Biden has forever stigmatized his Supreme Court nominee

Joe Biden announced on the campaign trail a couple of years ago that he intended to nominate a black woman to the Supreme Court. He re-affirmed that intention today in the wake of Justice Stephen Breyer’s retirement announcement.

It’s not that Biden has a particular nominee in mind who just happens to be a black woman. No, it’s that being a black woman is the main criteria.

This is not unprecedented for Biden. In the Democrat primaries, he announced he intended to choose a woman for his running mate. And then he did. We got Kamala Harris, who is reasonably qualified for the job – if the only qualification is being a woman.

But it’s not. The job of vice president entails things other than being a woman. On those other things, she’s not up to the job according to polls of the American people. (For Biden, the good news is that she polls even worse than he does. Expect him to boast soon on a hot mike, “C’mon man, I’m still doin’ better than Kamala!”)

Kamala is indeed a lousy VP. But in her defense (don’t worry, this isn’t a long defense) the people know she was picked for what’s between her legs, not what’s between her ears. Heck, Biden told us that in advance. So, it’s no surprise that people haven’t given her the benefit of the doubt.

Biden didn’t care that his prior announcement that he intended an affirmative action VP would stigmatize the woman he chose. What he cared about was that it would make him look good. Whether it made her look bad never entered his “mind.”

To be fair, the world is chock full of ideas that have never entered Joe Biden’s “mind.”

Having learned from his bad experience with Harris exactly as well as he learns from other life experiences, Biden is now in the process of making the same mistake again. He has already labeled his Supreme Court pick a “black woman.” Non-blacks and non-women need not apply.

His pick will consequently be seen as a quota-filler, by her colleagues on the Court, by litigants before the Court, by politicians of all stripes and by the people of America. She may wind up as good as John Marshall, Louis Brandies and Antonin Scalia all rolled into one, but she’ll always be seen as “Biden’s affirmative action pick.”

This illustrates one of several problems with affirmative action. The races that are intended beneficiaries of it are stigmatized. I suppose that’s a good thing with respect to individual minorities who ride the quota gravy train to achieve positions that they don’t deserve. But it’s a bad thing for other individual minorities who could have gotten their position on merit rather than skin color.

Imagine being a great black doctor about whom patients wonder, “Did he get into med school just because he’s black?” It’s a legitimate and logical question, because many did.

The more obvious problem with affirmative action is, of course, that in the process of favoring certain races it inherently disfavors others. If you’re a disfavored race, it’s fair to rename affirmative action as “disaffirming action.”

About 2% of American lawyers are black women. In the upper echelons of the profession, the percentage is even less. Biden therefore refused to consider at least 98% of the persons qualified for the job of Supreme Court justice, on the sole basis of their skin color and sex.

In another context, we’ll see if the Supreme Court curtails its earlier cases allowing this sort of pernicious racial discrimination. By coincidence, they agreed this week to hear the lawsuit by Asian students against Harvard for actively discriminating against them. That suit that may well be heard by a Court that includes Biden’s quota baby.

Glenn Beaton practiced before the Supreme Court.

36 thoughts on “Biden has forever stigmatized his Supreme Court nominee

  1. Harris is qualified to be VP – her only constitutional duties are breaking Senate ties and staying sober enough that she can stand in for Dementia Joe at any random time. I’m sure his SCOTUS pick will be minimally qualified as well. But “Black Woman” does minimize the field of qualified candidates a lot.

  2. What does “black” mean? Obmama was our first black president. Yet his mother was white and his father was black. So was he really our first black president? Or was his skin color dark enough to be considered black. If his skin color was any lighter would he have been considered white? His mother was white. And does she have to be a biological girl? Or can she just identify as a girl? I hope that whatever he/she/it looks like will be a constitutional conservative. But that’s doubtful.

    • I agree 100%, and while Kamala might be a woman, she is brown with no claim to African heritage. Brainless Biden has also brought us a horrible cabinet made up of liberal freaks.

