Can anyone make a coherent argument why announcing you will nominate a black woman to SC is smart?
You are going to make the nomination in two to three weeks. Why say now that the nominee will be a black woman, no matter what?
You are going to saddle this nominee with the notion that she only got it because she was black for the rest of her life. For absolutely no purpose. We are talking about a few short weeks. What purpose is served by this?
If it is your intention to nominate a black woman, why not produce a short list not limited to that extremely limited designation (6% of population... Maybe 1% of judges)? Then, you could say that this woman was the best overall candidate.
Replies to: Can anyone make a coherent argument why announcing you will nominate a black woman to SC is smart?
You know he had said while campaigning his choice for a jurist would be a woman of color, yes?
He’s definitely keeping his word on that. Clyburn had endorsed Biden’s campaign and has talked about his promise, often. I assume Clyburn is holding him to it. Though it appears defeating to limit his choices this way but I doubt it was without deep consideration.
My thoughts on his statement during his campaign was he will be making up for his Anita Hill snub (condescending remarks) allowing Thomas to be selected to the bench.
Logic? Isn’t it always a political ploy, gamesmanship, the need to be the guy who did it first - his Legacy?
Because Biden pledged to do so when he ran for President.
Reagan did the same in October 1980. After taking office, Reagan delivered on his pledge.
Link: https://forum.uhnd.com/forum/index.php?action=display&forumid=2&msgid=54446
Also because he had poor records on black at SCOTUS: opposing C Thomas, mistreating A Hill,
fighting nomination of black woman Janice Rogers Brown to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals.
He pledged to erase some student debt too..
When did a pledge mean anything to this clown ..
Focus people on the characteristic rather than the political leanings
That way any opposition is about the minority status rather than qualifications. Also it diverts the news cycle off of other issues
By doing so, i.e. the race, any opposition from R to his nominee is going to be painted as racism.
He wants to shut down any question and objection from R during confirmation hearing. Of course it will be done with help of MSM. Looks like he is going to nominate either a radical one or a controversial one.
Don't think the Pubs will kavanaugh her?
Find her HS year book. Was she a member of the black student union? Did she ever say honkey? Or whitey? Ever have a wine cooler?
I mean it could be a lot of fun!
Anyone who dare to kavanaugh her will be racist.
(no message)
They're already saying it. Might as well make a show of it.
(no message)
Biden's poll numbers were plunging with AA's and this staunched the hemmorhage.
(no message)
It's a desperate attempt by Biden to secure the black vote in the mid-terms. He knows the Dems are
in deep shit. Why not nominate a black woman to the SC? Good idea for his party, IMO.
I get the nomination being a positive, but not the pre-announcement.
This whole thing is going down in a few weeks. What is gained by the pre-announcement?
Why is the nomination a positive?
(no message)
Speaking of Biden’s view of what is important to his base.
From Biden’s standpoint, nominating a black woman is a no brainer.
No. Joe’s VP called him a racist in the first democrat debate
and another time said she believed his sexual assault accuser’s. Joe isn’t picking anybody. His handlers are.
I’m in favor of this move.
We need to evolve to being a color blind society.
I feel this would help.
All the suggested nominees are highly qualified, regardless of political leaning.
I wasn’t always in agreement with RBG’s opinions but she was a national treasure (along with her opera buddy Justice Scalia).
A black female with class would be a godsend for the country.
Fine. Then nominate a black woman without saying that’s the only qualification that matters.
It’s a disservice to the nominee, imo.
You are correct.
(no message)
I guarantee that none of these women will feel insulted.
They are all brilliant and feel personally accomplished. Everyone knows that the announcement of Joe’s criterion was PC… but who cares. No harm no foul.
It goes against your color blind society, people will forever see the justice as a token
(no message)
Drinking heavily?
(no message)
Well he's keeping a campaign promise, so good on Joe for that.
But I agree, it's a needlessly foolish thing to do. For precisely the reasons you noted. But this administration has been sorta ham and egging around since the jump.
Further damaging this search, these 13 pols have some 'splaining to do....
Link: Who would've thought this would come back to bite their butts?
I’ll venture. There has never been a black women on the Court. So there’s that. If
she is qualified, elections have consequences. In the future we will have a Asian American and eventually a transgender judge. It’s where we are heading. The Court no longer represents the constitution it’s now all political.
Look at Chief Justice Robert’s he sided with the liberals in an effort to prove the court is not political. It is entirety political. And will get worse.
There's never been a dwarf. An Asian. A transgender. A pole vaulter.
(no message)
One day. Thank God we won’t be alive to see it.
(no message)
Why not just nominate a black woman, rather than pre-announcing it?
It does nothing but diminish her.
Then they lose another opportunity to virtue signal
(no message)
Yep it makes her merely a token. Unfortunately for her.
(no message)
I disagree. She will not be a token in her own mind.
The potential nominees have superb credentials and worked hard to get where they are. As an attorney I respect all of them, even if I lean the other way on some issues.
Will this emboldened her to be more of an activist than she likely already will be?
In your opinion. Her color and her liberal bona fides are the primary criteria here no?
*
(no message)