Through the miracles of modern science, it has been established that all but 7 of our 115 Supreme Court justices had blood type "A positive". President LBJ appointed the first Justice with type "B positive". A few weeks prior to the 1980 election, soon to be President Reagan announced that he would appoint the first "A negative" justice to the Supreme court, which he later did. Since then there have been five additional justices appointed with blood types other than the dominant "A positive", but there has never been a Supreme Court justice with blood type "B negative". During the 2020 campaign soon to be President Biden announced that it was time for a "B negative" justice. Now that this is becoming a possibility, there are those who say that this is a mistake. I wonder why does it matter?
No Charlie, it really doesn't matter if Joe limits the field right off the bat, because the field is filled with stellar candidates even after the field is limited. You ever hear of inherent bias? Psychology studies all the factors that affect how we choose and who we like. Boils down to this - we must force ourselves to look harder at the candidate that is different from us, because if we don't, we choose someone like ourselves or someone we like. Some of us have to decide at the beginning if we are WILLING to choose a black/female/foreign/ugly/whatever candidate, or our subconscious will keep pulling us away from that candidate. It may technically be a racist action but has the longer term goal of normalizing diversity in public power.
I mean as long as a long lost classmate doesn't jump out the closet and scream rape and then she goes in front of Congress to exclaim her Love of Beer. We have been choosing most of our judges by skin color for hundreds of years. Why not do it one more time.
Another reality check on SCOTUS comes from a dear friend of mine, a retired professional White woman:
So the key point to make is that there are roughly 100 Black women who would make a great choice. We have qualified candidates for Biden to vet, and I do not give a flying fuck who gets his or her liberal (or conservative) lily-white nose out of joint over it. I care not who, whatever their gender, race, etc., feels left behind to put a Black woman on the Court. We have had only had 113 members of the court and I think 107 of them have been white men - qualified or not. And we needed a Black man on the court so badly we got stuck with freakin’ Clarence Thomas, married to a White woman at the time.
I will say that I have only seen a few highly professional Black females, but let me tell you - ONE will change that court. Any Black woman nominated has dealt with real shit for a long time and will have a perspective (and the verbal skills to display it) that these sitting jokers are not ready for. They have been largely dismissive of Sotomayor, but they will not be dismissive of one of these Black women. She will not allow it. Accomplished Black women have really been raised in their matriarchal culture and they are totally comfy with calling out the bullshit and lies and I have yet to see a successful Black female who is not brilliant, proud, defiant, articulate and ready to protect her babies, and by extension, all of the rest of us too. I hope SCOTUS is ready. I do believe America is.
I am new to Bulwark and Bulwark+. (I am center left on lots of issues; but not all). I have been catching up on the content here, and I agree with many of your takes about the Dems screwing up and not listening to the center and to white working class men, but this take about Biden's campaign pledge to nominate a black woman to the SCOTUS does not land with me--not politically, not practically, not at all, really.
I am certain that Biden has a sufficiently large pool of black women to choose from for this one position. Besides, whether or not Biden had revealed his priors or kept his mouth shut until he ultimately nominates a well-qualified black woman, the reaction from the extreme right (and, apparently, the never-Trump, center right as indicated by this take) would be the same.
You can assume that I am one of those clueless libs that you like to rail against, who is dismissing reasonable and real concerns of white working class men (and, I guess, Republican-leaning suburban women because they are truly worried about their smart white sons being able to get into the so-called best colleges or whatever), and that's okay; you can argue that, but on this topic, I disagree. This is a win for Biden.
That being said, thanks for the work you are doing at the Bulwark overall--truly.
Identity politics - I've gotta laugh. I'm not even a democrat, but to march out these silly phrases in the face of the dangerous farces we've barely lived through over the past 10, 20, or so years insults anyone's intelligence. As mama would say, use your words - explain yourself rather than regurgitating banality.
Tim Miller’s latent racism is rearing it’s head. Guess you can’t take the racist republican out of the man. Maybe you should rejoin the fascists. You might be more comfortable there.
There are always parameters. And there are certainly more African American women of extraordinary qualifications, character, experience, and integrity (Biden’s parameters) than there were partisan judicial hacks willing to damn the torpedoes and kill Roe v Wade (Trump’s parameters). So if anything, this is a bigger bucket.
In a fair world, race wouldn’t matter, and eminently qualified women of color would be operating on an even playing field. But it’s not a fair world.
As for Fox News and the rest of right wing media, they just want to see the world burn. If it weren’t this, it would just be something else.
I think it's fine for Biden to privately concentrate on qualified Black women to fill the seat, and for there to be rumors that he might wish to pick one. It's the announcement beforehand that's the issue. And when asked about it he could've said, "Of course I would consider a Black woman and I'm aware they're unrepresented, and should be represented." And leave it there. It's the saying that he would only consider a singular identity that seems to have rankled Sullivan and the NR, not that he eventually chooses a Black woman. I agree he didn't need to trumpet his absolute intention, or shouldn't need to. It's fine to hold some things close to the vest rather than blatantly virtue signal. His base, and anyone else who knows about Biden, understand he's not unlikely to choose a Black woman, quite the opposite. That should be enough, or would be for a more nuanced politician.
Charlie, since I can't figure out how to send you an email, I'm asking here. Do you ever read American Conservative? They seem to have turned into a pro-Putin, pro-Trump, anti-vax, pro-Fox, with 20-somethings written often inane articles that reflect their naivete. Wondering what a real conservative thinks of them.
Just read Charon's piece about CRT... I am not really conversant with CRT from academia, not really my field.
What I DO see, is (despite what Charon says) is (at best) a significant number of people on the right who are reluctant to talk about issues of race outside of the narrow confines of mythological race history in America (IOW, traditional American history for most of the 20th Century and earlier) through the spectrum of people that will grudgingly admit, if pressed that America was somewhat racist (but no longer is, problem solved thank God!!!!!) to full blown white supremacists.
Most of them seem to fall into the problem solved category--and since the problem is solved do we need to talk about this stuff? There is a lot of diversion and avoidance--and do we REALLY need to make our children (and more importantly but unspoken, ourselves) uncomfortable or feel bad about things.
Even this whole hoo-haw about CRT is kind of indicative of the whole avoidance, problem solved, not something to be really dealt with perspective.
Saying that you think something should be yaught in response to a poll is one thing... the stuff I see when it is actually taught (complaints from students and parents) is something else. Abstract versus reality.
No one applies to be a justice on the Supreme Court Charlie and even if you're a serious student of the law and the Constitution that does not ensure you are in the running to become a nominee, whatever your gender, religion or ethnic origin.
I invite everyone to listen to Breyer's remarks today at the White House, and what he found most thrilling about being a judge on the high court. And Biden's criteria for choosing the first black woman to be his nominee—what is there, really, to quibble about?
We don't have the luxury of having a more perfect union when we can only achieve every right thing for every right reason. This ideal makes the good the enemy of the perfect. Taking umbrage at Sullivan's remarks and those of others with harsher assessments (including yours) may not mean they or you are wrong, but it also does not mean all of you are mostly right either in our ongoing and fraught experiment in democracy.
Excellence, as Breyer exemplifies and Biden echoed, is a better goal for our nation than criticisms others can make against Biden wanting to name the first black woman to sit on the court. The first black woman on the Supreme Court? Why, that’s an excellent thing to do and to accomplish. It grows my own pride and love for my country as a retired White man as well as, I’m certain, many millions of other Americans unlike me. Biden’s choice, whatever the reasons for it, advances our democracy and our common good immeasurably.
Agree with all that you said, Charlie. But I think this will work out good for the Democratic party in the long run because it will remind the large, recently wavering black voting bloc which party truly cares about them.
