Friends, in case you were wondering, the Biden Administration may be shamelessly racist, but it does practice one important virtue: consistency! As you'll see in this Wall Street Journal article, the Biden team has been adamant that female judges and judges of color should be appointed en masse to the federal bench. White male judges, by contrast, are essentially obsolete, in the eyes of Biden and his cronies. The figures speak for themselves. It's a no-brainer that these decisions are not being made on the basis of qualifications, or even judicial philosophy, but based solely on a desire to achieve some kind of numerical "equity" in the judiciary. Expect more of the same. Biden, Breyer -- does it ever strike you as ironic that you serve a party that categorically despises people like you? I guess not.
Donald Trump, Jr. is deriding Lindsey Graham for multiple instances of RINOism. As for Graham's insistence that the Janaury 6th "insurrectionists" be punished, no one objects to reasonable punishments that reflect actual crimes committed, but the political persecution and selective prosecution of Trumpers is inexcusable, and if Trump saw fit once reelected to favor some of those targeted by the Left with commutations or pardons, that would be okay by me. It would be righting a wrong, after all. I hasten to add that Lindsey Graham, for all his faults, is still a fine Senator 90% of the time. He even learned his lesson about crossing Trump! You better believe he won't make that mistake again.
https://www.newsmax.com/newsmax-tv/donald-trump-jr-lindsey-graham/2022/02/03/id/1055428/
Nick, if the figures speak for themselves, then here are some figures. There have been 115 SCOTUS justices. Seven (6%) have been non-white male. That means 94% have been white male. Are you saying that white males are 18 times more likely to be qualified for the Supreme Court than woman and people of color are?
ReplyDeleteI thought White was a color too. My mistake.
DeleteNick, while Biden is appointing black women to the federal bench at a higher rate than any other president, every single Republican president has picked at a rate that was 2-3 times under-representative (Trump < 1%, Bush 43, 2%, Bush 41, 1%, Reagan, < 1%, Ford, 0%, Nixon, 0% and every other Republican president 0%).
ReplyDeleteThe figures speak for themselves. We make progress toward a representative judiciary under Democratic presidents and regress under Republican/Trumplican ones.
Nothing like White People who hate their own race, is there?
ReplyDeleteOne thing for sure, whoever Biden and his regime appoint, it will be someone who promotes cancel culture, woke, CRT, and all the rest of what now constitutes Neo-Marxist ideology.
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy et alfrom Jack: Why must Scotus justices be "representative" of the general population? Scotus requires proven superior professional skills an d integrity in a very demanding and exacting field. They are an elite (which once did float the far leftist boat but now that they do not c ontrol it, why, its "unjust"). That this entity" must" correlate in its makeup with measurable percentages of groups in which all members are perceived to be,by definition, "disadvantaged" is counterproductive and wrong headed. Professional stature and judicial temperment are the best standards for a seat on Scotus. Its funny, isn't it, how the left now wants a democratic Scotus when for decades they were blithe to use it to establish law which never would have been enacted by democratic means like, say, legislatures?
ReplyDeleteDr.Waddy from Jack: All Dems are misrepresented by their spokesmen or are personally discredited by their blatant refusal to task the thugs who perped the 2020 riots (including taking over two cities ala the rightfully destroyed Paris commune!) The French were not far separated from the insane outrages of the French Revolution when they put paid to the presumptuously attempted radical return. They knew what injustice was in store had these dreamers prevailed! Ask the "inconvenienced" citizens of Seattle and Portland about the radical totalitarian regimes they had characteristically forced on them! To the Dems, this is nothing; Jan. 6 is ALL. Mitigation of this bias and its fell effect on many undeserving patriots, is to be welcomed. Let us assure its empowerment!
ReplyDeleteAnonymous, there are a sufficient number of qualified judges across all demographic groups that, over time, the court can be representative of the population. It's not a problem for the group that, over time, has been represented on SCOTUS 94% of the time. For the groups who have been represented 6% of the time, it is a problem. The symbolic message is that they don't count as much.
ReplyDeleteIn addition, not having a fair representation of groups on the bench goes against a value in our country regarding equality of opportunity.
But you know, at the end of the day, I think Biden needs to think about Obama for The Court. Although he is a former president, I don't think there is anything in The Constitution that would prohibit him from sitting on the court.
