Sunday, January 30, 2022

An Even Playing Field


Friends, America is about a lot of things, but one of the things that defines us as a people is a passionate belief in fair play.  No one should start out with inherent advantages, right?  We should all be judged by the "content of our character" and our abilities, and let the chips fall where they may.  That's why our laws against workplace discrimination were drafted in the first place.  We were trying to ensure that every candidate for every position would be assessed as an individual, not based on their demographic profile.  


Needless to say, the recent decision of the Biden Administration to reserve a specific (and imminent) opening on the Supreme Court for a black female, is both un-American and -- let's just say it -- illegal and illegitimate.  Today I hope to explore the ramifications of that startling revelation.

First, I note with sadness (and more than a little disdain) that Republican Senator Lindsey Graham disagrees with my premise.  He doesn't regard a process that excludes anyone who isn't black and female as discriminatory, or even as "affirmative action".  Oh no, he says it's merely a noble effort to make the Supreme Court "look like America".  How nice!  I mean, why not have Biden's favorite black female judge dress up like the Statue of Liberty?  Then she'd look even more "like America"!  Graham prefers, incidentally, that the next Justice be a fellow South Carolinian.  As long as that's the case, he's fully satisfied.  Ugh!  It's one thing to be a RINO, folks, and it's another be a first-class idiot.  I just lost a lot of respect for Lindsey Graham.


But let's start with the obvious: disqualifying people from consideration for a job -- any job -- because of their race or gender is discrimination.  It's the very definition of discrimination.  It's discrimination in its rawest and purest form.  Doing it covertly is bad enough, but doing it overtly, as the Biden Administration is in this case, is especially egregious.  Even a majority of Democrats concedes that this approach is wrong in principle. 


When one makes hiring bias this obvious, however, one also makes discrimination -- for once -- easy to spot, and when it's easy to spot, it ought to be easy to...stop.  So let's consider that: is there anything that can be done about Biden's cavalier disregard for the principle of fair play, his blatant violation of employment discrimination laws, and his unconscionable race-baiting? 

Perhaps!  It's time to start asking some hard questions of the Biden Administration, such as: could a federal court issue an injunction against a judicial selection process that has been publicly announced to be discriminatory?  Could Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee protest Biden's obvious and shameful bias by refusing to make a quorum and report the nomination out of committee to the whole Senate (presumably not, with Lindsey Graham around)?  Could the confirmation of a black female nominee be invalidated by the courts, or by the Supreme Court, after the fact, because of the flawed and illegal method of selection?  Could SCOTUS simply refuse to seat whomever is nominated and confirmed, because the process was illegitimate, illegal, and arguably unconstitutional?  Could President Biden be impeached, after January 2023, by a Republican House of Representatives, for his self-admitted contempt for and violation of non-discrimination laws?  Could a non-black and/or non-female candidate for nomination to SCOTUS sue the Biden Administration, after the fact, based on their (illegal) exclusion from consideration, and if so could a judgement in their favor yield monetary damages, the incarceration of the guilty parties, or even a reversal, by the courts or by the Supreme Court, of the original confirmation?  Could litigation of any of these matters delay the Senate's consideration of a Biden nominee until after January 2023, when Republicans might find themselves in the majority in the Senate, and thus able to block Biden's illegitimate pick?

These are all questions that we should be asking, and asking pointedly and urgently, lest the Biden Administration succeed in its malign efforts to balkanize the Supreme Court of the United States and turn it into a plaything of leftist ideologues and identity politics extremists.  Normally, Democrats themselves are the loudest proponents of non-discrimination laws and of the criminalization of racial and gender bias. In this case, they appear to feel entitled to practice both. Let's show them that they're wrong.


  1. DO NOT FORGET that Biden's pick of a Black Female for the Supreme Court is BECAUSE he is fulfilling a presidential campaign promise to Congressman James Clyburn from South Carolina.

    Without Clyburn's support in drumming up the Black vote in S.C.during that campaign, Biden might well have had to drop out of the race. It's ALL about politics.

  2. Dr.Waddy from Jack: There is one benefit to be had just now from this situation. It predicts, fairly and plainly, how the left would rule should it achieve the total power it seeks. I know that in one time in modern Japan, the following was and perhaps still is, routine: businessmen, upon meeting tor the first time, exchanged cards containing the name of their university and their year of graduation. This established a superior-subordinate relationship at least as far as manners required. Its obvious that the American far left would force a ranking of all Americans by "politically correct" standards. All advantages, such as income, safety and deference would be granted according to one's ranking. So too would disadvantages such as being held personally accountable for negative behavior. Naturally an ID card, containing one's rank would be required and production of the card upon the demand of a suddenly very popular but much differently purposed police, would be mandatory.

  3. Nick, you are being incredibly hypocritical. Reagan announced that he was going to nominate a female. Bush I only considered a black in order to replace the judicial icon Thurgood Marshall. Nobody screamed about discrimination then, even though huge swaths of the judicial population was left out. Biden is merely doing the same thing.

    Plus, Trump nominated a number of unqualified judges whose primary asset was being young (and white). Several lack judicial experience or even litigation experience (Justin Walker, for example).

    So, please, don't embarrass yourself with this nonsense.

