Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
‘All Animals Are Equal, but Some Animals Are More Equal Than Others.’
I need help in trying to understand some of the deep thinking of this “Administration” with the most recent example being the grossly unfair and, if done by anyone but our Potemkin “President,” near illegal announcement that he would only consider a black female for the next seat on the Supreme Court. Here is my question: I would sincerely appreciate it if anyone can tell me the difference between what he (yes, I know and we all know “he” doesn’t do anything but…) is doing and what this sign from our earlier days represents:
Or this one from London:
Some of the messages I found contained such offensive words by today’s standards I could not post them, but you get the point. To return to my question, how are these any more offensive conceptually than the White House criteria, which eliminates 98% or more of the attorneys in the country, approximately a million, from even being considered— even as a long, long shot!- for the position. And, as a writer with the Federalist pointed out,
What a slap in the face, by the way, to Breyer. Nothing says, “Thanks for your service!” like a president effectively deciding you’re unfit to fill the very post you just vacated because he believes it’s politically convenient to discriminate against the skin hue and gonads you were born with. But that’s what the left does. In two years, Breyer will have his namesakes and statues ripped down, just like Lincoln. That’s what they call progress.
There is no doubt that the use of this criteria would be unlawful if used by a business and unconstitutional if used in admission policies in a university; this was set forth clearly in a discussion by Professor Jonathan Turley in an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal titled “A College Couldn’t Get Away With Biden’s High Court Criteria”:
Mr. Biden could have learned something from the universities now defending their admissions policies in Students for Fair Admissions v. President & Fellows of Harvard College and Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina. For decades, universities have avoided the type of outright quota the court held unconstitutional in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978). “Preferring members of any one group for no reason other than race or ethnic origin is discrimination for its own sake,” Justice Lewis Powell wrote. “This the Constitution forbids.”
As Prof. Turley points out, “Mr. Biden’s use of such threshold exclusions is neither unlawful nor judicially reviewable”’, but it does represent one more instance of this “Administration” taking every opportunity to arrogantly and disdainfully sow divisiveness and fan the flames of already dangerous levels of racial tension across the land. It also carries with it more than just a sniff (no pun intended) of cynicism based on the assumption that no member of the GOP would dare challenge the nomination of one of the most highly privileged classes in America today
While one may safely assume that will be the case with reliable squishes like Romney and Graham, one can only continue to hope that some of the few Senators on our side with at least remnants of backbones may actually examine the record of whichever black woman is nominated just as vigorously as the despicable cretins, such as the current Vice President, Maizie Hirono, and other “luminaries” of the Democrat persuasion, did in the Kavanaugh and Coney hearings. While I am a firm believer in the old saw “Hope springs eternal”, I am certainly not holding my breath on that one.
While not unlawful, this criteria, and the next Justice it will produce, will set up what should be a most uncomfortable scenario when the docket is called for Oral Arguments in the Harvard and UNC cases; Prof. Turley again:
Mr. Biden is now going to create one of the more jarring and incongruous moments in the history of the Supreme Court. This fall, in the Harvard and University of North Carolina cases, the justices will hear arguments that the use of race in admissions is unlawful discrimination. One of them will have gained her seat in part through exclusionary criteria of race and sex.
In the Federalist piece cited above, Joy Pullman sketched out the potential damage Biden is doing with this move (as if he has not done enough damage to our Nation in one short year already) in stark, but accurate, terms:
This makes me sick. When I was a girl, my momma taught me that in America, we don’t treat people any differently due to their skin color. She taught me that’s an evil thing, and she learned it coming of age in Detroit during the civil rights movement. Most Americans alive today learned the same thing from our parents and schools. We hate this and find it utterly repulsive. This is not the America we want, not at all.
***
Today’s left also calls “progress” picking a woman for her boobs instead of her brains, and a judge for her skin color instead of her adherence to the law. They also claim that a nominee should be immune to all criticism and gain unthinking support from elected representatives based solely on her skin color and biological sex.
I call this disgustingly racist and sexist. It is not progress, it is retrogression. Americans should not tolerate social Jim Crow dynamics like these any more than we tolerated Jim Crow laws in the second half of the 20th century. I don’t want to go through another round of mass civil unrest to re-establish that American ideal, either. Neither should anyone else, but that’s what this kind of sex- and race-baiting will lead to if left unchecked.
