[NB: Snipping this piece deprives your post of good and important context. Bear with me ;-)]
I have definitely been nagged by this thought. I’ve also been aware of how many generations had a de facto race/gender litmus test that precluded anything even remotely resembling diversity.
What I came to in my head – by analogy – is this:
Quite a few years ago, I was in the market for a high-end bicycle. I did my research. What I found, in the end, was that – at some point – you’ve narrowed down your list to, say, ten manufacturers with whose product you simply could not go wrong.
There were/are so many incredibly good (boutique) bicycle makers on the market that you could easily afford to pick based on The Most Picayune factors:
how they responded to your phone/email inquiries
whether the name flowed easily off the tongue
if you liked the paint/colors they offered
any ‘socially responsible’ activities they participate in
do they sell bespoke riding apparel in which I might look smashing ?
Etc., etc., etc.
So my evaluation of Biden’s SCOTUS pick – in the end – felt the same way to me: there are so many extremely qualified candidates for the Court that something as important as a combination of gender and race takes absolutely nothing away from the result of the pick.
I heard today that on the political spectrum, she’s right near Elena Kagan, who was confirmed 67-33. This “victory for the radical left” charge is utter horse puckey.
It’ll be interesting to hear how Lindsey Graham explains why he felt she was qualified last year but is a dangerous radical this year.
When the day comes that the demographic makeup of the SCOTUS resembles that of the US, then maybe we can just draw qualified names at random. But we’re not there by a long shot.
“Let’s say you really didn’t care about the country you lead,” he said. “Let’s say you wanted to humiliate and degrade it and undermine its ancient institutions. What would you do?
Me ? I’d elect Donald Trump to the Presidency. YMMV.
"I urge the members of the Senate to review her record and experience with the same consideration afforded to Amy Coney Barrett, Brett Kavanaugh, and every other person serving in this esteemed role.
That’s from Charles Booker, the Democrat challenging Rand Paul for U.S. Senate.
The Senate’s rejection of Bork ended up becoming a rallying cry for conservatives on judicial nominations and fueled the rampant growth of the Federalist Society and the monomaniacal Republican focus on seeding the judiciary with conservatives. The last thing Mitch wants to do is give Democrats a similar figure to rally around. Garland showed that simply ignoring the President’s nominee will kill the nomination without creating the kind of media circus that high-profile hearings and a Senate vote would produce.
I idea that Bork was mistreated or slandered during his Senate hearings or was rejected because of character assisinations is a myth. He was rejected, not because of his skin color, gender, or his movie rental history, but because he was a far right extremist who was vehemently against anti-discrimination laws, because he helped execute Watergate’s Saturday Night Massacre, and had an untenable, hyper-expensive view of Presidential power, and because he held very limited views of the Bill of Rights.
You misunderstand what I mean by “the Robert Bork treatment.” They will simply vote against any nominee’s confirmation. I am under the impression that the single biggest strike against Bork was, most people were under the impression (and, IIRC, Bork later admitted that it was true) that he would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade.
One issue voters tend to see the entirety of a person in their stance on that one issue. The great thing about Bork was that he was not just anti-abortion, he was anti-gay rights, anti-free speech, anti-women, anti-legislative action, and anti-voting by poor people. He hit every issue that so called conservatives love to sell to their base, and tried very hard to hide it behind a fake veneer of “judicial restraint”.
He was judged, not on the basis of his race or gender, as Judge Jackson is by current Republicans, but by his horrid judicial and political views.
I think people are ignoring the most important diversity she brings to SCOTUS - she is a former defense attorney. When was the last time one of those was on the highest bench? Next we need a former IP attorney to be nominated.
I’d actually have a modicum of respect for McConnel if he (having reclaimed the Majority Leadership) were to bring a Biden SC nominee to the floor to be rejected by Republicans. At least that would be a public vote after public hearings where voters could pass judgment on their own Senators’ yays or nays.
But he’s still got a couple members for whom that would be a tough vote. And it’s not Mitch’s style to kill things in big, flashy votes. He much prefers to drive the shiv in behind the scenes through arcane parliamentary maneuvering that confuses and bores voters and obscures responsibility. Garland wasn’t the only Obama judicial nominee that Mitch ran out the clock on – he also stonewalled several district and circuit court nominees that let Trump fill those seats.
Bumping this to note that Judge Jackson will have her first hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Monday beginning at 11 a.m. EST, with four days of hearings currently scheduled.
