Why isn't Biden SCOTUS pledge racist?

Biden pledges to nominate a black women to the SCOTUS. That seems to be textbook racism, favoring someone based on the color of their skin. Chris Hayes noted Reagan did something similar by pledging to nominate a woman to the SCOTUS. Well that seemed sexist (racist) too. Of course the conservatives were outraged by Biden’s pledge and according to Hayes ignored Reagan’s. But that’s no argument. Cons should have been outraged by Reagan too, and maybe they were.

I can see someone saying, well black women are under represented on the SCOTUS. Okay but so are fat, bald, middle-aged working class stiffs with no legal training under represented, and have been in tons of jobs, areas or governance. Why not pledge to nominate one of them?

[quote=“cuthbertj, post:1, topic:8977”]
Biden pledges to nominate a black women to the SCOTUS. That seems to be textbook racism, favoring someone based on the color of their skin. Chris Hayes noted Reagan did something similar by pledging to nominate a woman to the SCOTUS. Well that seemed sexist (racist) too.

Honoring his pre-election pledge, Biden has declared : “I’ve made no decision except one: The person I will nominate will be someone of extraordinary qualifications, character, experience and integrity,”* Biden said in remarks today. *“And that person will be the first Black woman ever nominated to the United States Supreme Court.”

Your implied assumption that the choice will result in an inferior representation is “passive racism”. You are so keen to arrive at prejudicial conclusions that you completely overlook the grand picture.

a) The nation is no longer a “white” nation and representation in legal matters should be made by a deliberate mixture of persons representing all citizens of different ancestral origins.
b) Female representation is still disproportionally low, considering that women make up the majority of gender in the nation.
c) The "black female " under consideration is eminently qualified, having already served years in the Federal Court system.

Under these guidelines, read this bio of one possible choice:

Ketanji Brown Jackson

Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is widely viewed as the front-runner for Breyer’s Supreme Court seat.

Jackson, 51, was Biden’s first pick for the D.C. Circuit, which often has the final say in legal disputes over EPA rules and other major environmental issues. She has served on the court since June.

As a judge of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, a bench she was appointed to by former President Obama, Jackson built a reputation as a nonpartisan jurist who didn’t shy away from siding with the Trump administration.

In one recent case, Jackson ruled against green groups that had challenged the Trump team for exempting itself from environmental rules to build a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border (Greenwire, Sept. 5, 2019).

She attended Harvard University for college and law school, and she clerked for Breyer at the start of her legal career.

This year, Jackson won the votes of three Republicans who supported her promotion to the D.C. Circuit, a court that is seen as a talent pipeline for the nation’s highest bench.

So, why NOT this candidate?

Care to reconsider your hasty and ill-advised remarks?

1 Like

I didn’t say I disagreed with Biden - I happen to think women in general should rule the world, us men have had our chance and really effed alot up. I just wanted to know why it wasn’t considered racist. He, and Reagan before him, pledged to make a decision based on something other than merit/content of character. In Reagan’s case is was based on gender, in Biden’s, skin color. Maybe it’s okay to select someone based on something other than merit/qualifications. For example, to say merit/character is important, but representation of a certain demographic is more important than merit/character, then no problem. But that’s not what he or Reagan said.

Now if he had said, merit/character first, and if it so happens to be a black women/asian gays/etc, then so be it. But he didn’t.

The era of “color blindness” is over. Diversity requires blatant quotas of every type. It might be racist but that’s how it is.

I guess it could be “affirmative action”. I really don’t have a problem with Biden’s pledge. I think he had already picked the person he wanted to nominate when he said that, which means it wasn’t racism.

Actually, it never was a “white nation”. There should have been a mixture a long time ago.

Yet, because women aren’t in power and white men are, women are minorities.

Quite true and I think he already had her in mind.

Maybe he didn’t say that first, but maybe he was also choosing on merit. On the other hand, he may be attempting to gain the Black vote for next election, thus why he said that first, before merit. Politicians say a lot of things, that may or may not be their first though in order to get votes.

But it is not based on “something other”. It was based on “in addition to everything else being equal”

Except it wasn’t “in addition…” It would have been a simple matter to state clearly…I will nominate the best person for the job. If that person happens to be a black woman (or asian, etc.) I’ll be that much more pleased. But he didn’t say that. BUT as I said, I don’t disagree with him pledging a black woman, I disagree with everyone thinking it’s not racist OR flip it around, I disagree with everyone claiming it’s NOT based on skin color. If it is, and Biden said hey, the most important thing is not merit per se, but equal representation, then that’s fine, at least he’d have been honest about it.

I think that’s the bottom line - Biden’s a politician, he and his advisors made a calculation and went with “I’ll nominate a back woman”.

1 Like

So does this not mean I’ll just nominate a qualified person, but we need civil representation, therefore I’ll nominate a black qualified woman.

Ain’t nothing wrong with that.

That’s not what he said, he said he pledges to nominate a black woman, and she’ll be qualified. Skin color criteria first, merit second. Which as I said is fine by me, but then be honest about what’s behind the nomination…representation first, merit second. Unfortunately by NOT being honest about it, this then feeds directly into the Cons narrative of him being racist (reverse racism in their estimation). They can spin this as radical leftist activism being unfair to whites. And it’s a simple narrative that plays well with other cons but also centrists too.

My guess is it plays like this in their minds: the head coach of the US Olympic team announced today that the track team will be chosen such that it represents the make up of America.
And that on the face of it sounds unfair - shouldn’t the track team be selected based on how fast someone runs?

Ok and if he had said she’ll be female and qualified would that have been genderism?

Gender first, qualification second? In 200 years of all white male SCOTUS judges it’s about time for affirmative consideration of the concept that all people are “equal” but women and blacks have traditionally been discriminated against.

Affirmative action is NOT reverse racism, it is balancing the scale from among equals, finally!

It’s the wrong question. How is hiring another white male not racist?

How can there be only one “best” in the entire country? There are many qualified for the job. The selection system is political because there is no possible way to devise a test that could pick the best. The test itself would have biases.

There are intangible advantages to picking someone with a certain background. Look at what RGB did for women. Do you think a man would have done all that? Why didn’t one?

1 Like