I can already hear snuffling noises off to my right protesting that he did no such thing, that Trump actually, as he said at the time, named highly qualified federal judges “representative of the kind of constitutional principles I value.”
Yet it is a fact that the two lists his campaign developed with the counsel of conservative activists (which he had promised not to stray from in filling the late Justice Antonin Scalia’s seat on the Court) contained not a single Black woman. Trump said nothing about excluding Black female judges. He just did it....
Yes, and Biden would be in a very different position if he'd said nothing about choosing a black woman and had just done it. That's the traditional way of adding diversity to the Court. You say you're picking the very best person for the job and the person you chose is accorded the dignity of being called the best person and not merely the best within a constricted pool.
But it is true that by offering the list the way he did, Trump assured anyone who cared that he would not nominate a black woman.
पोस्ट्स
५७ टिप्पण्या:
And why should Trump or Biden nominate a black woman? What is the compelling reason to do so? Just nominate the best and leave it lay where Jesus flung it.
Diversity [dogma] (i.e. color judgment, class-based bigotry) of the nominally "secular" Pro-Choice religion that individuals dignity, individual conscience, and intrinsic value.
Then perhaps he didn't think that there were any qualified black women judges that fit his criteria/philosophy/age, etc...
"But it is true that by offering the list the way he did, Trump assured anyone who cared that he would not nominate a black woman."
He gave a list from which he would nominate. Only in race-obsessed lefty minds are there people who looked at that list and specifically thought "Well, i sure am glad there are no black women on it."
I'd imagine that nobody knows of a qualified black woman, when you're up around bestness. So none were on the list. The right hand (super-smart) end of the bell curve depends very strongly on average value for the group, where the middle (everyday life) does not, as to how many this or that smart. There's lots of overlap in the middle, and practically none at the end.
Smart in this case means not mathematical ability but intuition about systems.
For super-smart in this sense (system intuitions applied to law), listen to the best podcast I've ever heard, Richard Epstein on Rule of Law. Find a black woman who can do that and I'll be the first to support her.
And it could be that there were no conservative Black female judges with the right qualifications at the time Trump's list was made.
Oh who am I kidding?! It's racism! Has to be!
/sarc
Dollars to donuts, neither Trump nor anyone who cared had any idea the racial make-up of the people on the list.
He is inferring something that does not exist. Trump's list was his (and his people's) selections of their view of the best people for the position. That their process (selecting a conservative leaning jurist who follows the Constitution as written, has a clean background, and can stand the onslaught) is different than the Democrats (select (a) Black (b) Woman) does not therefore mean that Trump was denying Black women.
The GOP has put other Black women and men up for those slots. They were either shot down (see Joe Biden) or tormented, ignored, and reviled (Clarence Thomas). Thomas, for one should be praised for living one of the most remarkable lives of any Supreme Court Justice in history. He's a brilliant man, a quality person, and the Black community, egged on by liberal journalists, treat him as if he's David Duke. So- from the GOP side, whats the difference who they put up? The Dems will work to destroy whomever it is, then write that they don't like Black people.
This will keep happening until the Black community gets tired of getting screwed by Democrats using them.
Who ARE these "qualified black women"? does anybody know?
Joe Biden promised that he would not nominate a Hispanic or an Oriental.
Janice Rogers Brown could not be reached for comment, especially about Biden filibustering her nomination.
gilbar said...
Who ARE these "qualified black women"? Joy Behar for one!
Glad to know so many people wanted someone other than Trump, that the best arguments for Biden is “Trump did it too, sort of”.
"But it is true that by offering the list the way he did, Trump assured anyone who cared that he would not nominate a black woman."
I see your point. At the end of the day, an Affirmative Action hire is an Affirmative Action hire, and couldn't possibly be the best candidate. The more we see of them, the more obvious this becomes.
Supreme Court nominations are political: Democrats know it, Republicans know it, even reasonably intelligent junior-high-school students know it. Democratic politics by definition involves a different coalition than Republican politics, so Democratic Supreme Court nominations will, by definition, be subject to a different set of considerations than Republican Supreme Court nominations. The only truly essential question is whether the President, Democrat or Republican, can gain the Senate's consent. I would recommend Republicans cease opining on the generic qualifications of black women, but anyone dopey enough to have already taken the racial bait is unliklely to benefit from my advice.
Bell curve at the extremes. Fact. Not Trump's fault.
Similarly, Biden is promising to not nominate an Hispanic hermaphrodite.
Wacky. Biden will nominate the first - and last black - female SCOTUS judge for quite a while. There's no reason to have more than two african Americans on the Court. Perhaps if Thomas retires, another black will be nominated. But a female? Not likely given the black women vote D by 90%
The Republicans simply got lucky with Thomas. No one forsaw he would be so conservative. His Senate Sponser was Sen. Danforth a Republican Moderate. And he was expected to sail through. Its only when the D's got wind of Thomas being somewhat conservative, that they came up with Anita Hill and her lies.
So what?
