Donald Trump told the Proud Boys to “stand back and stand by”. That they did. They received their orders on Jan. 6 to march down to the Capitol (“and I’m marching with you”), and they proceeded to spearhead an assault on the nation’s Capitol as it completed the ultimate step in our freest and fairest election. Now he has gone before his worshipping fans and told them to stage the biggest protests the country’s ever seen- to protect him if Letitia James gets too close. That is his real worry and priority, and he hopes his fans will become an even bigger private army than the Proud Boys and the 3 Percenters. He gets more obscene every day, and I don’t see him getting any calmer or quieter. Susan Collins is a marvel. He has learned a lesson alright. He has learned where all the weaknesses are. People who have been Republicans their entire lives he calls RINOs if they object to him, he who was a registered Democrat until Barack Obama ran for President. I sincerely hope that Republicans, who once had actual values, will find the wherewithal to finally stand up to this vampire who is revealing his true nature more every day.
So what exactly is wrong with having a SCOTUS that is actually representative of the real US. I didn’t hear any complaints about all the right wing Catholics being put on it. As an “elderly” white female, I am sick of the lack of representation or the actual US population in positions of power.
Our reluctance to refer to religion relative to public qualifications has resulted in disregarding the impact our upbringing has on our personal core beliefs. Separating one from those core beliefs and maintaining neutrality when sitting in judgment is extremely difficult. Interestingly, the Supreme Court today is comprised with people steeped in 2 belief systems, Catholicism and Judaism. No Protestants, Muslims, etc. Significant to the extent that the majority of Americans are Protestants.
Numerous biases shape judicial nominations. Ultimately, they are unavoidable and we must trust those chosen to have the internal integrity to set aside their innate biases when passing judgment. The great justices have done so.
Seems pretty clear to me after hearing from Jim Clyburn that Biden was under intense pressure to announce his SC pick would be a black woman towards the end of the debate. Faced with that and being Joe Biden, he could have done a word salad around the subject but bottom line he had to announce that night or he faced the risk of not being the winner in South Carolina and thus, we would have Trump right now instead
This Supreme Court discussion is infuriating. FIRST, if Biden didn’t make the promise of nominating a black female, we’d likely still have Trump. Look at the margins in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Georgia and tell me I’m wrong. Second, imagine for 2 seconds if Biden signaled he would not follow his campaign promise of nominating a black woman. The entire media world would have Biden’s lunch. His support among the black vote would plummet. This is the kind of Monday Morning quarterbacking that does nothing but piss off the center-left. Especially when you talk about the Supreme Court, Merrick Garland, and list the many conservative appointments to the court have happened over the past 4 decades while only winning the popular vote once. Part of my motivation behind the Bulwark mission is to FIX this as well - the current way the Supreme Court is filled is unsustainable.
I agree with Matt Bernius' critique of your argument. As a boy, my mother taught me that "color blindness" is what a good "anti-racist" (although that term didn't exist back in the '70s) should always practice. That the quality of a human being should be judged on an individual level, person by person. As a white working-class woman, this was a progressive position to hold at that time. Many of her friends were racist and used racist epithets regularly, but she always talked to me afterwards, saying that what her friends thought and did were wrong. That I must do the opposite of what her friends were doing.
These lessons prevented me from becoming racist myself, even when bullied by groups of black kids at school. Having previously had black friends who shared with me a bit of what their lives were like, I could see that the rage that these bullies were taking out on me had nothing to do with me. They had inherited the rage of the black underclass that has boiled for generations. They were kids who didn't know any better.
Clearly, whichever black woman Biden nominates will not come from the black underclass. She will have enjoyed the benefits of middle class life in America. Nevertheless, she will know what it is like to grow up as a black woman in America, which - even within the middle class - is a radically different experience than that shared by white Americans.
The Court already skews against the life experiences of the working class and the working poor. All nine Justices (save perhaps Thomas, a man I once admired, but whose views have devolved in ways I don't even want to get into) come from middle- to upper-class backgrounds. To a large degree, that can't be helped (not many working class kids find themselves on the Federal bench as adults). But we can broaden the vision of the Court by including voices as yet unheard from this august bench.
As you say, Charlie, whomever Biden picks will possess a fine legal mind. But the fact that that mind is held within the body and life experience of a black woman will, I think, make a profound difference.