When I first started thinking about writing something about this wretched move on the part of what I consider to be a thoroughly lawless “Administration” which trashes the Rule of Law at every opportunity, I thought I might start with a tongue-in-cheek bit of mischief by wondering what would happen if someone, somewhere, would file a lawsuit claiming this selection was null and void as it is based on the rankest kind of racism and should not be permitted. Lo and behold, I find, in an article titled “You may have a solid racial discrimination lawsuit against Joe Biden and the U.S. Government”, a most interesting discussion by a retired lawyer exploring those very possibilities:
Biden is either more honest than these employers or perhaps just less skilled in duplicity. He boasts of both his diversity and the discrimination that produces it. He has overtly, explicitly and proudly stated that he will rule out 98% of the qualified people for this opening on the basis of their sex and skin color.
That 98% of American lawyers – amounting to a number over a million – have a clearcut lawsuit against Biden and the U.S. government. Expect some of those lawyers to file that suit, including savvy political lawyers at places like Judicial Watch and the Federalist Society.
You too have a claim. Although having dark skin and no penis is a necessary qualification for this opening at the Supreme Court, technically a law degree is not. In fact, for the first century of the Supreme Court’s existence, none of the justices had law degrees because there were no law schools until the early 20th century.
That means the pool of potential plaintiffs in the civil rights claim against Biden and the government is nearly the entire population of American adults.
I foresee some entertaining political theater. Claims will be filed in numerous courts and with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Maybe some aggressive lawyers will seek temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions which would be heard about the same time as the senate confirmation hearings. Decisions will wind their way up the appellate courts culminating in, you guessed it, the Supreme Court.
Where will all of this lead to in the future? The possibilities — bleak as is everything else about this “Administration” — are endless. One talented writer suggests the next logical step in an article titled “Biden Says Next Air Force One Pilot Will Be Black Woman”, in which the “deliberative” process (surely an oxymoron when it comes to this “Administration”) is described as follows:
With calls from within his own party to reimagine the elite retinue of Air Force One pilots into one that “looks like America,” President Biden announced that the next pilot to fly Air Force One will be a black woman.
In his statements from the White House Rose Garden, Biden said that the next Air Force One pilot will be the “most-qualified, active-duty military pilot who isn’t Hispanic, Native American or of Indian, Arab, Irish, Asian, Scandinavian, or Mediterranean descent.” Biden added that “Black men also need not apply,” stating that a president’s safety is too important to be left to anyone other than the most qualified pilot available, provided that the pilot is “a black gal.”
According to anonymous sources within the White House, Biden initially expressed concerns to his aides that a president’s safety when flying is too important to be left to considerations of race and gender, saying “This is my life we’re talking about.” Biden came around, however, after two female staffers fainted and a third male staffer vowed to literally self-immolate then and there if he didn’t choose a black woman. (All of the staffers were white.)
As a proud member of the Bar and one who, if I may say it without sounding too much like so many virtue-signalers of our “woke” generation, reveres and respects our American Rule of Law, it pains me to see these ruthlessly lawless “elites” writing Presidential policy with little or no regard for the values and customs and traditions which made our country what it is today—the greatest Nation ever devised by the mind of man. I hope we can all hang onto the idea that hope really does spring eternal and that we will soon have leaders who love America rather than those who defile America at every opportunity.
Published in General
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members.
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community
of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.
There are 89 comments.
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
I hope that some Senators and others will frequently remind the nominee that she will always have an asterisk on her name, and that in the minds of many she will never have full respect as a Supreme Court justice because got the position only because of her skin color and her internal plumbing. That may not dissuade her from taking the job, but she might actually become more careful if she carries with her doubt about whether she is really qualified for the job she gets.
She and Kamala and Mayor Pete and a few others can start their own little club.
I wonder what Martin Luther King, Jr. would think of what we have come to as a society. I don’t think this was what he had in mind.
I agree and yet I remember that this has been going on for a long time sub rosa, which may be where it belongs. So Cardozo is replaced with Frankfurter, Thurgood Marshall with Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg with Amy Coney Barrett. I don’t like this kind of apportionment of seats. If we had to apportion, which we don’t, I can think of better standards, such as geography, but the current “system” supports our old idea of ourselves as a melting pot. Unfortunately Biden’s clumsiness characteristically divides and therefore undercuts the old idea, and one can easily imagine demands from other quarters for representation of their particular group. Nothing good can come from this.