  3. Glenn, do you think that the black woman who gets the nomination will be bothered in the slightest that Hunter’s dad announced ahead of time that the nomination would go to a black woman? (My opinion: Almost certainly not.) How many blacks will be bothered that the nominee is “stigmatized”? (My opinion: Next to none.) They’ll just regard it as a tiny part of the reparations that the rest of us owe them. As for everyone else, the vast majority have become inured to our lawless racial spoils system. I’m much less bothered by this instance of Hunter’s dad playing racial politics (which is not illegal) than by government and academic discrimination against whites (and Asians) that is illegal and even unconstitutional but happens anyway.

    • Your are correct sir. Very few people will be bothered for all the reason’s you listed and one more – the pool of qualified black women is more than large enough and it’s time we tapped it (for all the reasons you listed.)

      • Really? Why? If we must go in that direction, how about the pool of Asian women? How about the pool of any narrowly defined women–including self proclaimed women–that you can imagine?

  4. Frankly, no supreme court justicce can erase the taint of being appointed by any politician. I’m afraid our forefathers messed things up real bad with giving such power to a handful of politically appointed lawyers who effectivly make law not interpret it–unless you believe that lie called emminations from pennumbras that they found which has resulted in the slaughter of some 60 -70 million innocent humans.

  5. Frankly, Biden’s “quota baby” SCOTUS pick should have to recuse herself from that Harvard case because she, herself, will have ascended to her position via affirmative action.

  6. Exeunt Breyer; now enter any black female. Do we really think it will make a difference? Breyer was a very dependable leftist vote on the Court, so replacing him with another dependable leftist vote means nothing. Frankly, I can’t wait to read her opinions. They ought to be at least as… informative as Jill Biden’s “doctoral thesis.”

  7. Affirmative Action ->->->->-> Negative Reaction

    The Democrat Party excels at playing and manipulating the racial spoils system. 160 years ago it was their laziness for work and penchant for slavery. After getting their butts kicked in a Civil War, these sore losers went on to further manipulate their racial spoils system in the form of discrimination, Jim Crow Laws, lynchings, church burnings and other domestic terrorism via their KKK.

    Now … Democrats still play the racial spoils system by merely flipping the script. What was once their policy of Jim Crow has now morphed into Hating Whitey, and hating any so called “white adjacent” groups whom exhibit can-do spirit, a sense of entrepreneurship, little or no victimhood, and rugged individualism … i.e., Asians, Jews, and now increasingly Hispanics and Latinos as Biden’s polling has sunk with them too.

    Jim Crow Joe Biden further perpetrates the Democrat Party sick fetish with racial identity and grievance groups. Jim Crow Joe seems intent on ushering in a new American apartheid for the 21st century. He comes a little over a century after that demonic racist Woodrow Wilson reinvigorated the KKK with the screening of “Birth Of A Nation” in the White House. Perhaps Joe Biden’s brain is so rotted out that he doesn’t see the old decrepit Caucasian staring back at him the mirror.

    There is a reason why Lady Justice is blindfolded, as race, creed, heritage, wealth, poverty, privilege and lack of privilege have no status before her sword of justice.

    Like everything that comes into contact with their corrupted, envy-based apartheid policies, the Democrats ruin everything they touch. This SCOTUS pick will be no different.

    In the meantime, here is a song dedication to Jim Crow Joe’s soon-to-be SCOTUS pick. And though the band has now distanced itself and somewhat disavowed this song, I’m sure that crusty ole Jim Crow Joe has a taste in his mouth right about now …

  8. “The more obvious problem with affirmative action is, of course, that in the process of favoring certain races it inherently disfavors others. If you’re a disfavored race, it’s fair to rename affirmative action as ‘disaffirming action.’”