I have one rule of thumb; if I haven't changed my mind at least once every couple of months, I'm not getting enough contrary perspective. In fact, I'm probably just lapping up propaganda. One side can't always be right; the 'other' side can't always be wrong.
And if I'm not willing to say it when BOTH sides are spouting BS, then I'm not much of a citizen.
Why would a black woman not necessarily be the best choice to replace Justice Breyer? If one is arguing that acknowledging such a predisposition is wrong or ill-advised, is it presumptuous to think one believes that to be the case? Or is the argument merely that stating such a predisposition with the full intention of fulfilling it is wrong? If the latter, then why is this topic worth limited mental shelf space at all?
I'm enjoying Will Saletan, eventhough I don't agree with his ideology or his affinity for Twits. He gives a fresh point of view to the Bulwark. Thanks for bringing him on.
Saletan has already lost me. Go to Twitter to engage with others who do not share my viewpoint? Really? What world is he living in? I got off Twitter in ‘16. I do not know if I would have preserved my sanity otherwise.
I like what Charles Barkley said: Twitter is where fools go to feel important.
Tucker Carlson's father, Richard, was not the head of the agency that ran Voice of America. But he was the Director of VOA, which then came under the US Information Agency, whose Directors at that time included Henry Catto and Eugene Kopp.
Worse than actually running the Supreme Court like an affirmative action program is not hiding the ball. Why couldn't Biden come up with a list of qualified candidates, appoint a Black woman, then wink at Clyburn? Meanwhile Trump is saying it's Black people who want to lock him up. This is not going well.
I don't get the dust-up over the nomination to the Court. Biden made a campaign promise and he's fulfilling it. How many minorities were on the Federalist Society's lists handed to Trump when he made his choices? Exactly zero as far as I know.
"The left edge of left-leaning outlets used to be liberal; now it’s socialist."
Will Slaten wrote that in the opening of his comments on the nature of political discourse. No issue, right on. But where did he write the corollary on the other side of the aisle, that the right edge of the right-leaning outlets used to be Tea-Party; now it's fascist or authoritarian or dictatorial or whatever word he chooses to use to balance his argument? I did not find it. Perhaps it was an oversight, but coming from a writer for Bulwark, I expect more balance in buzz words. I expect I would agree with whatever moniker he chooses (or I would write a comment). TFG and his gang of reprehensibles love to call people socialists. It has a visceral ring to it. There are equally visceral words, and probably more accurate ones than I came up with, for TFG and Co.
For the most part, I agree that it wasn't wise for Biden to say long before that he would nominate a black woman to the Supreme Court; however, I'll also say that he owes his Presidency to James Clyburn, who pressured Biden for more AA appointments. It should have been no surprise, and some of the nominees are clearly qualified in their own right to be on the SC. I think for the most part its a messaging problem more than a big whoop.
One thing that has been ignored though is the long term implications of the nomination. Clarence Thomas, the only current AA on the Court? Nominated by GHWB to fill THURGOOD MARSHALL'S seat. Amy Coney Barrett? Chosen to fill Ruth Bader Ginsburg's seat. The only occassion the demograhic didn't stay the same was when Alito filled O'Connor's seat-- but the first nominee in that case was Harriet Myers (technically, it was Roberts, but that was withdrawn once Rehnquist died and GWB re-nominated him to be Chief Justice). So in the least, there tends to be a desire to re-nominate demographics (or for Dems to expand the demographics of the Court) once an opening occurs. In that sense, nominating a woman (which will bring the current number to 4) and an African American (which will bring it to 2) seems to bring the Court more in line with the nation's demographics.
To be sure, the Court still has some over-representation (most are Catholic, almost all of them Ivy League), but the trend is in the right direction. And I'm OK with that.
I think the idea that Biden should not limit himself to a black female judge is missing the fact that he clearly, clearly has a short list of very qualified judges that fit this description. It's not like he's saying, hey Breyer is retiring, now let's go find a good candidate. You can guarantee he has had a short list since before the election.
So, now he can lay down the gauntlet. I dare you GOP to vote against this Uber qualified black woman.
Those Americans who are saying they want him to open up to all possibilities will get over it by the midterms, but this is good meat for the progressive base.
Sure, it may backfire, but I guarantee playing the middle on this won't work for him either.
