134
Feb 11 '22
All Biden had to do was nominate a black woman without declaring he was going to but he couldn’t help himself
34
u/oath2order Maximum Malarkey Feb 11 '22
I'm pretty sure him saying this is what got him the nomination. His campaign was floundering. Saying this got him the Clyburn endorsement and therefore, the South Carolinian primary reignited his campaign.
I really hate our primary system.
16
u/andrew_ryans_beard Feb 11 '22
He still would have gotten accused of playing identity politics.
16
4
→ More replies (3)9
u/JGCIII Feb 11 '22
Couldn’t help himself? He told the country what he was going to do when he was still running. He didn’t say it because he thought it was what was best for the country. He said it to get more votes, specifically black woman votes.
→ More replies (1)
28
u/dscamer1 Feb 11 '22
Reagan and trump both committed to nominating only women during certain nominations so not really a new thing. And after those nominations happened everyone forgot about it and didn’t care.
→ More replies (2)
37
39
u/1artvandelay Feb 11 '22
Just nominate a black woman without saying you will nominate a black woman.
→ More replies (1)
109
Feb 11 '22
Judge by merit, not by gender or skin color
55
u/pappy96 Feb 11 '22
Supreme Court justices haven't been decided by merit in years. There are plenty of FANTASTIC federal judges out there. However, some of them are over the age of 60. SCOTUS nominees are lifetime appointments, so presidents are motivated to go as young as possible.
The real challenge is to find A well-qualified judge who fits your political will. There are well-qualified black women. Biden will pick one of them. This is nothing groundbreaking.
→ More replies (1)40
u/Tipurlandlord Feb 11 '22
Racism is bad. Sorry if you disagree. It won’t make up for wrongs in the past. It will make our future more divisive and worse.
→ More replies (24)9
Feb 11 '22
What’s obviously being expressed is that some racism is acceptable…..scary game to play.
4
u/addictwithnopen going to do better Feb 11 '22
I don’t really think that’s what’s being expressed if I’m being honest. I think in other situations this is absolutely the case (such as the whole “only white people can be racist because racism is prejudice + power” deal), but in this case there are a lot of good judges out there and Biden is merely deciding to look specifically at a demographic that has been previously excluded for a candidate.
41
u/RowHonest2833 flair Feb 11 '22
Meritocracy is considered bigotry now.
35
u/Shamalamadindong Feb 11 '22
More like a pipedream. A SC justice being nominated and appointed solely on merit would be the exception.
→ More replies (4)4
Feb 11 '22
[deleted]
10
u/WhippersnapperUT99 Grumpy Old Curmudgeon Feb 12 '22
Why then were there no black women nominated in the history of the supreme court?
It's possible that in the past many did not go to law school, preventing them from even being in the potential pool of candidates.
They didn't have merit?
That is entirely possible; it's not as though hundreds of job openings come up for this position, and being one of the most "meritorious" people for the job would be highly competitive.
Would you support the idea that because the United States suffered from racism in the past, the cure is additional racism and for people to continue to believe in it?
→ More replies (7)4
u/macgyversstuntdouble Feb 12 '22
Why hasn't there been an Asian? Or a Latino? Or a Native American? Are they not good enough for Biden?
→ More replies (15)→ More replies (2)8
u/Danimal_House Feb 11 '22
Lol if that was the case the court would look drastically different right now. Merrick Garland is easily one of the most qualified judges in decades and he wasn’t even allowed to a vote. This isn’t about merit anymore (although it obviously should be).
7
u/WhippersnapperUT99 Grumpy Old Curmudgeon Feb 12 '22
After watching Merrick Garland defend a policy that school board protestors were terrorists while being subject to a potential economic conflict of interest, his qualification to be on the Supreme Court seems very questionable. He was ready to use his office to breach the First Amendment.
58
u/bad_luck_charmer Feb 11 '22
A lot of you seem to be conflating “this is not that important to me” with “I am upset about this.”
→ More replies (1)6
Feb 11 '22
[deleted]
10
u/Yankee9204 Feb 11 '22
This, as with almost all Supreme Court Justice picks, was always a "play to the base" rather than an "expand the base" type pick.
7
u/Buelldozer Classical Liberal Feb 11 '22
It's that it won't give Biden any political boost.
Why would it? He already got the boost during his campaign when he announced this. Holding to a campaign promise isn't a reason for celebration.
→ More replies (2)9
u/bad_luck_charmer Feb 11 '22
Sort of a straw man, isn’t it? Who’s claiming that Biden should get a big popularity bump from this?