    Hey, that’s right… Why does Biden hate Asians, Pacific Islanders, Native Americans, et al.? Who does that old white guy think he is to say it isn’t their turn? Why do all these other people groups have to wait at the back of the line? Just because he says so? That’s racist white supremacy. And why “woman”? Shouldn’t that be “birthing person”? Hateful transphobic rhetoric.

    • Yes, “birthing person” if she is what we quaintly used to call a “mother.” Otherwise the correct term is “menstruating person.”

  9. She will ALWAYS be thought of as the Affirmative Action Supreme Court justice. Period!!!

    It doesn’t matter how qualified she may be, she will be known as the “black woman” that got appointed because Senile Joe biden said he would appoint that if he had the chance.

    Not that I’m too concerned. biden won’t go for qualified regardless. That doesn’t matter at all. He will go for rabid LIE-beral activist black woman. And she will clearly be an Affirmative Action pick, and will cause damage to this republic for decades.

  10. When I first heard the term affirmative action, years ago, it had to do with getting women into traditionally male dominated professions. it was meant to be temporary. Affirmative action has mutated into the more righteous sounding term, inclusion. Back then I’d thought that if you favour women based solely on gender, you’re excluding those applicants, male or female, who could do a better job. It leads to the lowering of standards.

  11. Good comments, everyone.

    Regarding the politics of it all:

    First, Biden made no friends in leaking Breyer’s confidentiail communication about his plans, apparently in a desperate attempt to bolster his catastrophic poll numbers.

    Second, he made a mistake in announcing beforehand that the nominee would be a black woman, even though he doesn’t know which one. In effect, he said to his audience, “I’m candidly manipulating you to applaud me.” Some of the audience will go along with the manipulation. But others who might have applauded if Biden had been more subtle, will feel the mainipulation and react accordingly.

  12. Corn Pop has now Identified as a female judge…..truly a great pick for the highest court!!!….Let’s Go Brandon!

  13. Good stuff! You’re always presenting a different angle to current issues.
    Many on the left, especially Biden, are very interested in virtue signaling. That really matters to the left (the white dresses, the rainbow everything, kneeling and not able to get back up pelosi during 2020 riots, #bringbackourgirls, etc.).
    Biden could easily have picked Harris or a female black SCOTUS nominee without signaling. He could have boxed himself without letting all of us know. He has to signal his virtue to the tribe. That signal is crucial to the nature of leftist politics today.
    Also, being on the left means never being embarrassed (or stigmatized). I doubt Kamala or a new SCOTUS are in the least embarrassed about how or why they were (will be) chosen.

  14. Always, good stuff!
    Many on the left, especially Biden, are very interested in virtue signaling. That matters to the left (the white dresses, the rainbow everything, kneeling and not able to get back up pelosi during 2020 riots, #bringbackourgirls, etc.).
    Biden could have easily picked Harris or a female black SCOTUS nominee without signaling. He could have boxed himself without letting all of us know. But, he had to signal his virtue to the tribe. That signal is crucial to the nature of leftist politics today.
    Also, being on the left means never being embarrassed (or stigmatized). I doubt Kamala or a new SCOTUS are in the least embarrassed about how or why they were (will be) chosen.

  15. Babylon bee comment: supreme court rules against Biden pick of a Breyer replacement solely on gender pronouns and race is unconstitutional violating the equal rights act. 8 – 1. Justice Roberts in dissent Reading Biden’s mind said clearly and succinctly how “could he know”?

  16. Biden left out the most important qualifier for his black woman pick.
    She must obviously be a FAR LEFT black woman.
    A qualified conservative ,( constitutional originalist),black woman would never be on his
    , or his parties list, which is the most important determiner on what sort of crazed votes and inane comments we will see the choice making.

    • Well, it goes without saying that the black woman nominee will be far-left. The Dems would say that a black woman who is not far left is not really black and not really a woman.

      Remember when Biden in his campaign told a black man that if he didn’t vote for Biden then he wasn’t really black?

