Turley: Biden's SCOTUS pledge was both unprecedented and unnecessary

[SugarDaddy1]

In his campaign, Biden made two pledges to voters and asked his opponent to do the same to nominate only a black woman for the next open Supreme Court seat and to choose a woman as his vice president.

As previously discussed, the Supreme Court has repeatedly rejected such threshold exclusions on the basis of race or gender as raw discrimination. In 1977, the Court ruled in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, that affirmative action in medical school admissions was unconstitutional. The justices declared that preferring "members of any one group for no reason other than race or ethnic origin is discrimination for its own sake" while adding that "this the Constitution forbids."

Biden's controversial use of racial and gender criteria will only grow in the coming months as the Supreme Court considers two new cases involving racial preferences in college admissions. Those cases may now be heard before a Court with one member who was expressly selected initially on the basis of not of a racial preference but a racial exclusionary rule.

Biden's decision to impose a racial and gender exclusionary rule will now unnecessarily add a controversy to this nomination. The short list of judges include some who would be natural candidates on any vacancy. President Biden has saddled the eventual choice with an asterisk nomination that is unfair to both the nominee and the Court.

Source

 

[ll74]

Opinion pieces are fun.

Turkey can win the Presidency and then make his own nominations.

Precedent like this has been set long ago.

Trump recently restricted his nomination to a woman....Reagan restricted his picks to women as well

 

[KeithD]

Has the OP been living under a rock? Who does he think he's fooling? Until Biden made that pledge, pushed by powerful South Carolina congressman Jim Clayburn before the crucial South Carolina Democratic primary, Biden's nomination chances were close to nil. For Biden getting the White House, making the pledge, and now in keeping powerful support, staying true to the pledge, the pledge most certainly wasn't/isn't unnecessary.

And what the hell on "unpredented"? In the last two appointments Trump made (and carried out) the pledge that the appointment would go to someone knocking down Roe vs. Wade.

Is the OP just stupid or a Trumpian liar?

 

[pecksniff]

Is the OP just stupid or a Trumpian liar?

He actually cited a Fox News article as something worthy of serious discussion, so, both.

 

[Sugar Baby Wanted]

Source

Perfect example of the hypocrite party.

We have had a black supreme justice, but was of the wrong party, I guess.

Qualifications should talk, and if a black woman is qualified, great.

But excluding white men, is not.

Let's go Brandon!

And the reason he is retiring before November mid terms, is they won't stand a chance after. Hopefully the republicans can put whoever through what Kavenaugh went through.

 

[KeithD]

Perfect example of the hypocrite party.

We have had a black supreme justice, but was of the wrong party, I guess.

Qualifications should talk, and if a black woman is qualified, great.

But excluding white men, is not.

Let's go Brandon!

And the reason he is retiring before November mid terms, is they won't stand a chance after. Hopefully the republicans can put whoever through what Kavenaugh went through.

The principle is (and it's not a newly held principle) for the court to mirror the makeup of society. On that principle, having a black woman justice is long overdue.

The qualification issue is a false issue. There are fully qualified black women judges aplenty--much more qualified, in fact, than the last two appointments to the bench were.

That said, my view is that it will be Childs, because: Clayburn. (and not least because Clayburn says he already has a "yes" from the two Republican South Carolina senators--he's said that publicly, and neither has denied it).

 

[ll74]

Perfect example of the hypocrite party.

We have had a black supreme justice, but was of the wrong party, I guess.

Qualifications should talk, and if a black woman is qualified, great.

But excluding white men, is not.

Let's go Brandon!

And the reason he is retiring before November mid terms, is they won't stand a chance after. Hopefully the republicans can put whoever through what Kavenaugh went through.

There are already multiple white men on the supreme court. Majority actually. So nobody is excluding them...thanks.

 

[Rightguide]

Has the OP been living under a rock? Who does he think he's fooling? Until Biden made that pledge, pushed by powerful South Carolina congressman Jim Clayburn before the crucial South Carolina Democratic primary, Biden's nomination chances were close to nil. For Biden getting the White House, making the pledge, and now in keeping powerful support, staying true to the pledge, the pledge most certainly wasn't/isn't unnecessary.

And what the hell on "unpredented"? In the last two appointments Trump made (and carried out) the pledge that the appointment would go to someone knocking down Roe vs. Wade.

Is the OP just stupid or a Trumpian liar?

The source is a prominent liberal law professor.

 

[pecksniff]

Hopefully the republicans can put whoever through what Kavenaugh went through.

Whatever happens, that process will be . . . different. Because if it examines the nominee's whole life -- the life of even the most fortunate black woman in our society is very, very different from that of an upper-class private-schooled white male like Kavanaugh.

 

[YDB95]

We have had a black supreme justice, but was of the wrong party, I guess.

No, Thurgood Marshall was definitely of the right party.

And the reason he is retiring before November mid terms, is they won't stand a chance after.

Probably true, but not something I'd be bragging about if it were my party's MO.

Hopefully the republicans can put whoever through what Kavenaugh went through.

Democrat or Republican, if the nominee turns out to be a rapist, she deserves that. But I sincerely doubt that'll happen.