While it is bad, in my book, to discriminate by sex or race, Reagan didn’t pledge to do so on any particular pick, only that he would do so eventually.
Trump was a bit worse in that he unambiguously said he would only consider a woman for that one particular opening.
I’m against preferential policies. While I can’t expect a Supreme Court nomination to be chosen on the basis of pure merit, limiting choices to certain demographics is, in my value system, morally wrong and sends a bad message other hiring officials. Similar pledges don’t make Trump and Biden equally bad overall, but they both discriminate. (Although, politically, I think reverse discrimination hurts the Democratic brand more.)
As for what to do about discriminatory hires after the fact— nothing. Elite hiring and admissions policies should change, but those who may have benefited in the past, whether due to reverse or classic discrimination, should not be punished.
You are mostly correct there. I hope that opposition to preferential policies like affirmative action and alumni child admissions becomes more widespread, but, right now, discrimination is mainstream.
It’s theater. This is a part-time political patronage job, but in the minds of the elite legal world, the media, etc., it’s the pantheon of legal greatness and the President has the obligation to search for the most qualified mind in the country to elevate to the highest temple of thought. So there has to be a whole dog and pony show that demonstrates how seriously the President is taking this solemn duty.
The whole confirmation process will be even more theater. They almost all know how they’re going to vote already but there’s still going to be an elaborate ritual of parades through the Senate offices to have meetings with the key senators, hearings where pointless questions receive non-answers, etc.
Yeah, and the standard theatrics go like “Roe? I never heard of it! Of course I have no idea how I would rule on something like that when I’ve never spent a moment thinking about it!”
In my value system it’s a good idea to bring people in who have different backgrounds and perspectives. An African American woman in this country has had different experiences that others. The court (and other work places) benefit from that that.
However, I think it’s bad politics to announce and pledge you’re going to limit your search to one demographic. It feeds the right wing trolls. Just say you’ll nominate great people to the Court, and when the time comes, put an African American woman on the Court if that’s what you want to do.
I agree with this, in a vacuum. In terms of Biden’s presidential campaign, I suspect this was a negotiated promise from Clybourn and others to throw their support behind Biden. Sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do. And I don’t say that to suggest Biden doesn’t actually want to name a Black woman to the court, just that I’m guessing that he went public about it ahead of time because he felt he had to.
The dance is funny. Brown? Wonderful decision. Korematsu and Dred Scott? Terrible. A stain on our country’s history. Heller? I refuse to talk about particular cases.
When it comes to demographic background, I am neutral.
When it comes to perspective, I want someone who shares my perspective.
However, if you really want a different background, I suggest Judge Ada Brown. She’s Black. She graduated from a historically Black college. She’s also an enrolled Choctaw. (Intersectionality, anyone?) And she’s a Texan who didn’t go to Harvard or Yale.
As for perspective, I think that prosecuting murder cases, in a death penalty state, gave her a different perspective than mine:
Can we expect you to support Ada Brown if nominated to the Supreme Court by the next GOP president as our first Native American Supreme Court justice? I don’t think this is a far-out hypothetical.
And this is also why the only people who get appointed to the court these days are appellate judges. Not only can they not talk about particular cases (except the ones that everyone at least pretends to agree on), they can’t even talk about their own records because those opinions were highly dependent on the specific facts, and as a jurist they had an obligation to consider each case independently, you see.
That said, Senator: if you insist on an answer about Roe, let me now take this opportunity to agree with you that it — is the law of the land! And that it — has been, for quite some time! Hey, you look like you’re now inferring something, while I’m just casually mentioning what the law currently is; so, how about you keep nodding like we’re having an implicit conversation about the future, instead of an explicit one that isn’t?
Deep vetting means involving other people and departments, which increases the chances that the info will leak out, giving the Republicans enough lead time to manufacture a case against those picks and make any and/or all of them look like far left commie wackos.
The Supreme court confirmation process should not be rushed. Thus opponents would always have enough time to do this even if no information was leaked. And sometimes early leaking of the names would kill nominations which deserve to be killed. For example the sexual misconduct claims against Brett Kavanaugh would have prevented his nomination from a lot of Presidents (although of course not “grab her pussy” Trump).
It also should not be stalled indefinitely, which is the current open goal of the Republican Party when it comes to anything and almost everything done by a Democratic administration. Giving the Republicans extra time to prepare in a case like this would be about the stupidest thing the President could possibly do.
A final point – the Administration has literally been working to fill thousands of open executive branch positions as well as dozens of district and circuit court vacancies over the past year. There’s a finite amount of time and resources that any Administration can dedicate to vetting nominees, and the positions that need to be filled immediately are going to take precedence over a position that may come open in the future.
That being said, I’m sure that the White House has done some preliminary vetting of their top candidates for a Supreme Court vacancy. Giving himself until the end of February does seem like an unnecessarily long time, but he doesn’t have to wait until then.
A special fuck you very much to Susan Collins for protesting that Biden was politicizing the process by pledging to nominate a black woman. Where was the outrage from the right when Reagan pledged to nominate a woman? Where were her principles when it came time to nominate an alcoholic sexual predator to the Supreme Court? What high moral ground was she defending when she failed to vote to convict in the first impeachment trial?
Lindsey Graham was on Face the Nation this morning absolutely singing the praises of J. Michelle Childs. Called her “a fair-minded, highly gifted jurist,” “incredibly qualified,” “qualified by every measure,” and “one of the most decent people I’ve ever met.” He also pushed back hard on the argument that nominating her would be “affirmative action.” It really has to be seen to be believed.
Not that often that Lindsey Graham and James Clyburn are singing the same gospel. It almost makes the cynic in me wonder if Graham knows something that would sink her in a nomination hearing.
He knows one of Biden’s picks will be confirmed, so he prefers the one from his own state. The GOP doesn’t care a whit about being hypocritical, so he can still protest any future nomination as the evil affirmative action.
So – do most progressives favor that preferential policy?
I’m thinking the answer is no.
However, most people hesitate to attack their own team. And the Ivy League is mostly on the progressive team,
The human tendency, not limited to one ideology, to defend your own and attack outsiders, explains why you didn’t find anti-Reagan outrage from the right.