We all know that Joe prefers 10 year old blond girls, but a promise is a promise.
I am wondering why the GOP does not have a cloning project for Clarence Thomas. It would be like Boys from Brazil, but for justices.
If we learned anything from “Boys” it’s that “identical” upbringings for clones do not end up the same.
She will always be the affirmative action justice.
And Obama was the affirmative-action president, and Kamala the affirmative-action vice president…
Well, BO and KH were elected, in a manner of speaking.
Yes but they were wafted up to those potentials via affirmative action. Neither would have been in a position to be “elected” otherwise. And it seems pretty clear that many people voted for BO in particular largely because they wanted to feel good about voting for a (half-)black president, not because they thought he was actually qualified.
I like the Obama logo on the Teleprompter in the cartoon. Great detail.
Whoever it is should be opposed. The left has fought for decades and has claimed the 1964 Civil Rights Act as their crowning achievement against this racist country and the bigoted GOP. So the GOP should not let them violate their own principles. We should say by bidens own admission we are not living up to the spirit of the law. Either the civil rights act is right and should stand or it is improper and shouldn’t. If selecting a supreme court justice this way is just then it should be just to do this in every other area of life. Either accept it or she should be voted down. We should get the best candidate irrespective of immutable characteristics or leave the seat open until we do.
Biden says, “The next Mrs. Joe Biden will be a black woman.”
Jill Biden was unavailable for comment . . .
Shouldn’t it be a black man?
A trans black man . . .
Why has no one from corporate media ask why Biden didn’t vote for Janice Rodger Brown when he had a chance when W was president
I think it’s even more important that nobody mentions after Biden’s rants about George Wallace, Bull Connor, and Jefferson Davis, that they were all Democrats.
I think instead she will be known as the “Social Justice”.
Because he didn’t need to exchange it for Clyburn’s endorsement at that time.
One letter: D.
Excellent! I really hope that one goes viral! Fits like a glove and sums up the entire lunacy in two words! Thanks! Jim
I’m not so sure, lots of people seem to think “Social Justice” is a GOOD thing. “Affirmative Action Justice” seems less open to interpretation.
Those that think that are probably unwilling to be persuaded otherwise.
“Social Justice” can be the “Let’s Go Brandon” of Supreme Court nominations.
Whenever I speak of Sotomayor, I refer to her as the Wise Latina.
I’ve also seen her referred to as the “Wide Latina”! In my humble opinion, that is much more accurate!
Leaving partisan politics aside, I think it would be a good thing to have a suitably-qualified Black woman on the Supreme Court, not least as a role model for young black women. President Biden could have handled this better, but the Democrats are due an appointment and this one won’t upset the balance.
Was Obama a good role model? Did we get massive change in the black community saying they could do anything or more victim hood and systemic racism gibberish?
How about diversity being defined as not being from Harvard/Yale?
Very good op ed in the WSJ this weekend making that very point–https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-supreme-court-needs-diversity-in-more-ways-than-one-ketanji-brown-jackson-judge-ivy-league-biden-appointee-appointment-11643566752?mod=opinion_major_pos5
Jim
Obama is a great role model for young black kids- the living proof that a black man could achieve the highest office on Earth in supposedly racist America. A great orator and an educated man with a solid family life.
The fact that you or I or anyone else may detest his politics in almost every respect is of little importance in this context. Besides, his political impact was modest, so take the positives and move on.
the other side of that is, Obama didn’t rise up through effort and excellence etc; he was – as some have put it – “wafted” up on currents of affirmative action etc, despite lack of apparent accomplishment, qualification, or even effort. His school/college grades/transcripts are still hidden, people who were with him at law school and on the Law Review say he did little or nothing there, he may have actually voted “present” more than either “yes” or “no” while in the Illinois and then US Senate – both positions he may not have held but for dirt dug up on his Republican opponents for those offices, illegally at least in one case (the Ryan divorce records were supposed to have been sealed) – and so much more.
I guess you could call that a “role model” but it’s not a GOOD one. Arguably no better than a “gangsta rapper.”