So what?
"But it is true that by offering the list the way he did, Trump assured anyone who cared that he would not nominate a black woman."
That can't be known until every person on the list has proffered some sort of racial verification.
Funny thing is, I doubt any conservative American would give one iota of a flip about the race of the person nominated by Trump. No one would have pressured Trump to avoid a black woman and no Trumpster would have complained if he did. The left are idiots in every way one can think of.
Conservatives didn't care about the biology of the candidate, they cared about the ideology.
Not choosing is not the same as excluding.
In the business world they put a black women in top management to get diversity points, then ignore most of what she says or does.
Maybe it will work that way at the Supreme Court also.
Can anyone here name a black woman who would make a desirable SC justice?
Plenty of admirable black women, but I can't think of any who compete for that particular position.
Trump's multiple lists were stunts. None of his nominees appeared on the first list. One African-American finally appeared on a list. A 34 year old with no judicial experience. Yeah, right.
Joe Biden promised that he would not nominate a Hispanic or an Oriental.
Correction:
'
I inadvertently used the word Oriental.
I meant to write the word Asian.
Please make the mental correction.
Can anyone here name a black woman who would make a desirable SC justice?
Leondra Kruger
Why should Donald Trump or Joe Biden nominate a black woman for president? What strong motive do you have to do so? Simply choose the finest and leave it where Jesus tossed it.
Trump also added names to the list on occasion, so it's not like a well-qualified black woman couldn't have made the list. Unfortunately, most black women tend to be hard leftists kinda makes them unqualified.
Most, but not all. Had she been the right age, of course, Janice Rogers Brown certainly would have made Trump's list...Remember her? The black woman Joe Biden filibustered and tried desperately to keep off the federal bench.
How many black, conservative women with the qualifications to be considered are there? Of those, what's the statistical likelihood that one of them would be in the very top segment of that "qualified" group? And if there were one or two, any guesses on how they would be treated by the left?
Maybe because none were strong enough to be ON his list. Why do Progressives always divide us by color instead of by content of character. You would THINK they would cherish the words that MLK said, and since it was meant for them, they would extend it towards others.
Joe Biden blocked a wonderful black woman from getting on the court. Ask him WHY. Why did Joe Biden hate black people, why did he hang with segregationists, and WHY was he such good friends with the grand Kleagle of the Klan that he gave the eulogy at his funeral. Ask him.
Mike Sylwester said...
Joe Biden promised that he would not nominate a Hispanic or an Oriental.
Correction:
'
I inadvertently used the word Oriental.
About 10 years ago, my husband and I were visiting his sister in San Francisco. My husband said something with the word "Oriental" in it, and my Sister in law almost had a cow. We asked why, and she said it was a derogatory word. We told her she should come to Jersey where you can get "Oriental Nails" in just about every strip mall (A popular name for Nail Salons here) or if she was looking for a new rug, there are all kinds of Oriental rug shops here too. She was appalled. 10 years later, and NOTHING has changed in Jersey!!
There is a strange understanding of the word "promised" here.
Also, I've heard Biden blocked at least one Black female judge in the Bush years, perhaps eliminating one possible name from a Trump list.
I don't feel like looking it up now though.
"But it is true that by offering the list the way he did, Trump assured anyone who cared that he would not nominate a black woman."
"...anyone who cared..."
You have hit upon the crux of the problem.
“The right hand (super-smart) end of the bell curve depends very strongly on average value for the group…”
And we’re supposed to believe the super-smart end of the bell curve is predominantly made up of people who were raised Catholic?
Trump also stated he would not appoint a Nobel Prize Winner. What's he got against Nobel Prize winners?
... Trump assured anyone who cared that he would not nominate a black woman.
That's only what you, and Epps, and 'anyone' are inferring unless you can show that Trump claimed he would *exclusively* select a nominee from the list. And even one of our resident Lefties acknowledges that Trump then promptly broke the promise if it was made.
Biden made an affirmative, and to Rep Clyburn's satisfaction binding, promise to *exclude* everyone from consideration who was not a black woman.
Black women were merely absent from Trump's list(s).
Absence from the list is not evidence that they were absent from consideration.
Are we certain that no one on the list identifies as a black woman?
"Its only when the D's got wind of Thomas being somewhat conservative, that they came up with Anita Hill and her lies."
Just because you didn't like Hill's claims does not make them lies.
Earnest Prole:
"I would recommend Republicans cease opining on the generic qualifications of black women."
Agreed, but the fact remains that the overwhelming majority of blacks vote democrat. Whoever the most qualified black female jurist may be, the odds are that she's a democrat. If you know of a qualified, conservative, female black jurist, please enlighten us.
Not true, unless you can point out a black woman jurist with the constitutional bona fides for which Trump voters were looking. If there was one, Trump would have zeroed in on her just for the prospect of seeing liberal/democratic heads explode.
If you go by TV and movies, all judges are either black men or black women. Supreme court nominees are pretty much always lower court judges, so I don't see how Trump could even find a non-black judge to nominate.