Donald Trump told the Proud Boys to “stand back and stand by”. That they did. They received their orders on Jan. 6 to march down to the Capitol (“and I’m marching with you”), and they proceeded to spearhead an assault on the nation’s Capitol as it completed the ultimate step in our freest and fairest election. Now he has gone before his worshipping fans and told them to stage the biggest protests the country’s ever seen- to protect him if Letitia James gets too close. That is his real worry and priority, and he hopes his fans will become an even bigger private army than the Proud Boys and the 3 Percenters. He gets more obscene every day, and I don’t see him getting any calmer or quieter. Susan Collins is a marvel. He has learned a lesson alright. He has learned where all the weaknesses are. People who have been Republicans their entire lives he calls RINOs if they object to him, he who was a registered Democrat until Barack Obama ran for President. I sincerely hope that Republicans, who once had actual values, will find the wherewithal to finally stand up to this vampire who is revealing his true nature more every day.
So what exactly is wrong with having a SCOTUS that is actually representative of the real US. I didn’t hear any complaints about all the right wing Catholics being put on it. As an “elderly” white female, I am sick of the lack of representation or the actual US population in positions of power.
Our reluctance to refer to religion relative to public qualifications has resulted in disregarding the impact our upbringing has on our personal core beliefs. Separating one from those core beliefs and maintaining neutrality when sitting in judgment is extremely difficult. Interestingly, the Supreme Court today is comprised with people steeped in 2 belief systems, Catholicism and Judaism. No Protestants, Muslims, etc. Significant to the extent that the majority of Americans are Protestants.
Numerous biases shape judicial nominations. Ultimately, they are unavoidable and we must trust those chosen to have the internal integrity to set aside their innate biases when passing judgment. The great justices have done so.
Seems pretty clear to me after hearing from Jim Clyburn that Biden was under intense pressure to announce his SC pick would be a black woman towards the end of the debate. Faced with that and being Joe Biden, he could have done a word salad around the subject but bottom line he had to announce that night or he faced the risk of not being the winner in South Carolina and thus, we would have Trump right now instead
This Supreme Court discussion is infuriating. FIRST, if Biden didn’t make the promise of nominating a black female, we’d likely still have Trump. Look at the margins in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Georgia and tell me I’m wrong. Second, imagine for 2 seconds if Biden signaled he would not follow his campaign promise of nominating a black woman. The entire media world would have Biden’s lunch. His support among the black vote would plummet. This is the kind of Monday Morning quarterbacking that does nothing but piss off the center-left. Especially when you talk about the Supreme Court, Merrick Garland, and list the many conservative appointments to the court have happened over the past 4 decades while only winning the popular vote once. Part of my motivation behind the Bulwark mission is to FIX this as well - the current way the Supreme Court is filled is unsustainable.
I agree with Matt Bernius' critique of your argument. As a boy, my mother taught me that "color blindness" is what a good "anti-racist" (although that term didn't exist back in the '70s) should always practice. That the quality of a human being should be judged on an individual level, person by person. As a white working-class woman, this was a progressive position to hold at that time. Many of her friends were racist and used racist epithets regularly, but she always talked to me afterwards, saying that what her friends thought and did were wrong. That I must do the opposite of what her friends were doing.
These lessons prevented me from becoming racist myself, even when bullied by groups of black kids at school. Having previously had black friends who shared with me a bit of what their lives were like, I could see that the rage that these bullies were taking out on me had nothing to do with me. They had inherited the rage of the black underclass that has boiled for generations. They were kids who didn't know any better.
Clearly, whichever black woman Biden nominates will not come from the black underclass. She will have enjoyed the benefits of middle class life in America. Nevertheless, she will know what it is like to grow up as a black woman in America, which - even within the middle class - is a radically different experience than that shared by white Americans.
The Court already skews against the life experiences of the working class and the working poor. All nine Justices (save perhaps Thomas, a man I once admired, but whose views have devolved in ways I don't even want to get into) come from middle- to upper-class backgrounds. To a large degree, that can't be helped (not many working class kids find themselves on the Federal bench as adults). But we can broaden the vision of the Court by including voices as yet unheard from this august bench.
As you say, Charlie, whomever Biden picks will possess a fine legal mind. But the fact that that mind is held within the body and life experience of a black woman will, I think, make a profound difference.
Thanks to Will Selaton for his perspective.