      • Obvious, yes, and needs repeating just as much as pointing out his race choice, so the asleep portion of the electorate who seldom analyze government will realize what they are getting .
        My Biden statement favorite is,
        ” I dont work for you” in response to an average Joe who disagreed with him on gun control policy.
        I genuinely believe Joe has never felt he was in the business of working for the average citizen.
        Like many politicians, it becomes about power and money.

      • As long as she has several varieties of hot sauce in her purse. Frank’s Redhot needs to offer a “pocket-size” bottle.

  17. A society that puts equality before freedom will get neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both. ~ Milton Friedman.

  18. Glenn … I was just looking over the US Constitution online and I can find nothing about this so it seems to be silent … but, could SCOTUS, in theory, actually decide by itself whether to accept or to reject a Justice nominee if that jurist is so unfit in qualifications to be seated? What if the other Justices rejected the Court nominee outright?

    The famous 1803 Marbury vs. Madison decision was a case in which the SCOTUS itself declared its own power of judicial review by determining whether enacted laws are constitutional or unconstitutional. Obviously, Impeachment is the method to remove Judical officers for high crimes and misdeanors, and there was a late Democrat Congressman from Florida who got elected to office despite being an impeached and removed federal judge.

    Going back … could SCOTUS, as it did in Marbury v. Madison, simply declare itself co-equal branch and refuse to accept and seat a nominated and confirmed SCOTUS appointee if that person was so unfit and infamous? What if SCOTUS rules in the college admissions case before it that these racial set asides like affirmative action are unconstitutional yet the Supreme Justice appointee was appointed in a manner that violates this decision?

    Congress seems to have to power to refuse to seat or to expel an elected member if that member has something in his background or character that is unreputable and/or unfitting for the solemnity and dignity of the office.

    Lots of moving parts here … kinda like a Swiss clock. I’m a bit of a layman when it comes to the Constitution so I would appreciate your perspective, even if this is very inside baseball, so to speak.

    Best regards …

      • Okay … but I note that you use the word DULY to emphasize that the nomination and confirmation process was legitimate.

        But … what if SCOTUS rules that affirmative action/racial quotas are unconstitutional as in the upcoming college case, then afterwards POTUS clearly uses a affirmative action/racial quota to fill a SCOTUS vacancy after such a decision was rendered?

        The Senate, either through sheer political cravenness or pure abandonment, confirms said nominee despite the obvious use of an unconstitutional (again assuming the college affirmative action case is ruled as such) process to select and confirm the the person to SCOTUS.

        Would SCOTUS be obligated to seat an unduly nominated and confirmed Justice?

        What do you think happens in such a theoretical situation?

        Thanks and G’day …

      • Here’s another … perhaps a kissing cousin to … the scenario I presented, but this is over at the Legal Insurrection blog.

        This has to do with the 50/50 Senate and whether it’s constitutional for the VPOTUS to cast a tie-breaking vote (which has never been done before) to put the SCOTUS nominee on the Court.

        “How it would be resolved is not clear, the courts generally can’t rule on Senate Rules. If Democrats ram through a 50-vote plus tie-breaker nominee, what’s next? Is it legitimate, can that Justice take the seat? Would the other Justices in effect vote whether to seat the person? Chaos?”


  19. Seems President Biden was in good company when he promised to make SCOTUS more representative of our country by limiting his selection to only part of the technically qualified pool.

    At a 1980 campaign news conference, Reagan announced that “one of the first Supreme Court vacancies in my administration will be filled” by a woman, saying it’s “time for a woman to sit among our highest jurists.” And his first appointment was a woman — Judge Sandra Day O’Connor.

    As a sitting president, Trump’s situation was somewhat different than either Reagan or Biden, although the political context was the same. While running for reelection, Trump announced at a campaign rally — less than six weeks before the election — that he would appoint a woman. He did appoint a woman, Judge Amy Coney Barrett.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s