Why Are So Many Upset By the Mere Thought of A Black Woman Being On The Supreme Court?

[sheshe2]

**Please note this article was written by a black woman. A few of the words are offensive, yet it is what is said about them, not what they say about themselves**

snip

It has amused me, and not in a funny way, to see those try and discredit a person who hasn’t even been nominated. By saying that he was going to appoint a Black woman to the Supreme Court, that somehow, President Biden has ‘tokenized’ this future nominee.

What complete and utter bullshyt.I know, without a shadow of a doubt, that when the announcement is made, that woman will be not only qualified, but overly qualified. Definitely overqualified when compared to the jokers that Dolt45 Chose.

How do I know? Because, I have been Black in America longer than three days.And, in America, a Black person, who is not a Coon, only achieves a position of this stature by being overly prepared. They have been preparing and striving towards this goal using Black Excellence their entire lives.

For those who think that this woman will not be defended from all arrows, even from those Blacks who think that they will earn brownie points by trying to tear down this nominee – don’t do it. Folks aren’t playing with you. Not one little bit.

Link to tweet

Black women are not your mules. We are living, breathing capable human beings. And now, after doing the background work, it’s time for us to lead.

Link to tweet

Read More:https://3chicspolitico.com/2022/02/02/open-thread-why-are-so-many-upset-by-the-mere-thought-of-a-black-woman-being-on-the-supreme-court/

I can't say this enough ...

They have voted more as a group than every other demographic. It is past time they are given the positions they have earned. It is past time for them to lead.

Black women are not your mules. We are living, breathing capable human beings. And now, after doing the background work, it’s time for us to lead.

[NCjack]

1. A strong intelligent and capable black woman will intimidate sweet Amy.

Might even make Amy cry.

[sheshe2]

2. That would bring me joy.

[Hekate]

6. Clarence Thomas will get flashbacks. A new Justice will not be his subordinate in any way. nt

[ShazzieB]

26. Oh, yes, please.

A strong, capable, black woman who he can't dominate and bully because she is his PEER is probably one of his worst nightmares!

[electric_blue68]

101. Baaahahahahaaaaaa. What a joy that'd be.

[niyad]

16. Ahhh, gee, thanks for the smile!

[dflprincess]

22. I'm thinking Brad is more apt to be the one intimidated and crying

He just seems like that kind of guy.

[ShazzieB]

25. What a lovely thought!

[soldierant]

32. Oh, I hope so!

[paleotn]

34. We can hope.

[electric_blue68]

102. Heh!

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

3. More of Trump's nominees were rated unqualified than any other presidents

But I'm sure the complainers had no problem with that.

[sheshe2]

49. Of course not.

**sigh**

[LetMyPeopleVote]

73. TFG could only get these three assholes confirmed by MoscowMitch changeing the rules

Link to tweet

[LetMyPeopleVote]

74. What a great team of advisors @POTUS @JoeBiden has put together to guide the Supreme Court Justi

Link to tweet

[LetMyPeopleVote]

75. TFG nominated 9+ judges rated as unqualified by the AA

Link to tweet

[BlackSkimmer]

4. Third sentence in third paragraph she uses a word that I had no idea anyone of any color uses

anymore.

I’ve never, ever known a PoC to use that word. I have no idea what she even means by using that phrase. What does she mean? Are there PoC that somehow DO fit that word in her opinion?

[sheshe2]

7. I explained that in my first paragraph of my OP. I even double starred it.

**Please note this article was written by a black woman. A few of the words are offensive, yet it is what is said about them, not what they say about themselves**

I will repeat. yet it is what is said about them, not what they say about themselves

Not sure how I can make it any clearer.

[nolabear]

67. It's not at all uncommon on Twitter.

It’s certainly there, used in exactly the condemnatory way you’d imagine. I stay far away from any response to that. Not my arena.

[Septua]

5. Why are so many upset?

Simply because it's a Woman who is Black, and I suppose, liberal. But it doesn't matter who Biden chooses. Another old white liberal dude won't be acceptable to Mitch.