  4. Dr.Waddy et al from Jack: Ithink what Trump did was to insolently disregard the political incorrectness of a candidate as a disqualifier; which is of course anathema to the American left which directs the present nomination process. No need to use quote marks for the term political correctness anymore. We know it to be the long since proven characteristic manifestation of the far left's bigotry. There is one sure way to counter the left's implacable determination to reconstruct our polity and our society on mandated ranked standards, approved by their commie elite, for access to all advantages (, not just that of real estate but ALL present property rights, including that of transfer to whom you please,sans proven violation of presently unlawful discrimination): DISEMPOWER them! They scorn moral questioning: Marx gave them good leave to summarily ignore any previously evolved moral codes. Why, they feel free to interpret even Marx himself with casual presumptuousness. They are irredemable, unpersuadable incipient dictators. They have been making political war on America, from within America, for the last almost 60 years. We must respond in like manner!

  5. Jack, I'm not sure if you speak frankly or in jest about every American being ranked in future based on their wokeness, membership in "protected" classes, etc., but it reminds me of China's "social credit" system, and I wouldn't be at all shocked to see something like it here...eventually. The truth is that one's "wokeness" or "political correctness" or membership in the new proletariat (defined by race, gender, and sexual identity) is, all in all, somewhat difficult to define and ennumerate. An algorithm that decided for us exactly where we ranked would be extremely useful. For instance, Biden, based on his race and gender, would start off struggling, but bonus points for his obdurate loyalty to the Democratic Party and his progressivism would quickly allow him to make up ground. In fact, why not allow someone to purchase extra "credit" funneling money into BLM's hands, or the Democratic Party's, or Greenpeace's. You get the idea. The possibilities are endless!

    Rod, show me where any Republican President EVER engaged in a search for a SCOTUS nominee that excluded all candidates of the "wrong" race or gender. It's never happened. I grant you that they may have employed race and gender preferences -- for which I reproach them -- but never blanket exclusions. That's what makes Biden's overt discrimination different.

    I agree with Jack: Trump nominated many fine judges and Justices, and I have no issue with his picks. Okay, I have one issue with his picks: most were still members in good standing of the political establishment. Most, I'd wager, voted for Biden. But hey -- Trump did the best he could with what was on offer.

  6. Nick, Reagan announced in advance that he was picking a woman for the Supreme Court. That excluded 50% (actually, more, given the gender discrimination in the judiciary) of possible picks. When Marshall left SCOTUS, Bush I only considered two candidates - Clarence Thomas and Emilio Garza - both judges of color.

    BTW, Reagan was public about his exclusion. Bush was semi-public, as those in the White House knew it, and there were a number of contemporary reports at the time about the nature of his pick.

    Biden's commitment to a black woman justice is nothing new. It's been done at least twice by Republican presidents.

    As for Trump, he announced the day after Justice Ginsburg's death that her successor would "most likely" be a woman. On his list of possible nominees was David Cameron, the attorney general of KY. He had no experienced as a judge, but was on the list because he was black and 36.

    BTW, Trump's judges were hardly of the political establishment. They were vetted by the Federalist Society, which is as hard right in terms of legal philosophy as you can get. They were also young -- half of the Circuit Court of Appeals picks were born in 1975 or later. And, they were white. Of 226 Trump appointees confirmed, 9 were black and 9 were Hispanic. If he picked anywhere close to the proportion of blacks and Hispanics in the population, those numbers should have been 28 and 39. Plus, after having a president (President Obama) of whose picks 42% were female (getting close to 50% of the population), Trump regressed to 24%.

    So, Nick, you are just wrong in terms of your history.


  7. Dr. Waddy from Jack: Nah, I'm serious this time. I'm certain the left would establish such a regime as soon as it might have power to do so. They have demonstrated this intent in all the settings which they presently dominate. It might come eventually but it wouldn't be eventual. It would be a priority once they start to bustling (think Pol Pot fast)!

  8. Rod, I don't deny that previous presidents have played demographic games with their appointments. We've seen a rash of it in recent years. Biden is just more transparent about it. Anyway, I find your "it must be okay, because Republicans do it" philosophy a little...disingenuous? We all know you couldn't care less about Reagan and Bush as moral exemplars. Hey, either straight up discrimination is okay, or it's not. I say it's not. I deeply regret that sometimes Republicans play these same silly games.

    And I assure you: the Federalist Society is NOT "as hard right as you can get." You should spend an afternoon with ME sometime... Ha ha.

  9. Nick, my point was NOT "it's OK for the Dems to do it because the Republicans did it." My point is that the hypocrisy from the other side about picking a judge from a specific demographic group is just stunning.

    It would be great if politics was not a consideration, and the best jurists were picked. But, for that to happen, we would have to change the Constitution.

  10. I strongly disagree, Rod. We already have laws prohibiting discrimination in hiring, and this is, at bottom, a hiring decision. Politicians ought to be bound by the same laws as the rest of us -- Republicans and Democrats. Hopefully SCOTUS will soon make it clear that ALL racial and gender preferences are illegal and unconstitutional.

    BTW, could you tell me your source for the claim that Bush, Sr. only considered two (black) candidates to replace Thurgood Marshall? I can't find any info online. Maybe it's true, but it surprises me, if it is.