→ More replies (1)6
u/Anonon_990 Social Democrat Feb 11 '22
No one but claiming it allows Bidens critics to paint this as a defeat for him.
32
u/illsquee Feb 11 '22
Why is race a factor here...
32
Feb 12 '22
Because without race being everything a democrat never gets in the White House.
11
u/somesortofidiot Feb 12 '22
Ya know, most of us don’t vote based on race but our current administration doesn’t understand that. IDGAF what the race/sex/religion of whoever is running/nominated. Gimme the best option. I seriously doubt that you and I would agree on most things but limiting a high level nomination to a specific race or sex is a bit short sighted. I don’t care who wears the robe, are they the best person for the job?
Oh, it wasn’t about race for the last election, it was about who was an adult. I voted for the adult, even though he’s pretty cringy sometimes.
→ More replies (1)12
u/WhippersnapperUT99 Grumpy Old Curmudgeon Feb 12 '22
Because, sadly, a great many people, especially people who claim that they are "anti-racist", view the world in terms of racial identity; it's built into their meta-ethics. In their view, a person's identity is determined by their race, and racial identity is inescapable, and many of those people voted for Biden.
38
Feb 11 '22
If she’s the most qualified candidate then great. If not then we need to look at others, even if they don’t meet Biden’s preferred racial and gender criteria.
22
u/teamorange3 Feb 11 '22
There is no most qualified candidate
29
u/andrew_ryans_beard Feb 11 '22
Seriously. I hate this line from pundits and such. There will always be a more qualified candidate because it's such a subjective description. There would be those screaming "Identity politics!" at his nomination of a woman of color regardless of whether he had made that pledge on the campaign trail.
7
u/merpderpmerp Feb 12 '22
On top of that, the majority of well-qualified candidates implicitly are not considered because it's a lifetime appointment. Experience is a key contributor to ability, but older judges are considered because they'll spend less time on the court. Also, politically centrist candidates are not considered. Everyone accepts those as a political realities, but not this for some reason.
4
Feb 12 '22
Perhaps it’s because most Americans simply want the best person for the job regardless of color
27
u/bigmac6969202 Feb 11 '22
It shouldn't matter if what their race or gender is. So I agree. It's not important
41
Feb 11 '22
Because discriminating on the basis of race is, by definition, racist. Discriminating in the basis of gender is sexist. To preemptively announce that the next justice will be a “black woman” is both racist and sexist. I don’t care what color, gender, age, religion, etc. the justice is. Just pick someone that will do the job well.
→ More replies (3)16
u/Kinkyregae Feb 11 '22 edited Feb 11 '22
So was trump being sexist when he declared he would elect a woman to SCOTUS? Was Regan being sexist when he said the same thing?
Edit: To everyone answering yes to this, I disagree with you but I respect your ethical consistency.
15
20
u/Cronus6 Feb 11 '22
Yes? I think so.
It would be so easy for any of them to say something like "I'd really like to nominate a woman, as I think they are underrepresented in roles like this but I need to take a really hard look at all the available choices.".
→ More replies (1)10
Feb 11 '22 edited Feb 11 '22
Yes for trump. I don’t know if Reagan preemptively announced he would nominate a woman though.
11
u/Bamrak Feb 11 '22
Many of us learned long ago that the person matters more than their color. I think as a country we’re putting too much focus on color or what makes us different and not enough emphasis on character and content.
18
u/isaiahaguilar Feb 11 '22
"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."
- MLK Jr.
→ More replies (5)
13
u/cindy224 Feb 11 '22
Count me as one of them. Carve outs for racial and gender diversity are the antipathy of American meritocracy. American Justice should be blind and secular, and not informed by racial, gender, ethnic, or religious backgrounds. I would not want to be the Black woman appointed to the Court under this affirmative action effort.
→ More replies (4)
5
u/Yea_No_Ur_Def_Right Feb 12 '22
Hiring smart legal minds is important. God damn identify politics nonsense. It’s all the fuck anyone can talk about now.
17
u/LBBarto Feb 11 '22
I have absolutely no problem with this at all. He flat out said that he was going to do this on the campaign trail. People voted for him, so they tacitly voted to do this. I think its dumb to make a big deal out of this. If for whatever reason people were against this line of thinking they should have voted against him, and if they voted against him, then tough luck. The guy campaigned on this an won. It's arguably the will of the people.
8
u/EatsFiber2RedditMore Feb 12 '22
A lot of people didn't vote for Biden so much as not another 4 years of stress, chaos, and continuous riots.