Through the miracles of modern science, it has been established that all but 7 of our 115 Supreme Court justices had blood type "A positive". President LBJ appointed the first Justice with type "B positive". A few weeks prior to the 1980 election, soon to be President Reagan announced that he would appoint the first "A negative" justice to the Supreme court, which he later did. Since then there have been five additional justices appointed with blood types other than the dominant "A positive", but there has never been a Supreme Court justice with blood type "B negative". During the 2020 campaign soon to be President Biden announced that it was time for a "B negative" justice. Now that this is becoming a possibility, there are those who say that this is a mistake. I wonder why does it matter?
No Charlie, it really doesn't matter if Joe limits the field right off the bat, because the field is filled with stellar candidates even after the field is limited. You ever hear of inherent bias? Psychology studies all the factors that affect how we choose and who we like. Boils down to this - we must force ourselves to look harder at the candidate that is different from us, because if we don't, we choose someone like ourselves or someone we like. Some of us have to decide at the beginning if we are WILLING to choose a black/female/foreign/ugly/whatever candidate, or our subconscious will keep pulling us away from that candidate. It may technically be a racist action but has the longer term goal of normalizing diversity in public power.
I mean as long as a long lost classmate doesn't jump out the closet and scream rape and then she goes in front of Congress to exclaim her Love of Beer. We have been choosing most of our judges by skin color for hundreds of years. Why not do it one more time.
Promises Made. Promises Kept.
Another reality check on SCOTUS comes from a dear friend of mine, a retired professional White woman:
So the key point to make is that there are roughly 100 Black women who would make a great choice. We have qualified candidates for Biden to vet, and I do not give a flying fuck who gets his or her liberal (or conservative) lily-white nose out of joint over it. I care not who, whatever their gender, race, etc., feels left behind to put a Black woman on the Court. We have had only had 113 members of the court and I think 107 of them have been white men - qualified or not. And we needed a Black man on the court so badly we got stuck with freakin’ Clarence Thomas, married to a White woman at the time.
I will say that I have only seen a few highly professional Black females, but let me tell you - ONE will change that court. Any Black woman nominated has dealt with real shit for a long time and will have a perspective (and the verbal skills to display it) that these sitting jokers are not ready for. They have been largely dismissive of Sotomayor, but they will not be dismissive of one of these Black women. She will not allow it. Accomplished Black women have really been raised in their matriarchal culture and they are totally comfy with calling out the bullshit and lies and I have yet to see a successful Black female who is not brilliant, proud, defiant, articulate and ready to protect her babies, and by extension, all of the rest of us too. I hope SCOTUS is ready. I do believe America is.
I am new to Bulwark and Bulwark+. (I am center left on lots of issues; but not all). I have been catching up on the content here, and I agree with many of your takes about the Dems screwing up and not listening to the center and to white working class men, but this take about Biden's campaign pledge to nominate a black woman to the SCOTUS does not land with me--not politically, not practically, not at all, really.
I am certain that Biden has a sufficiently large pool of black women to choose from for this one position. Besides, whether or not Biden had revealed his priors or kept his mouth shut until he ultimately nominates a well-qualified black woman, the reaction from the extreme right (and, apparently, the never-Trump, center right as indicated by this take) would be the same.
You can assume that I am one of those clueless libs that you like to rail against, who is dismissing reasonable and real concerns of white working class men (and, I guess, Republican-leaning suburban women because they are truly worried about their smart white sons being able to get into the so-called best colleges or whatever), and that's okay; you can argue that, but on this topic, I disagree. This is a win for Biden.
That being said, thanks for the work you are doing at the Bulwark overall--truly.
Identity politics - I've gotta laugh. I'm not even a democrat, but to march out these silly phrases in the face of the dangerous farces we've barely lived through over the past 10, 20, or so years insults anyone's intelligence. As mama would say, use your words - explain yourself rather than regurgitating banality.
Tim Miller’s latent racism is rearing it’s head. Guess you can’t take the racist republican out of the man. Maybe you should rejoin the fascists. You might be more comfortable there.