DeleteDr.Waddy and Rod from Jack: Equality of opportunity encompasses, of necessity, equality of professional merit. Let not any irrelevant bias presume the unsuitability of any group and let not the high professional standards of the legal profession and those who credit it be compromised by far leftist presumption!
ReplyDeleteRod, are you seriously suggesting that, based on your preposterous metrics of historic equity, we'll need to have several hundred more female and minority SCOTUS Justices before we could possibly countenance another white male? Come on, man. Everyone knows that America has historically been dominated by white males. Be that as it may, white men are still PEOPLE. We have rights. It's not open season on us. All I'm saying is that every American should be judged as an individual, without prejudice. You know very well that that isn't what the Biden Administration is up to.
ReplyDeleteRay, it is rather astounding to me how many white people celebrate the coming obsolescence of people like themselves. I venture to add that it's often done from a position of complacency. I mean, no offense to Rod, but he has tenure (I presume). Active discrimination against white males will be no skin off his back. Same goes for Biden, Schumer, and countless other Dems.
I agree with Jack. SCOTUS will never neatly represent the American people, demographically or otherwise. It's a world unto itself.
Rod, do you realize that, with Biden's latest appointment, the entirety of the progressive faction on SCOTUS will be female? Seems like that might trouble a party that's on the wrong end of the gender gap (by some estimations), i.e. which can't win the male vote to save its life. Food for thought.
Jack raises, indirectly, an intriguing question: what will happen to the Dems' precious January 6th narrative if, between now and then, even one more deep blue city goes up in flames because of BLM-inspired rioting? Hmm. Methinks the American people might notice!
Rod, there's no reason why Americans can't relate to and admire judges on the bench that don't share the same background as they do. Are we so blinkered that we insist that the only legitimate authorities over us are those that mirror our skin color and our genitals (not that biology has anything to do with gender, I hasten to add!)? Does the NFL "look like me"? Heck no. I still watch and enjoy it. I respect its full cast of characters, of all races and backgrounds. Imagine that. Americans need to start thinking beyond these tribal divisions. Once upon a time, you lefties said as much. Now you've retreated into atavism. Pity.
Ray, it would make a certain amount of sense for Obama to be deployed on the court. It sounds like a lot of work, though, and I hear he's enjoying his retirement plenty. Let the man enjoy the good life! He's less dangerous as a Sybarite.
Dr.Waddy and Rod from Jack: Equality of opportunity? Opportunity free of undeserved barriers?Yes! Artificially forced and manipulated equality of results ( in other words, the currently celebrated but unachievable dream of "equity", is discredited by its impossibility and by the obvious disingenuousness of the American left in neatly changing the issue from "equality" to equity. Equality is partially measurable by mathematics. But equity? That is open to limitless interpretation with which the presumptuous far left can play endless hob!
ReplyDeleteDr.Waddy from Jack: In what sense has PRESENT American justice been degraded by the ethnic and gender composition of Scotus? The progress of justice in America has been marked by advances perhaps unachievable even in the most tried, true and historically pioneering democratic polity of them all, Great Britain. A majority of Scotus justices had, of numerical necessity, to go along, yes?!And contemporaneous with this evolution has been the catastrophic discreditation of, by definition, sociopathic onslaughts designed to work summary, radical and tyrannical change in human nature and culture (while of course protecting the well being of the enlightened elite and its cadre)Gee, Big Bill Haywood, of American labor history a hero, repaired in despair to the "worker's" paradise of Stalinist Russia. But he got learned didn't he?Meanwhile, US workers have repaired to the 'burbs. Oh, the pity!
ReplyDeleteQuite right, Jack: the Left loves "equity" because of its very ambiguity! It references no fixed standard whatsoever. I mean, the Left could say "Let all population groups be represented in every desirable profession and station in life in proportion to their representation in the general populace". They COULD say that, but they never will, because, in some cases, that would mean REDUCING the representation of "protected classes", and they could never bear to do that, or even to suggest it. So...it's "equity" instead, whatever the hell that means.
ReplyDeleteGood point that all those nasty white male SCOTUS Justices built, somehow or other, the greatest, freest country ever conceived -- and they even paved the way for their own (partial) replacement. Maybe they weren't so infernal?