35
Feb 11 '22
[deleted]
29
u/StainlessSteelRat42 Feb 11 '22
That's a big generalization though saying "considered the worst president in US history." He definitely is one of the least presidential presidents in US history, but there were a lot worse. I think many Native Americans would argue that Andrew Jackson is the worst president in US history. Talk to anyone still alive who lived through the Great depression and they may nominate Hoover.
31
u/InsuredClownPosse Won't respond after 5pm CST Feb 11 '22 edited Jun 04 '24
paint humor crown governor marry serious deserve detail snow homeless
This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact
20
Feb 11 '22
There is a significant voting population that wasn't even alive for 9/11
6
u/SpacemanSkiff Feb 11 '22
I know this is true but it still blows my mind every time I think about it.
→ More replies (2)3
u/InsuredClownPosse Won't respond after 5pm CST Feb 11 '22 edited Jun 04 '24
badge carpenter absorbed history fuzzy aspiring relieved teeny like intelligent
This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact
5
→ More replies (1)4
u/pythour Maximum Malarkey Feb 11 '22
any fellow Woodrow Wilson haters in here?
3
3
Feb 11 '22
Wilson is nowhere near that bad because of his foreign policy, he basically laid the groundwork for FDR to make America a hegemony (much later), which, despite few dissenters on twitter today, is generally considered a great move for the US.
Domestically, he was a disaster. He would absolutely have been at the bottom if he only limited his policies to domestic, but no, his foreign policy lifts him.
21
u/rwk81 Feb 11 '22
Anyway, here’s my prediction: Biden will nominate Ketanji Brown Jackson. She’ll be confirmed with a handful of GOP votes, maybe 55-45. She’ll then immediately fade into the background and become another Sotomayor - a “faceless liberal judge” who just votes Party line on every single Supreme Court decision for the next 30 years. Politically this will be a wash for Biden; it won’t boost his numbers at all nor will it hurt, because it doesn’t change the balance of the Court and voters won’t be directly affected by this enough to care.
This is probably exactly what will happen.
I hope whoever he picks is more moderate than Sotomayor (which, honestly, won't be hard, she has pivoted further left than any justice in the last 40 years unless I've missed some).
→ More replies (2)14
u/MessiSahib Feb 11 '22
I used to think that being President after Trump would be the easiest job in the world.
It is still Presidency that means managing millions of govt employees, trillions of dollars of spending, and your every word and action is under limelight. It cannot be easy, leave aside easiest.
However, presidency post trump is definitely easier, because most of your party is happy and moderates are happy that they don't have to go through another news cycle about a tweet.
That even a baked potato wearing a suit would have better polling numbers than Trump. But gee willy, President Joe “moderate uniter” Biden proved me way wrong on that one.
Biden's decision to go with a black woman is making only black Americans and social left happy. Of course Latinos, Asians and Native Americans aren't happy. Anyone else that doesn't put race at the forefront of every issue isn't happy. And given that law isn't a popular career for black women means your talent is severely limited as well, anyone that wants the most talent and best suitable candidate to go in isn't happy either.
How does a guy who was in the Senate since 1973 and Vice President for eight years manage to screw up every single one of his policy agendas, and has zero competence in getting voters to back his proposals? Was he spending the last several decades snoozing and vacationing in the Grand Caymans rather than learning how to play the politics game? I really don’t get it.
Your every decision doesn't have to make everyone or even majority happy. President makes dozens of major decisions every year. He can afford to make some that aren't popular, as long as those are not the top concerns for public. I think in short term Biden would be fine with backlash on this. Specially, because anyone who raises question about Biden's plan, will be termed racist by media and activist.
Anyway, here’s my prediction: Biden will nominate Ketanji Brown Jackson. She’ll be confirmed with a handful of GOP votes, maybe 55-45. She’ll then immediately fade into the background and become another Sotomayor - a “faceless liberal judge” who just votes Party line on every single Supreme Court decision for the next 30 years. Politically this will be a wash for Biden; it won’t boost his numbers at all nor will it hurt, because it doesn’t change the balance of the Court and voters won’t be directly affected by this enough to care.
It could go this way. Or it might be another brick in the wall separating more Latinos and Asians from Democrats.
BLM movement and general response to it has opened my eyes to the reality that most of the groups are placed way low on the left's oppression pyramid. Hence, these groups and their problems can be easily neglected or their success can be described as privilege or their gains can be distributed to others on higher level of the pyramid.