[sheshe2]

8. Because it will energize our most important voting block, black women.

Hopefully it will do the same to all POC.

[Budi]

11. This is precisely right, Sheshe. Between gerrymandering Black communities out of voting range

..from the Republicans, ...& degrading, demeaning intimidation of our Black leaders via social media, as noted by the efforts of the fringe left, like Nina Turner, to break the bond between a Democratic Party loyalty & Black voters, which they would crawl over glass to divide apart, ..to the demeaning name calling & statements of our VP Harris.

Yes. It is about delivering a propaganda mass message that says "We will tell you how to think", & We want Black Leaders, just not THOSE Black Democratic Leaders.

[sheshe2]

41. You are correct.

[betsuni]

50. We want black leaders, just not THOSE black leaders -- exactly.

[Septua]

39. I think they're already engergized...

..but I agree with your point, which is certainly a factor.

[Budi]

9. More prepared than their professional peers, because they have always had to be just to compete

"They have been preparing and striving towards this goal using Black Excellence their entire lives."f

Note that the keyword in this whole Biden pick media frenzy is, "Black"

These women are mainly defined by the color of their skin. 1st.

I hear little discussion about professional background, education, etc.
The most often used word of a headline, posting, or reply as to Biden's SC pick is always "BLACK"

[sheshe2]

12. They don't like black or women.

Why? They see us as inferior when we are far more advanced than most male candidates.

[Budi]

15. Yup. Why else would they devote such relentless time & funding to break the Black woman's rise..

Thanks for this thread Sheshe2.

It all has to be stated, because clinging desperately to this bitter racial & gender hate is just so stupid in the year 2022.

[sheshe2]

23. Unbelievable, isnt it Budi.

2020 and some still haven't learned.

It is not just the GOP that fears them, sadly their are others.

[Gaugamela]

10. Maybe I'm oversimplifying, and there is certainly plenty of old fashioned racism

on the right, but I suspect the rank and file are opposed because Tucker Carlson and his ilk told them to be outraged. I think the faux outrage among Republican leadership stems from two things: the strategy of opposing everything Democrats do, and the knowledge that this appointment will bolster and galvanize AA voters in the midterm elections.

[betsuni]

51. +1

[dwayneb]

88. Dead on

Same point I made below. Even if Biden appoint some white moderate candidate, the Fascist Right would instruct their goose-stepping cult members to vilify him at all costs. We no longer have a functional representative government, we are effectively in the middle of a civil war.

[Hortensis]

93. Right. Most aren't "upset," they're just playing for their team.

And as you say, they don't like anything they see giving us an advantage. That recent bridge collapse in PA generated a lot of "upset" against us also.

[treestar]

107. Very True - recall they picked Thomas and O'Connor

specifically for their race/gender so as to troll the left with the claim they put the first woman on the court and picking a black man so that the left could be laughed at because the left of course would not want such a right wing judge. But they could say oh, he's black/she's a woman so this is what you lefties want.

[ymetca]

13. My only worry

is whether the S.C. starts to curtail the corporate takeover of America. If it takes (a) a woman, and (b) specifically a black woman to start reversing that trend, then may she be blessed with a long, long, LONG life on that bench, and four or five others along side her!

So, yeah, I'm guessing it's gonna be a pretty awful approval hearing for her, full of lying b.s., over-the-top litmus tests, etc., resulting in whomever is the nominee being ultimately painted as a Communist, regardless of how ridiculously over-qualified she, no doubt, will be.

[brer cat]

14. K&R

[niyad]

17. KNR

[Wounded Bear]

18. K & R...nt

[AverageOldGuy]

19. Black women in Alabama . . . .

. . . elected Doug Jones to the Senate. (It was white backlash that replaced Jones with the dumbest person to ever inhabit the US Senate -- Tommy Tuberville.)

As Biden continues to appoint black women, the federal court system will be much the better for it.

And why are people upset about a black SCOTUS Justice? Because this nation has never ended the Civil War.

