t matter at this point.
Surely it must be clear by now that if by some miracle both houses became Republican and the WuFlu culled every Woke Supreme Court Justice the assembled commentariat here really doesn’t like AND the Republicans actually appointed real conservative strict constitutionalist replacements who then didn’t immediately flip and show other colours once appointed…
… now I’ve already described a chain of events as improbable as Jonie Mitchell winning Miss Universe 2022. (FWIW, my prediction for Miss Universe 2022: Jordan Peterson. He’s still got that rabbit left to pull out of his hat.)
But.. say all of the above happens. Should be obvious from the years 2016-20 that the various machineries of Government both high and low would simply disregard and disobey such an imaginary wondrous Supreme Court.
This stuff only works when the boot is on the left foot. It only ratchets one way.
So why care at all?
@Rufus:
There’s a perfectly serviceable Jewish President as we speak.
His name is Isaac Herzog. And he’s Based.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_Israel
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Herzog
“Herzog stated that he views intermarriage between Jews and non-Jews as a plague to which there must be a solution.”
https://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-typhus-cholera-intermarriage-of-u-s-jews-1.6213502
The USA could certainly learn from him.
He’s not some hick. He’s Israeli Aristocracy.
“constitutional language may not be what’s at issue in the cases they take. They’re a court of last resort, so their selection of cases needs to pay special attention to resolving disjunctions in binding precedent between one intermediate appellate jurisdiction and another.
Yes, they disrespect the constitution when following it would be injurious to the preferred social policies of their circle of friends.” Art Deco
“constitutional language” is the only basis for the SC to rule in “resolving disjunctions in binding precedent between one intermediate appellate jurisdiction and another.”
When a ruling is based on avoiding injury ” to the preferred social policies of their circle of friends” it is not merely “disrespectful” of the Constitution, it is a serious violation of their oath of office. So serious that it merits impeachment and removal. Failure to impose that consequence is why we have a dysfunctional judicial system.
“constitutional language” is the only basis for the SC to rule in “resolving disjunctions in binding precedent between one intermediate appellate jurisdiction and another.”
No, it isn’t. The issue at stake may be encoded in statutory law or in administrative regulations.
However, I would state, I think the hurdle that is most unlikely to be cleared is a Jewish President and, unfortunately, I still believe that is the case.
Why?
Your problem there is on the supply side. Luck of the draw, almost no Jewish politicians have taken an interest in the position. There have been four notables who have made the attempt: Milton Shapp (1976), Joseph Lieberman (2004), Bernie Sanders (2016, 2020), and Michael Bloomberg (2020). Lieberman was his whole time in Congress a dissenter on certain policy questions, something that got him knocked off in a primary in Connecticut in 2006. It’s hard to think of someone in the last 80-odd years who was nominated from outside the Democratic Party’s mainstream – Jimmy Carter, perhaps. It’s not often. Bloomberg’s association with the Democratic Party has been sketchy; he was one of a raft of capable businessmen rejected by Democratic primary voters in 2020, so I’d not attribute his loss to his Jewishness. Milton Shapp, then the Governor of Pennsylvania came in 5th in his home state presidential primary in 1976; he’d won multiple statewide primary elections before, so it’s not as if the electorate was rejecting him a priori. As for Bernie, he competed surprisingly well all things considered.
Biden finished near the bottom of his law class, so he would fit in with Sotomoyor, as 2 stupid-Americans.
The Bee is all over this with:
Biden Seen Looking At Paint Color Swatches To Choose Next Supreme Court Justice
https://babylonbee.com/news/biden-seen-looking-at-color-swatches-to-choose-next-supreme-court-justice
Art,
“The issue at stake may be encoded in statutory law or in administrative regulations.”
In order for statutory law or administrative regulations to be legitimate, they must comport with the Constitution. If two lower court’s rulings are in confict with one another, one or both are in conflict with the Constitution’s provisions.
Again, at base all the SC has as reference is the Constitution. That ‘penumbras’ and ‘living’ interpretations have been used as supportive rationales, is simply demonstrable evidence of judicial misconduct. So too with statutory law and administrative regulations that have no constitutional basis.
The only legitimate process for updating the Constitution to comport with current needs is constitutional amendments, which in turn are only legitimate when they do not infringe upon our inalienable rights.
Neither Congress, State legislatures or a majority of the public can legitimately ‘amend’ away inalienable rights.
“If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.” John Stuart Mill, On Liberty
Art Deco:
Little known fact – although you may know it – the current president of Ukraine is Jewish.
I find that rather remarkable, considering Ukraine’s history re Jews.
Zaphod:
Ah yes, why care? Can’t imagine. Why not just follow the sage and prophetic words of the Zaphod Oracle, who knows all, sees all, even about the US?
Yeah, but he’s a comedian.
(Would seem that Ukrainians make allowances for comedians…)
File under: Make ’em laugh….
(This being said, it gives Zelensky a considerable advantage: he understands the limits of “funny”, understands when certain “stuff” really IS NOT funny and can call out “Uncle Joe” for it…)
No matter what sex or color we will get a SJW not a law decider
Actually, Joe Biden did his cheating at Syracuse University’s law school.
In order for statutory law or administrative regulations to be legitimate, they must comport with the Constitution. If two lower court’s rulings are in confict with one another, one or both are in conflict with the Constitution’s provisions.
No, if they have different interpretations of statutory language, either interpretation may be congruent with constitutional norms.
Biden finished near the bottom of his law class, so he would fit in with Sotomoyor, as 2 stupid-Americans.
Sotomayor was being compared by Laurence Tribe to other federal appellate judges. Note, she’s been a working lawyer for 40 years. People outside a certain professional guild aren’t going to detect her deficiencies. Biden scraped through law school and spent four years as a suburban associate. He has a long history as a dopey and dishonest motormouth and his deficiencies have been manifest to reporters. See Brit Hume’s profile of Biden published in 1986.
“No, if they have different interpretations of statutory language, either interpretation may be congruent with constitutional norms.” Art Deco
As the legitimacy of a statute rests upon congruence with the Constitution, that assertion implicitly argues that the Constitution contradicts itself. As for “constitutional norms”… would that include Roe VS Wade?
This is likely to further alienate Asians and Hispanics from the Democrats. Biden is so beholden to the black vote that he’s stuck. First he gives us a somewhat black VP, then comes Juneteenth (which means there are now two federal holidays for blacks specifically and none for any other racial group), and now this. Meanwhile 76% of Americans (including most minorities) are against Biden’s race-first Supreme Court strategy.
As the legitimacy of a statute rests upon congruence with the Constitution, that assertion implicitly argues that the Constitution contradicts itself. As for “constitutional norms”… would that include Roe VS Wade?
The statutory language is what is at issue in those cases, not the congruence of the statute with the constitution, which it may be under a variety of interpretations. This isn’t that difficult.
If there are “a variety of interpretations” then the statutory language’s congruence with the constitution is what is actually at issue. A variety of interpretations cannot exist when the statue’s language is fully congruent with the Constitution.
“This isn’t that difficult.”
It never is that difficult, when rationalization is employed.
Also not unexpected is the descent into implied slander, as only the mentally deficient find it difficult to understand what “isn’t that difficult”.
“When the debate is lost, the loser resorts to slander…” Socrates
Given Rod Blagojevich’s experience with the criminal justice system (albeit from the inside), I think he’d make a great Dem addition to the Court. If nothing else, it would be amusing.
Art Deco: Cardozo was appointed by Hoover, a Republican.