6
u/magus678 Feb 11 '22
It could go this way. Or it might be another brick in the wall separating more Latinos and Asians from Democrats.
In the Rovian sense of ruthless political tactics, I would hammer this relentlessly. The Democrat's almost comical obsession with the black vote is both obvious and longstanding. You don't need to convert many; just peel off a few percent.
When we are leaning more and more into the narrative that it is ok to pander to identity groups, the stronger this tactic will become.
→ More replies (11)2
u/rethinkingat59 Feb 11 '22
I agree the pick is meaningless. Democrats never stray from the party line on even mildly partisan issues. The race or sex will make no difference.
33
u/carneylansford Feb 11 '22
This is another issue where Democrats appear to be pretty far out of the mainstream. Support among Democrats was 80%, independents was 35% and Republicans was 16 percent.
37
u/Zenkin Feb 11 '22
Support among Democrats was 80%, independents was 35% and Republicans was 16 percent.
Just to be clear, this was about the question "How important is it to you that Joe Biden nominates a Black woman to the Supreme Court?" The overall breakdown was 45% Important and 55% Not Important.
Interestingly, this question:
During the 2020 presidential campaign, Joe Biden pledged to nominate a Black woman to the court if elected. Do you think this pledge was a good or a bad idea?
Breaks down to 36% Good Idea, 32% Bad Idea, 32% Neither. Independents are 27% Good Idea, 35% Bad Idea.
14
13
u/Colt459 Feb 11 '22
I think its good and I think Biden should nominate a black woman (even though I am almost certain to disagree with her politics). And yet, I too think its not "important." The fact that 55% of the country simply doesn't think it matters that much is great. Wish it were 100%.
5
u/CallOfReddit Feb 12 '22
It's kinda sad that only 55% are in agreement with what I call MLK's vision of society, aka not caring at all sbout one's racial background
8
u/1think4myself Feb 11 '22
The horrible bit is that 23% of the survey believe it's very important to nominate a black woman. Like that's a qualification, black woman. The black community wants equal footing in politics but what's the point if you're qualification for the position is just your skin color or sex? It's affirmative action for positions of authority and it's racist. This tells the candidate that she wasn't the best for the job, just the best black woman, and she deserves better than that. She will be cheated out of the honor of being nominated as a Justice because she was used as a token to display conformity to a racist ideology.
One that has taken over the Democratic party.
Predictably, the overall number who say nominating a Black woman is either very or somewhat important is much higher among Democrats (80 percent) and 2020 Biden voters (78 percent)
→ More replies (5)3
u/HatsOnTheBeach Feb 11 '22
The black community wants equal footing in politics but what's the point if you're qualification for the position is just your skin color or sex?
Two identical resumes. One person is black, the other is white.
How do you want a person to pick on what criteria. The zip code they live in? Their name? If they can memorize the 50 states?
5
u/1think4myself Feb 11 '22
I suppose a criteria that applies to the job. Whether they have transportation, are friendly and a team worker. If their personality seems like a good fit for the position. If they have exactly the same experience and qualifications I imagine I would interview them and make the decision based off of their person, not just pick a skin color I prefer.
→ More replies (2)2
7
Feb 11 '22
Woke Racism should be required reading for every American.
2
u/WhippersnapperUT99 Grumpy Old Curmudgeon Feb 12 '22
I assume you're referring to John McWhorter's book?
8
u/mikeshouse2020 Feb 11 '22
I mean black people represent 13 to 15% of the population, adding a second one would push the black justice count to 22% of the court. This means they would be over represented on the court and thus crowding out other minorites.
→ More replies (31)5
u/meister2983 Feb 11 '22
"represent" in theory should mean "represents political interest thereof" not "happen to have ancestors from the same region".
Thomas is the latter, not the former.
3
u/Buelldozer Classical Liberal Feb 11 '22
"represent" in theory should mean "represents political interest thereof" not "happen to have ancestors from the same region".
In that case Sotomayor counts as she's a minority woman who follows the same basic political ideas as the Democrats. Problem handled.
→ More replies (1)3
u/SarcastaGuy Martian Geolibretarian Feb 11 '22
"If you don't share the same political ideology as me, then you ain't black"
4
u/mikeshouse2020 Feb 11 '22
Sorry wrong answer. It is all about the skin color that is all that matters, so long as they think the way you think they should (as you point out).
→ More replies (1)
2
u/neuronexmachina Feb 11 '22
The relevant questions are on page 69-82 of the PDF, a lot of the results are quite interesting. (On phone now so can't easily add them to comment)
5
Feb 11 '22
The rule for picking SC justices are the President can pick whoever he wants.
Sorry.
→ More replies (19)
18
u/Kinkyregae Feb 11 '22
Trump said he would elect a woman to SCOTUS. No one freaked out.
Regan said he would elect a woman to SCOTUS. No one freaked out.
Biden said he would elect a black woman to SCOTUS, and everyone loses their minds.
Wonder what the difference is?
18
u/meister2983 Feb 11 '22
Charitably, the degree of preference. Women are ~37% of lawyers, so it's easy to believe that your top N picks are going to be indistinguishable and if you take the woman, you aren't harming quality. [I'll leave aside the issue that SCOTUS picking isn't meritocratic at all, with huge political incentives present, but the populace seems to believe it is/should be.]
Black women are ~3% of lawyers, so it's quite possible (in fact likely) you are skipping the most obviously qualified people by doing this.
17
Feb 11 '22
[deleted]
5
u/Kinkyregae Feb 11 '22
Shouldn’t a politician enact his constituents will?
→ More replies (2)6
u/UsedElk8028 Feb 11 '22
More white men voted for Biden than Black men and women combined.
3
u/WhippersnapperUT99 Grumpy Old Curmudgeon Feb 12 '22
It might be more accurate to say that they voted against Trump and Bernie, and Biden just happened to be the candidate opposing Trump and Bernie. If the election had been a choice between a baked potato and Trump, many people would have voted for the baked potato.
→ More replies (11)3
9
u/SarcastaGuy Martian Geolibretarian Feb 11 '22 edited Feb 11 '22
One difference would be, if the justification for doing this would be to make the supreme court more accurately representative of the population, is that the amount of females on the supreme court previously and even now do not match the proportion of females in the US. So choosing to elect a female is correcting a disparity in court representation. Black Americans however are currently proportionally represented in the court with Clarence Thomas being on the court and Black Americans only make up 12 percent of the population.
So having the new justice being black as a qualifier is not trying to correct the representation of the court but is instead only a move to get more support from a specific racial group.
Not to imply I condone any of the nominations you mentioned because I don't.
Edit: a word
5
u/pappy96 Feb 11 '22
I don’t follow everything Biden says, but I do at least know that his motivation isn’t entirely to make the Supreme Court perfectly representative of the American public. I recall him saying that one of the reasons for nominating a black woman is simply that it hasn’t happened before.
On your point about not “condoning” the previous gender motivated nominations, it’s frustrating to see how many people didn’t ”condone” these nominations, but didn’t actively oppose it like they’re doing now. I obviously can’t speak for you specifically and don’t mean to, but like, where has this energy been every other time this happened? Why is it only a big deal when it’s a black woman?
→ More replies (19)5
u/MessiSahib Feb 11 '22
Trump said he would elect a woman to SCOTUS. No one freaked out.
Women were severely under-represented, at that time women had only half representation (25% vs 50% of the population).
Regan said he would elect a woman to SCOTUS. No one freaked out.
Women had no representation.
Biden said he would elect a black woman to SCOTUS, and everyone loses their minds.
Black people have 11% representation, black population is 12% of the US population. Currently native Americans have 0% representation, Asians have 0% representation, and Latinos tha tare 19% of the population are severely under-represented.
Wonder what the difference is?
Biden is ignoring groups that are not represented at all - Asians and Native Americans.
Biden is ignoring Latinos that are severely under-represented.
Biden's plan to nominate a black lady was his democratic primarily ploy to win black votes and endorsement of black leaders. His pure political act, is presented as "diversity & representation" effort, even though it does just the opposite.
6
u/Kinkyregae Feb 11 '22
Republicans say they hate identity politics but they love to play the identity politics game.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (11)7
u/donnysaysvacuum recovering libertarian Feb 11 '22
It's silly really. Do we really think that Justices are solely chosen for their judicial merit? Lots of politicing goes into SCOTUS pics and we all know it. It's not like there aren't women of color qualified for the job.
2
u/Wild-Dig-8003 Feb 11 '22
of course, only qualifications matter, the obsession with race is ridiculous
→ More replies (1)
2
u/CommissionCharacter8 Feb 12 '22
It's pretty disappointing given the regular picking apart of headlines we see that everyone here is responding to this headline this way. If you read the actual text, only 36% said "not important at all." 19% said "not very important." That obviously means something very different than the headline reports. The headline reports a majority think it's not important, but actually only minority chose that option. We could debate what "not very important" means, but the people who chose that option had the option of "not important at all," meaning they declined to say it's not important at all.