[sheshe2]

45. Hmmm.

And why are people upset about a black SCOTUS Justice? Because this nation has never ended the Civil War.


Excellent point.

No, we haven't. See 01/06. Flags on full display.

[RANDYWILDMAN]

20. Or having a school named for them or being on a dollar bill, threatens the hegemony

pure and simple.

[Marcuse]

21. GOPs whine that Biden is taking unprecedented affirmative action.

(CNN)President Donald Trump said Saturday evening that he will choose a candidate to fill the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's Supreme Court seat next week and his candidate will be a woman.

"I will be putting forth a nominee next week. It will be a woman," Trump said during a rally in Fayetteville, North Carolina.


[link:https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/19/politics/trump-ruth-bader-ginsburg-vacant-seat-fill/index.html|

[TygrBright]

24. Yup. In Black women I trust.

Yes, I'm sure there's plenty of Black women who are unqualified for various appointments. But I'm betting that there's a MUCH higher percentage, overall, of Black women who have the education, experience, and qualities of character that will make them conscientious and capable public servants, than the demographics that are overrepresented in public service.

Just sayin'.

It's time, and past.

hopefully,
Bright

[sheshe2]

30. Some unqualified...see Nina Turner.

However I trust Joe with his picks.

Black women who have the education, experience, and qualities of character that will make them conscientious and capable public servants, than the demographics that are overrepresented in public service.

It is indeed past time, Bright.

[sheshe2]

42. "In black women I trust"

I do as well.

Joe and team knows how to vet. We will have the best of the best.

Sad here at DU we lost two that knew what they were talking about. They were the best of the best, Everything they said would happen is happening. It happens slowly yet the wheels are turning. We are getting there.

My advice, get out in the midterms like you have never done before. Vote as if your life, your patents life and your kids lives depend on it.

My mom can't vote this year. We lost one hell of a Democrat.

Bless her heart.

[Historic NY]

27. I had this argument with a older female cousin

she thought he shouldn't have said that was who he was appointing. I told her did it matter, your listening to chatter from people that don't think women are qualified, black women, like the most recent pick who never tried a case,

[SeattleVet]

28. Well, there's your problem right there..."black" "woman" "Justice"...

the trifecta of GOP kryptonite.

They do not like any of the three.

[sheshe2]

31. Sad isn't it.

To bad. Time to move over boys, this seat is taken.

[Lemon Lyman]

29. -

KKKonservatives are trashing PJB's nominating a black woman because:

1) They want to ugly up the process enough in the hopes that Dems don't get the votes they need. I'm sure if Dems weren't able to put someone on the court by midterms repugs would come up with some new bullish*t rule that you can't nominate someone within the last two years of a president's 1st term.

2) They're cynically playing to their racist base, the same way their master did. They'll whip up the white racists and turn them against black people. All they can ever do is wedge issue and divide. They never run on bringing people together and fixing real problems.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

33. Probably because the nominee's gender and race mentioned before

Qualifications. Inane to me. And diminishes the nominee's bona fides.

[sheshe2]

37. Look beyond the gender and race.

Actually take the time to look at their qualifications.

You can look them all up. Pretty sure Joe and his team has fully vetted them.

I don't have the time or patience right now to locate them all. I just lost my mom and it is beyond me to go further right now. It's all out there.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

38. This has nothing to do with whether or not a person has or doesn't have adequate

qualifications. Anytime you make that second to what a person looks like it diminishes one's stature, regardless of what they look like, IMHO.

Condolences for the loss of your mom!

[sheshe2]

47. What?

I am having a hard time following you.

This has nothing to do with whether or not a person has or doesn't have adequate qualifications.

Okay...nothing to do with qualifications.

Anytime you make that second to what a person looks like it diminishes one's stature, regardless of what they look like, IMHO.

What?

I don't see their color and female status and never said that. I said to look at their qualifications. That does nothing to diminish their stature.