Trump failed to include a whole list of identity group members on his list. There were, for example, no members of Antifa, nor supporters of the Chinese Communist Party. Perhaps that is because he is an innate, inherent, irredeeemable racist, sexist, age-ist, able-ist, pig of a human degenerate, as implied and presupposed by the article. But perhaps instead it is because his list was comprised, as he said, solely of highly qualified federal judges “representative of the kind of constitutional principles I value.”
How to decide - pig man or honest man? If you could name a black woman judge (and does JANICE ROGERS BROWN have a granddaughter in the legal field, or is JRB being cloned?) who should be on that list, that tidbit would tend to support Trump as oinky and porcine. If you can't find such a unicorn of a legal eagle, then that is evidence he might, just maybe, perhaps, be telling the truth about his legal values and those who support the same.
See, there are ways of judging that don't depend on using the conclusion desired - Trump is a human pig degenerate! - to determine the truth, which appears, at least to me, to be somewhat more clear than the article supposes.
I note in passing that Trump supposedly excluded about 6% of the US population from his SC short list by noninclusion of a black woman. Dementia Joe's handlers made him exclude some 94% or so of the US population from his Supreme Court short list. So who is more racist, sexist, etc., etc., etc.? Based solely on numbers, it sure looks like Dementia Joe is the porker here.
Who ARE these "qualified black women"? does anybody know?
There's a list fool! Go Google it. And check their qualifications against thick skull Brett Kavanaugh (best skill, keg stands) or inexperienced ACB.
It's so weird -- totally not racist, probably just a coincidence -- that black women need to be compared with the love child of Jesus and Clarence Darrow, while white nominees are simply assumed to be the most qualified.
I'll stipulate that Kruger may be the best we're likely to get from Biden, but she would not qualify as a conservative. And if she was, there's no question that the democrats in the Senate would scream blue murder that she'd only been a judge for 8 years.
Other than that, she's a gun grabber, voted to abolish cash bail (and we can see how well that's working); she seems to be pro big tech as well. It appears to me that she's good on privacy, and she seems to respect the wishes of the voters when ruling on challenges to voter referenda. She's voted with the conservatives on occasion. Like I say, she's probably the best we'll get from Biden.
Apparently Trump never considered anyone from NH (and about thirty other states) either, because none were on the list. Right from the start he must have left off people with any sort of disability because none made the final list. And he must have refused to even countenance the idea of nominating a person shorter than average, or NE Asian, or of Hungarian descent, or with a nervous tic, or were originally math majors, or Mormon, or, or, or...
We know this because none of those made the final list, so we know that none must have ever been considered at any level.
I am assuming that a professor of constitutional law can reason better than this, so I have to conclude that Epps is being sly and dishonest.
What strange abuse of the English language. Not including something on a list is a "promise"? Hardly.
Not including something on a list is "true that he assured..."? Hardly.
What we're seeing is not what Trump did, but what people who aren't Trump are presuming (according to their priors) Trump did. He didn't "promise", he didn't "assure" - he took a list, waved it around, and bloviated. Everything else is imagined and clearly fake news.
>>But it is true that by offering the list the way he did, Trump assured anyone who cared that he would not nominate a black woman.
By that reasoning, Trump also assured us he would not nominate:
A Martian
A gay Colombian chain-smoker
Two bits of fluff named "Donald"
The number 11.
Etc. etc. etc. etc.
If you first and most important criteria for selecting someone is race and gender, you are contributing to the problem you are allegedly trying to solve.
"But it is true that by offering the list the way he did, Trump assured anyone who cared that he would not nominate a black woman."
Intent means nothing in the world of the narrative.
And don't tell me I can't know Trump's intent. We are on year 6 of "knowing" what Trump meant when it reflects negatively on him (or any conservative).
Sorry, but the blatant tokenism of it all still blows my tiny mind. What began as well-meaning, but still self-interested, handouts decades ago, has become so entrenched in the Donk psyche that they're incapable of recognizing just how viciously patronizing it all is. That goes for Black and White Donks.
So let's say Trump had found a black female judge who met his criteria. The dems, those champions of diversity, would have attempted to shred her character and qualifications to bits, making up whatever stories necessary to block her from the high court.
Biden also apparently promised not to nominate a black trans male. Imagine the squall if he nominated a vagina-endowed trans male. "He's NOT a black woman!!"
- Krumhorn
(my preferred adjectives: brilliant/awesome)
(when I swim on the women's team, photos of me in my swimwear will show the cutest mangina)
Your final sentence is accurate Professor but does not correctly respond to Epps' effort at the leftist/Marxist/fascist game of immediate re-definition. In the real world where words actually mean something, Epps use of "promised" - a verb that is always an action with full intent and understanding by the "promiser"- makes his statement a lie.
Liars - can't live with 'em . . .
Yes Ann, if I was Oresident I could nominate you and suggest that you were a trans-black. See jus as clever as you.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा