What do you make of Biden's decision to appoint a SCOTUS judge who is black and female?

It’s just a person. Nothing else outside of qualifications matters.

It makes sense, for Biden.

Trump would appoint “I can see Russia” Sarah Palin. Just so he could get bigot points.

I think representation is especially important these days, and I don’t assume that picking a black woman from a diverse field of very qualified candidates is any kind of a gimmick. I believe it adds an extra dimension of experience to a job that requires a broad range of perspective.

Well, they appointed only white men forever and noone questioned that. Why would we question this?

Wonder what Mitch McConnell has to say about it? “Some of my friends are Black.”

Is it fair? Probably not, but you need to bring balance before you need to worry about that.

About effing time is what I make of it!

About fucking time.
I second @Dutchess_III‘s remark.
And @janbb,‘s obviously.
Also, you have how many, 300 million inhabitants there?
You sure that there ain’t a dozen, at least, capable black women amongst that group?

Doesn’t matter. The republicans are going to smear her anyway.

All he seems to be looking for is the right skin color, sex, and political stance. He’s sort of struck out in other areas. I hope he does better with this one.

I’m all for it with the specific requirement that his candidate be a legal juggernaut of impeccable qualification as opposed to the cynical travesty as was the appointment of Thomas.

And what about Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett? Sauce for the goose and all that…...

I think the frat boy and anti-abortion slots have all been filled.

It’s offensive to assume she’s being chosen just because she’s a black female, and for no other reason.

@Dutchess_III But that’s what happens you announce that you will choose a black female, no matter what. Obviously any SCOTUS nominee has to meet some important basic qualifications. As a member of a couple minority groups, I would not want to be chosen for something just because of my minority identity (or at least have that be a major factor).

Like @rebbel said, surely we can find at least a handful of well qualified black women to chose from….?

Really, @Demosthenes, you think his specific choice of a black woman is based solely on “wokeness”? You can’t really speak for “a member of a minority group” now can you?
And how about the idea of choosing a specific minority demographic to balance out a group, knowing full well that that person is likely more qualified for the job because of having to overcome greater obstacles?

The whole idea of not picking from a demographic because it might look like a political stunt is as old as the hills, and has been used as an argument against diversity as long as I’ve been alive, which is a helluva lot longer than you have.

@canidmajor Of course I can speak for a member of a minority group. I never claimed to speak for all minorities.

I think his announcement to appoint a black woman was a political move, yes. I don’t think that makes me some kind of arch-cynic. He said something that he thought would appeal to voters. That’s how politics works.

And I am not opposed to it in any way. He can choose whomever he wants for whatever reason. I am asking how others feel about this particular reason.

It bothers me that Biden thought fit to announce this decision in advance. The prudent tactic would be to undertake a rigorous yet quiet search for the proper candidate then dare spurious or silly opposition.

I agree @HP.

I do too.

People are not (should not be) selected for the Supreme Court to represent a constituency. That’s what Congress is about. In effect the president has announced in advance that his candidate will not be chosen for her ability first of all. To me the error is a big one, and the error is in the announcing, not in the choosing.

Precisely! And it could not be better stated, because in any event, you know the spurious and silly opposition will certainly be there regardless of any and all merit.

So, @Demosthenes, if you felt you were eminently qualified for a job, and could do a bunch of good for a large number of people, and you were chosen out of a group of equally qualified candidates because you were the gay one, you would turn it down rather than accept because that was the decider?
Then shame on you. Your position of privileged white guy probably gets you picked for stuff, how is that much different?

All these arguments against “tokenism” are as old as the hills, and continue to be an effective means of oppression. If you (General “you”) fall for that, they win, again.

@canidmajor Potentially yes. I don’t want to be chosen for that reason unless being gay was relevant to the job specifically. You can “shame on me” all you want, but it won’t change how I feel. Of course it would depend on the motives of the employer. If I knew that the person hiring me was earnest and had other reasons for wanting to hire me in addition to one of identity, that would be different from knowing they had formerly been in trouble for homophobic statements and were trying to clean up their image by hiring a gay person and couldn’t care less about any other qualifications.

And I’ve long suspected my admission to college was partly based on legacy status. I can’t prove it, but if I had been told by an admissions officer “you are being accepted because your parents are rich and went to this school”, I would’ve felt inclined to attend somewhere else. (Well, now, at 30, looking back. At 17 I don’t know what I would’ve done).

@canidmajor, I can’t remember the last time I disagreed with you, if ever, but I don’t think that example is the same. Biden didn’t say “If there’s a Black woman in my field of top candidates, I’ll pick her.” (That would have been a bad idea too, the announcing.) He said, in effect, “I’ll work from a field that considers only Black women.”

That’s the starting qualification, not the deciding factor among many factors. And it means that his chosen candidate and all the world will know that race and sex put her there. I don’t see how that can fail to backfire. If I were that woman, I would be insulted.

I’ve heard it suggested that he should pick Anita Hill which would really put the cat amongst the pigeons.

There is no doubt that Biden promised during the campaign to choose a Black woman candidate to garner support from Black voters and now he has to deliver on his promise. There is also no doubt that the US has not had a level playing field for Black candidates for all of history and this is an inequity that must be addressed if we are to move forward. I doubt that Biden will be dumpster diving to choose an eminently qualified Black female jurist and I have no doubt that McConnell will do all he can to obstruct their confirmation.

Identity politics is generally performative political theater. I care infinitely more about the likelihood that a judge will represent the interests, rights and wellbeing of black Americans, than whether that judge happens to be black (or female, or LGBTQ, or have some disability, etc.) themselves. I mean Clarance Thomas is a total piece of shit. Does the fact that he’s black make any difference other than optics? We’ve got the first black VP and she’s a total piece of garbage. Sinema is bisexual and a non-theist, but is perfectly happy obstructing legislation that would help the people that happen to be of those groups.

How does the identity of any of these people matter in an age where the optics of identity are weaponized by the establishment to promote their interests at the expense of the people supposedly “represented” by those individuals? I’m a big fan of Nina Turner for example, but that has nothing to do with checking the “black woman” box, and everything to do with the fact that I know she’s going to fight tooth-and-nail for the working class.

@Jeruba I ask you what I asked @Demosthenes, if you knew you were as qualified for a position where you could do a great deal of good, as any of the other candidates, and you were picked because you were a woman, would you really be insulted? Or glad to be able to provide a perspective of diversity to your other qualifications?

I think the original statement that Biden made of planning to seat a black female jurist indicated that he knew there were many that were certainly as competent as their male counterparts. However he did it, whether announcing ahead of time or suddenly presenting a candidate, would be roundly criticized and called a stunt.

There was no “right” way to go about this, but I am glad that he is doing it.

@janbb. I saw the Anita Hill suggestion in a Jimmy Kimmel monolog a couple of nights back.

@Demosthenes You can always denounce that degree from Stanford and not put it on your resume’ but even at age 30, you know that you want everyone to know that is where you went to college no matter how you got in.

@chyna Well of course. Like I said, nothing can be proven. No one ever told me that. I earned that degree and am proud of it. But I won’t pretend there is nothing that bothers me about how I might’ve gotten in.

You call that “diversity.” Nothing wrong with that, we badly need more of it.

I like how Biden announced in advance he will pick a black woman. I love imagining how painful that is to the ears of white supremacists and white nationalists in today’s America.

I’m afraid it made me think of binders full of women.

I see little point to poking those poor souls who consider a black woman in a robe a threat to their way of life. They’re insecure enough, and justifiably so as the economic ground evaporates beneath their feet.

Maybe by making a big deal out of a black woman sitting on one of the highest, most prestigious jobs of America and being able to make her voice heard, it will never have to be a big deal again.

As for the decision (as asked in the OP), I think it’s fine and I’m all for it. I just think the clumsy handling of it invites negative views that it ought not to have incurred.

@canidmajor, I try to avoid answering hypothetical questions. In most cases I have no idea what I would really do, and I don’t think many others do either. Few situations are as clear-cut as a hypothetical question normally implies.

But that doesn’t change my point. Here’s a trivial analogy: saying you’re going to pick the best-fitting pair of shoes on display, knowing you really want red ones and hoping one of the good fits will be red, is very different from saying you’ll look only at red ones and hope one of them will do. More: actually hoping that excluding non-red ones won’t eliminate your best fit. You’re looking at the wrong criterion for the results you want.

(And yes, I’m assuming that the desired results have to do with the person’s suitability for the job and not his or her skin color and number of X chromosomes.)

It is not just about the qualifications of the nominee. It is also about the impact that the choice will have for future nominees. By widening the scope of possible choices for future nominees, this is a good decision. There have been black Supreme Court justices and female justices. It seems odd that there has never been a black female justice.

@Jeruba If you only wanted red shoes, it would make sense to look at those only and then pick the ones that fit well. You seem to be ignoring the fact that Biden had previously said he would pick a Black woman jurist in order to garner support for his election and now he has to deliver on that. I guess you were opposed to affirmative action as well but for many people, that was one way to address grievous historical wrongs.

Supreme Court nominations have become a political football since well before McConnell stonewalled Merrick Garland and there is no doubt that Barrett and Kavanaugh were chosen expressly for the stances they would take. Are you as upset that the pool was obviously limited in those cases to white Conservative (and young) jurists?

Why would it be an issue? Is there an issue with black women I should be aware of? Are they terrorists? Do they commit white collar crime? Are they socialists?

^^^^ right?

After reading a lot of discussion and commentary, I’ve reconsidered my view of this. Here’s the column by Jennifer Rubin that ultimately changed my mind:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/01/31/bidens-critics-are-clueless-about-his-pledge-put-black-woman-supreme-court/

The passage that flipped me was this:

And let’s stop with the pretense that there is a “best judge” out there that Biden would miss if he only looks at Black women. All candidates under serious consideration for the Supreme Court are excellent judges.

Yes, some notion of a “best judge” was pretty much my reasoning, although it was sincerely thought and not a pretense. I see that it was fallacious. I was never against the intended outcome, and I do still hold that the Supreme Court is not about representing a demographic. But I do recognize that this is a long-overdue remedy, and if President Biden’s announced intention didn’t sit right with me, still I give him points for stating the guideline that he intended to follow. In any case, I hope Biden’s nomination goes through quickly and smoothly.