The race-baiting response to Biden's Supreme Court pledge

[Nevilledog]

Link to tweet

Tweet text:

Paul Waldman
@paulwaldman1
The reaction on much of the right to Biden's pledge to nominate a Black woman assumes that this hypothetical nominee is NECESSARILY less "qualified" than the white man she's supposedly displacing.

It's race-baiting, pure and simple.

My latest:

washingtonpost.com
Opinion | The race-baiting response to Biden’s Supreme Court pledge
Acting as though a Black woman nominee is necessarily less than qualified.
11:33 AM · Jan 28, 2022

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/01/28/race-baiting-response/

No paywall
https://archive.fo/QleLm

One hundred and fifteen Americans have sat on the Supreme Court. Of those, 110 have been men and 112 have been White. But now that President Biden has the chance to follow up on the promise he made to appoint a Black woman to serve on the court, conservatives are aghast at the very thought.

Not all of them, of course; some Republicans are staying mum for now, and they may ultimately decide to say the nominee is a crazy communist and leave it at that. But since we heard Justice Stephen Breyer will retire, a flood of reactions from the right have been based on the premise that appointing a Black woman to the court necessarily means she will be elevated over someone more qualified, presumably a White man.

That is quite simply a racist presumption. Saying so will raise some hackles; conservatives are convinced that they are constantly being unfairly accused of racism by liberals. Sometimes they have a point; certainly some on the left level that charge at times when it’s less than justified.

So it’s important to be clear about what I am, and am not, arguing. In assessing racism I try to stick to the “what you said, not who you are” standard. With the occasional exception, we can judge a statement racist without peering into the heart of the speaker, which ends up sucking us into distractions about how many Black friends someone has.

*snip*

[Ocelot II]

1. Until quite recently, to be considered qualified for SCOTUS you had to be both white and male.

No others could apply, regardless of their other professional assets. If that isn't affirmative action I don't know what is.

[cbabe]

2. And Catholic.

[Ocelot II]

3. There have been only fifteen Catholic justices.

A grand total of eight Jewish justices have been appointed, but none until the 20th century. As with every other position of power in this country, you almost always have had to be a white Protestant Christian male, as well as either straight or far back in the closet (e.g., James Buchanan). The predominance of Catholic justices is a new development. It would be nice if religious affiliation were to be disregarded altogether.

[Hekate]

7. No. It used to be Mainline Protestant, that is, Methodist, Episcopalian, etc. w the occasional Jew

And funny I should have to say it, but not many Roman Catholics, either. Control by the Pope, y’know. This weird thing where there are so many at once and we’ve had to start speculating how many are Opus Dei is really recent, and really weird.

It used to be the High Court was exclusively white and male, almost exclusively Protestant, and occasionally Jewish or Catholic.

afaik

[cbabe]

10. Thanks for the historical background. I amend my post by saying Catholic is where we're at now.

[Thomas Hurt]

4. The inference of the christofascists' "affirmative action outrage" has always been...

that there are no minorities who are equally or more qualified. Thus the white boy who didn't make it into UCLA, or what have you, was cheated and made to feel bad for being white....blah, blah, blah.

[spooky3]

5. Excellent column from start to finish. Thanks. Nt

[sanatanadharma]

6. The Republican Calvinists of the USA use to say...

I would think that the Republican tribe, being deeply imbued with Calvinist social doctrines, would have to say that the black woman sitting on the US Supreme Court is clearly blessed, a sign of Gods' (yes, I know) favor; that she is a chosen one.

[Hekate]

8. I feel compelled to mention that when Barack Obama set out to appoint a woman, a DU debate...

…ensued. You know the kind. Lively. Insightful.

There were some who advanced the same arguments they had advanced over nominating a woman presidential candidate: they supposed it would be all right, there’s no law against it, but really there are so very many outstanding white male jurists and women’s numbers are smaller, and so how could their qualifications really stand up, and sure it would be all right IF — and then a long list of qualifiers that boiled down to: “The woman would be found acceptable if she could walk across the Potomac River and turn water into wine. Healing lepers a bonus.”

Just a reminder that it is not just Republicans who fall for this. They just say it loudly and attach their own names to it.

[spanone]

9. It's trump's party, therefore a party of racists.

[crickets]

11. K&R for visibility.