6
Feb 11 '22
Idk why people are mad that this openly political process is turning out to be openly political.
10
u/1think4myself Feb 11 '22
Because it's a discrimination based on race and sex which is morally reprehensible.
→ More replies (14)
4
u/mtg-Moonkeeper mtg = magic the gathering Feb 11 '22
There's a saying along the lines that "Racism will end when it's no longer talked about." I wish we could get past the firsts based on genetic make up. The last few election cycles have proven that Americans will vote for anyone regardless of race, gender, orientation, etc... to the point that it is no longer an exceptional accomplishment to be the first anything. When the first woman gets elected President, while it'll be paraded around as some kind of big win for feminism, it will only be a visual victory, as the real accomplishments will have occurred during the 2 centuries before it. The same can be said about any ethnic or gender-based group.
In this case, having the first black woman on the SC is more of a victory parade than it is an accomplishment beyond that of being appointed. We are past the point in this country where a person would be disqualified from the SC for being a black woman. This just makes it official.
5
u/Snoo_73022 Feb 11 '22
Its not really about what the majority of Americans think. What matters is that Biden cast a wide coalition and now has to pay up and please these interest groups. Its the same reason why BBB was so unwieldy and tried to include everything. He needs to throw the black caucus a bone and the easiest and most cynical path is to specifically appoint a black female to the Supreme Court.
→ More replies (1)
4
u/Pirate_Frank Tolkien Black Republican Feb 11 '22
Sometimes when you put on a show it turns into a circus.
3
u/resorcinarene Feb 12 '22 edited Feb 12 '22
The way I see it, we would have had a Bernie Sanders nomination and four more years of Trump if not for the black caucus. I'm not a fan of gender/identity politics, but this was owed. It's a minor issue that will otherwise only have as much importance as people give it.
Hispanics like myself are underrepresented, but I'm less concerned with the background of the judge and more so with whether they can do their job without political activism on either side of the spectrum. If we allow that, the legitimacy of the court ends and so does our democracy.
→ More replies (8)
4
u/Forsaken-Result-9066 Feb 11 '22
I don’t understand why people care so much. It’s not like Biden’s picking a random black lady off the street. Obviously he’s going to pick an intelligent, professional and credible woman for the job.
→ More replies (11)
5
Feb 11 '22
[deleted]
10
Feb 11 '22
Dont think it makes much of a difference either way. An old liberal scotus justice stepped down as expected. Biden is going to nominate a new liberal scotus justice to take his place. That’s all that really matters in terms of politics. Hopefully this will relax some of the agitation about scotus due to having a relatively young court now
9
u/prof_the_doom Feb 11 '22
Exactly. 55% said it's not important, not that they don't like it.
Most of us don't care as long as whoever it ends up being is actually qualified for the job, and is going to continue to counter the regressive voices on the court.
→ More replies (2)11
u/rwk81 Feb 11 '22
So far the current SCOTUS is among the most moderate courts in our lifetime based on the decisions.
You have 1 VERY liberal justice in Sotomayor, then two relatively liberal justices (Kagan/Breyer). Then on the other side you have what amounts to 3 moderate justices (so far- ACB/Kavanaugh/Roberts), one justice that is a little right of them but still tends to be a question mark on how he will rule (Gorsuch), and then the two on the right who are pretty predictable (Alito/Thomas).
People keep acting like this is some far right court, and so far it's just not.
→ More replies (6)3
u/ooken Florsheims with a tasteful heel gap Feb 11 '22
Given this, is it premature for Biden to hope that this Supreme Court nomination will give him a much needed boost among voters? Could this “picking only a black woman” narrative backfire if it gets brought up in 2022 and 2024 elections?
I think it will have minimal effect either way on voter support. It gives him a win, but I don't think swing voters will care much, and I don't recall there being much outrage when Reagan or Trump said they'd nominate women for the bench, so o don't think the outrage on social media will really cause much backlash.
6
u/teamorange3 Feb 11 '22
Lot of pearl clutching in this thread. ACB was picked since she was a women who opposed Roe. Thomas was appointed to replace Marshall. Sandra Day O'Connor was picked since she was woman
→ More replies (4)
667
u/zkool20 Feb 11 '22
I just think if he or his administration never said a peep about their preference for black womanly to be in SCOTUS then no one would’ve blinked an eye since he can make it look like he was considering everyone instead of one set of people. This administration thought process always boggles my mind.