"They’re now saying, after Ruth Bader Ginsburg passed away, they said, 'Biden should release his list.'"

"It’s no wonder the Trump campaign asked that I release the list only after she passed away. It’s a game for them. It’s a play to [inaudible] up emotions and anger. There’s a reason why no presidential candidate, other than Donald Trump, has ever done such a thing. First, putting a judge’s name on a list like that could influence that person’s decision making as a judge, and that would be wrong, or at least create the perception that it would have influence. Second, anyone put on a list like that under these circumstances will be subject to unrelenting political attacks. Because any nominee I would select would not get a hearing until 2021 at the earliest, she would endure those attacks for months on end, without being able to defend herself. Thirdly, and finally, perhaps most importantly, if I win, I’ll make my choice for the Supreme Court not based on a partisan election campaign, but on what prior presidents have done, Republican and Democrats, and I’ve served with many of them. Only after consulting Democrats and Republicans in the United States Senate and seeking their advice and asking for the consent, it says, 'Advice and consent of the Senate,' the president is the person who gets to name someone, propose. The Senate deposes. As everyone knows, I made it clear that my first choice for the Supreme Court will make history as the first African American woman justice. But I’ll consult with senators in both parties about that pick, as well as the legal and civil leaders in our country...."

From Joe Biden Philadelphia Speech Transcript Sept. 20.

Oh? I'd forgotten that he'd pledged to choose a black woman. Isn't that inconsistent with his 3 reasons for not giving us a list? There can't be that many potential choices if he's got the type of person narrowed down like that. Who are the under-60 black female federal judges appointed by Democratic Presidents? Won't they all be influenced in their decisions — reason #1, above — even though their names are not on a list? Aren't they all just as vulnerable to "unrelenting political attacks" as the individuals on Trump's list (reason #2)? And are you not violating reason #3 by making this pledge? You are trying to gain favor in a partisan election campaign, and when it's over, you'll be locked into that limitation and not able to make the sober, nonpolitical analysis you want us to think you will make. And isn't your pledge to appoint a black woman — just a black woman, not the person with the greatest skill and integrity — more political than Trump's list of real people, whose skill and integrity we can investigate? And by the way, if you are really so concerned about tormenting judicial candidates with with unrelenting political attacks, why did you participate in the mistreatment of Bret Kavanaugh?

ADDED: No presidential candidate, other than Donald Trump, has ever done such a thing.... Yes, Trump innovated, but it was Trump, so, of course Orange Man Bad. But it was a good innovation for him, because he wanted to build confidence that he would indeed choose a principled conservative. Now, that the innovation has been done, other candidates will decide whether it suits them. It will suit some, but not others. And, clearly, it would not suit Biden. Biden can't possibly present a list of names. There would be "unrelenting political attacks" on him. There's no way he can provide names that will be far enough left to avoid attacks from the left. If he even attempts to give the left some satisfaction, moderates will be upset. It will further aggravate the suspicion that he's going to let the lefties push him around.