New poll out:
Now, with the chance to do so, just over three-quarters of Americans (76%) want Biden to consider “all possible nominees.” Just 23% want him to automatically follow through on his history-making commitment that the White House seems keen on seeing through.
So I just don’t see how this nomination of a black woman will help him politically.
What help does he need politically? How would it help him?
To my jaded and probably misinformed eye, he’s probably a good deal more concerned with his legacy than with re-election, especially in early 2022.
I know all individuals are different, but Biden is already the oldest occupant of the office, and the next two (Reagan and Trump) weren’t looking all that capable by the end of their tenure in the White House. Whether or not he even runs in 2024, the details of the Supreme Court pick won’t matter so much as the fact of: most voters concerned with the Supreme Court will be voting for the party, not the individual; his pick will be better than any R president.
I can’t imagine how his choice would help in his policy or legislative agendas, but that would be more likely to matter among Washington insiders than the American people as a whole.
Has a president ever been helped politically by a Supreme Court nomination? What percentage of the public is even aware that there’s an impending vacancy? It’s possible that Trump got an extra senator or two out of the Kavanaugh fracas, I guess, but that all happened a month before the election.
I am liberal but the idea of putting only a member of one group on the court is really dumb.
I could go along with that were it not for about 150 years of history that limited the justice pool to white men.
Agreed. Thankfully Biden is trying to expand the diversity of the court to reduce this sort of exclusivity.
It already helped him politically – remember that the context of his pledge to nominate a black woman was that he was reeling from poor showings in the Iowa and New Hampshire primaries and another dismal result in South Carolina could have ended his campaign. His promise to nominate a black woman got him the support of Rep James Clyburn and strong backing by African American primary voters that propelled him to first place in SC and saved his candidacy.
Failing to follow through on that promise would be a betrayal that African American leaders would remember long after the rest of the country has completely forgotten that there was a Supreme Court nomination.
He can only put one person on the court at a time. If he has another opportunity, it very well could be a member of another group.
8 of the 9 went to Yale or Harvard law. Barrett went to Notre Dame. All 9 did not go to public universities for undergrad or law school. How about some diversity in those areas? Pretty sure there are good public law schools and undergrad schools.
Also, deep vetting if done ahead of time would only need to be done all over again, because in the interval (which might be years) something relevant might have happened.
And it’s got to be a hassle for everyone involved. Why spend time and money bothering X’s gym teacher when it might, for any of a number of reasons including X being in a bad car accident in the meantime, turn out not to be necessary?
Yes. If they haven’t done some preliminary work, I’d be astonished. If somebody’s got something obvious that ought to be disqualifying on their record, even having them on the short list a) is a waste of time and b) can be made to look bad.
The idea of having members of only one group, or even primarily members of only one group, on the Supreme Court in particular is even dumber.
If you want the next president to nominate a white guy from Kansas Law School, then make sure they get elected.
Count me among those who would prefer the promise had not been made to limit the choice to a particular group.
However, there are over 20 million Americans in that group. If we can’t find at least a dozen of them who would each be a fantastic Supreme Court pick, our failure on behalf of that group needs to be shouted from the rooftops nationwide, and solved.
Biden is just a washed up career politician so it’s not surprising he would make a promise like a black woman on the court. He only won because of the virus and Trump being horrible. I don’t think he should run in 24 because I don’t see him beating Trump again. Only way Trump does not run is if he’s 6 feet under . He will probably run even if he’s in jail or under indictment.
Ultimately whatever decision Biden makes will be immaterial. Trump didn’t lose the last election due to his SC nominations.
Politics is all optics and theatre now. Biden choosing a perfectly qualified black woman will not cost him a single vote.
He could lose a few votes if it turns out she has a skeleton in the closet that doesn’t show up until after she’s on the court. Odds of that <1%
Withdrawn
And not doing so now would cost him votes for breaking a promise.
However, think about what happens next year when the Supreme Court delivers a likely popular ruling against affirmative action. If the Biden administration was in a position to say that we have always pushed hard against discrimination, knowing it almost always hurts the disadvantaged — and never wanted reverse discrimination — home free. But because of an otherwise trivial miscue, now they are stuck.
The smart (and morally correct) move, after an outstanding Black woman is confirmed, would be to publicly say that that she was an outstanding candidate regardless of race or gender, apologize for the mistake of suggesting that a job candidacy be limited by race or gender, and promise not to do it again. Then they would be unstuck.
Which would automatically be spun as “Biden apologizes for choosing Black female judge”.
Perception and appearance for offices like SCOTUS are important factors and it’s ridiculous to pretend that it’s just about interpreting law. A SCOTUS that’s not trusted by the public, or not seen as representative of the public, is a non functional SCOTUS, regardless of their legal ability. Due to the machinations of McConnell, I think we’re nearly there already, but Biden’s announcement moves us at least a smidgen from the abyss, since it rectifies an ongoing multi century long travesty - the complete absence of representation for black women on the SCOTUS for no good reason.
If the nominee says that about Biden, it will be a problem. But so long as Biden clearly says otherwise, and, as I expect, nominates a Black woman of judicial temperament, that won’t happen.
When a critical race theory professor says it, as one or more will, so what? They’ll be wrong, and it will help Biden to have such an adversary.
If the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision is any precedent, discriminators will attempt runarounds and delays for many years (classic dual school systems lasted until about 1970) after the Supreme Court rules against AA. This will make Biden’s history on AA a continuing Democratic Party liability unless the band aid is pulled off quickly.
It’s a matter of opinion what’s the wrong side here morally. But, if I can repeat a link, the evidence is clear that Biden is on the wrong side politically.