I have one rule of thumb; if I haven't changed my mind at least once every couple of months, I'm not getting enough contrary perspective. In fact, I'm probably just lapping up propaganda. One side can't always be right; the 'other' side can't always be wrong.
And if I'm not willing to say it when BOTH sides are spouting BS, then I'm not much of a citizen.
Why would a black woman not necessarily be the best choice to replace Justice Breyer? If one is arguing that acknowledging such a predisposition is wrong or ill-advised, is it presumptuous to think one believes that to be the case? Or is the argument merely that stating such a predisposition with the full intention of fulfilling it is wrong? If the latter, then why is this topic worth limited mental shelf space at all?
I'm enjoying Will Saletan, eventhough I don't agree with his ideology or his affinity for Twits. He gives a fresh point of view to the Bulwark. Thanks for bringing him on.
Saletan has already lost me. Go to Twitter to engage with others who do not share my viewpoint? Really? What world is he living in? I got off Twitter in ‘16. I do not know if I would have preserved my sanity otherwise.
I like what Charles Barkley said: Twitter is where fools go to feel important.
No thanks.
Tucker Carlson's father, Richard, was not the head of the agency that ran Voice of America. But he was the Director of VOA, which then came under the US Information Agency, whose Directors at that time included Henry Catto and Eugene Kopp.
Worse than actually running the Supreme Court like an affirmative action program is not hiding the ball. Why couldn't Biden come up with a list of qualified candidates, appoint a Black woman, then wink at Clyburn? Meanwhile Trump is saying it's Black people who want to lock him up. This is not going well.
I don't get the dust-up over the nomination to the Court. Biden made a campaign promise and he's fulfilling it. How many minorities were on the Federalist Society's lists handed to Trump when he made his choices? Exactly zero as far as I know.
"The left edge of left-leaning outlets used to be liberal; now it’s socialist."
Will Slaten wrote that in the opening of his comments on the nature of political discourse. No issue, right on. But where did he write the corollary on the other side of the aisle, that the right edge of the right-leaning outlets used to be Tea-Party; now it's fascist or authoritarian or dictatorial or whatever word he chooses to use to balance his argument? I did not find it. Perhaps it was an oversight, but coming from a writer for Bulwark, I expect more balance in buzz words. I expect I would agree with whatever moniker he chooses (or I would write a comment). TFG and his gang of reprehensibles love to call people socialists. It has a visceral ring to it. There are equally visceral words, and probably more accurate ones than I came up with, for TFG and Co.
For the most part, I agree that it wasn't wise for Biden to say long before that he would nominate a black woman to the Supreme Court; however, I'll also say that he owes his Presidency to James Clyburn, who pressured Biden for more AA appointments. It should have been no surprise, and some of the nominees are clearly qualified in their own right to be on the SC. I think for the most part its a messaging problem more than a big whoop.
One thing that has been ignored though is the long term implications of the nomination. Clarence Thomas, the only current AA on the Court? Nominated by GHWB to fill THURGOOD MARSHALL'S seat. Amy Coney Barrett? Chosen to fill Ruth Bader Ginsburg's seat. The only occassion the demograhic didn't stay the same was when Alito filled O'Connor's seat-- but the first nominee in that case was Harriet Myers (technically, it was Roberts, but that was withdrawn once Rehnquist died and GWB re-nominated him to be Chief Justice). So in the least, there tends to be a desire to re-nominate demographics (or for Dems to expand the demographics of the Court) once an opening occurs. In that sense, nominating a woman (which will bring the current number to 4) and an African American (which will bring it to 2) seems to bring the Court more in line with the nation's demographics.
To be sure, the Court still has some over-representation (most are Catholic, almost all of them Ivy League), but the trend is in the right direction. And I'm OK with that.
I think the idea that Biden should not limit himself to a black female judge is missing the fact that he clearly, clearly has a short list of very qualified judges that fit this description. It's not like he's saying, hey Breyer is retiring, now let's go find a good candidate. You can guarantee he has had a short list since before the election.
So, now he can lay down the gauntlet. I dare you GOP to vote against this Uber qualified black woman.
Those Americans who are saying they want him to open up to all possibilities will get over it by the midterms, but this is good meat for the progressive base.
Sure, it may backfire, but I guarantee playing the middle on this won't work for him either.