There are always parameters. And there are certainly more African American women of extraordinary qualifications, character, experience, and integrity (Biden’s parameters) than there were partisan judicial hacks willing to damn the torpedoes and kill Roe v Wade (Trump’s parameters). So if anything, this is a bigger bucket.
In a fair world, race wouldn’t matter, and eminently qualified women of color would be operating on an even playing field. But it’s not a fair world.
As for Fox News and the rest of right wing media, they just want to see the world burn. If it weren’t this, it would just be something else.
I think it's fine for Biden to privately concentrate on qualified Black women to fill the seat, and for there to be rumors that he might wish to pick one. It's the announcement beforehand that's the issue. And when asked about it he could've said, "Of course I would consider a Black woman and I'm aware they're unrepresented, and should be represented." And leave it there. It's the saying that he would only consider a singular identity that seems to have rankled Sullivan and the NR, not that he eventually chooses a Black woman. I agree he didn't need to trumpet his absolute intention, or shouldn't need to. It's fine to hold some things close to the vest rather than blatantly virtue signal. His base, and anyone else who knows about Biden, understand he's not unlikely to choose a Black woman, quite the opposite. That should be enough, or would be for a more nuanced politician.
Charlie, since I can't figure out how to send you an email, I'm asking here. Do you ever read American Conservative? They seem to have turned into a pro-Putin, pro-Trump, anti-vax, pro-Fox, with 20-somethings written often inane articles that reflect their naivete. Wondering what a real conservative thinks of them.
Just read Charon's piece about CRT... I am not really conversant with CRT from academia, not really my field.
What I DO see, is (despite what Charon says) is (at best) a significant number of people on the right who are reluctant to talk about issues of race outside of the narrow confines of mythological race history in America (IOW, traditional American history for most of the 20th Century and earlier) through the spectrum of people that will grudgingly admit, if pressed that America was somewhat racist (but no longer is, problem solved thank God!!!!!) to full blown white supremacists.
Most of them seem to fall into the problem solved category--and since the problem is solved do we need to talk about this stuff? There is a lot of diversion and avoidance--and do we REALLY need to make our children (and more importantly but unspoken, ourselves) uncomfortable or feel bad about things.
Even this whole hoo-haw about CRT is kind of indicative of the whole avoidance, problem solved, not something to be really dealt with perspective.
Saying that you think something should be yaught in response to a poll is one thing... the stuff I see when it is actually taught (complaints from students and parents) is something else. Abstract versus reality.
No one applies to be a justice on the Supreme Court Charlie and even if you're a serious student of the law and the Constitution that does not ensure you are in the running to become a nominee, whatever your gender, religion or ethnic origin.
I invite everyone to listen to Breyer's remarks today at the White House, and what he found most thrilling about being a judge on the high court. And Biden's criteria for choosing the first black woman to be his nominee—what is there, really, to quibble about?
We don't have the luxury of having a more perfect union when we can only achieve every right thing for every right reason. This ideal makes the good the enemy of the perfect. Taking umbrage at Sullivan's remarks and those of others with harsher assessments (including yours) may not mean they or you are wrong, but it also does not mean all of you are mostly right either in our ongoing and fraught experiment in democracy.
Excellence, as Breyer exemplifies and Biden echoed, is a better goal for our nation than criticisms others can make against Biden wanting to name the first black woman to sit on the court. The first black woman on the Supreme Court? Why, that’s an excellent thing to do and to accomplish. It grows my own pride and love for my country as a retired White man as well as, I’m certain, many millions of other Americans unlike me. Biden’s choice, whatever the reasons for it, advances our democracy and our common good immeasurably.
Case closed.
Also, when one party only nominates Federalist Society lawyers then...yeah...quota systems seem to be favored by all.
Agree with all that you said, Charlie. But I think this will work out good for the Democratic party in the long run because it will remind the large, recently wavering black voting bloc which party truly cares about them.
President Biden made Campaign promise, and now he intends to keep that promise. That is a good thing.