Thank you for your condolences.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

53. Hmmm maybe we are on same page. By announcing first that the VP

was going to be a WOC and now announcing that the SC choice would be a WOC, one automatically reduces the overall number of human beings who are qualified choices for consideration regardless of gender or race. In addition, it places added stress on the nominee to have to defend their credentials. ( Because by it's very nature, the method of selection relegated credentials to #2).

This in no way means that a nominee may not have strong credentials. My only point is that it's an odd way to go about it imho. Not sure what you gain? And it strikes me as unfair to a nominee in addition, was hoping we'd be way beyond this by now. That people are first judged by accomplishment and then what they happen to look like second.

[JustAnotherGen]

55. The dominant culture isn't

was hoping we'd be way beyond this by now. That people are first judged by accomplishment and then what they happen to look like second.

Their problem, they made the system - so we have to shove them out of the way.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

60. Ok. It just isn't as good as it could be... But *guess* get it.

[electric_blue68]

106. Problem is too many white people still don't think that way...

[electric_blue68]

104. Oh! My deepest condolences.

[sheshe2]

105. thank you, electric_blue.

[JustAnotherGen]

52. Eh? Don't think so

The default setting is White, Male and Christian for a SCOTUS nominee.

Moreover, Biden made this promise to Us in the debate before the SC Primary.

Folks cheer Us for "saving Democracy".

Did you know black women now hold the highest number of bachelor's degrees? The default setting for "who is qualified for leadership in America" is going to HAVE to change. This is a good start.

Even if Biden had not made that promise AND is making good on it -

The default setting and their hand maidens would have lost their minds. They've been losing them since 2007.

I'm over them. I don't care what they think or feel. They did it to themselves.

Us - black women - have hardened our hearts and minds.

If they collectively stroke out on her first day on the bench - its not my problem. They are in the way - good riddance.

[betsuni]

54. +1

[Cha]

62. Thank You So Much!

[treestar]

56. I had thought that about Harris

Just say you choose Harris. No need to preface the choice with "I'm going to pick a woman." So it seems he wants that emphasized - that he is doing it thinkingly.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

59. Ya. But the end result would exemplify the same thing wouldn't it?

[LetMyPeopleVote]

77. Comey Barrett was not qualified to be put onto the court

Link to tweet

[Initech]

35. Oh I think I know the answer to that.... *COUGH* sexism *COUGH*

[paleotn]

36. Above all, it's about damn time.

Biden isn't limiting himself. This isn't token bullshit. The pool of qualified black women to choose from is huge.

[sheshe2]

43. Thank you, paleotn.

The pool is huge and only one can be chosen.

I thank Joe for this.

[Cha]

40. Rts TY, she & PJB.. he's the BEST!!

And Black Women have already Done So Much for "Saving America".. and they won't stop.

[sheshe2]

44. They won't.

We won't.

I so want to see a WOC on the bench.

Look forward to the asshole GOP twisting themselves in knots saying they are not qualified.

Hmm, remember the frat boy, rape, beer boy Kavanaugh. Burst into tears during his confirmation. What a weak pathetic peace of shit. CONFIRMED!

No woman would do that. We are the weaker sex? KISS MY ASS!

[Cha]

46. Yes.. Way Beyond Enough of

their FREAKING TWILIGHT ZONE!

[sheshe2]

48. Luv ya.

[Cha]

61. Love you

back, Ms she!

[DBoon]

57. because in private, after a few drinks

They will tell you that Black women were meant to be housekeepers, nannies, and kitchen staff.

Conservatism is based on a "natural" hierarchy of humans. There are leaders and there are followers. Destruction will follow any attempt to change this

Appointing a Black woman to the Supreme Court upends their whole world view and thus cannot be allowed.

[I_UndergroundPanther]

99. I want to thank you for saying this.

Conservatism is based on a "natural" hierarchy of humans..

So many people forget that fact when talking about conservatism or ignore it. It is a central core belief that conservatism has.

People forget a hierarchy has to have a top and a bottom..

I for one reject the notion of a hierarchy of humans.

[NurseJackie]

58. In addition to blatant racism, there's the stealthy-racism and resentment...

... of anything that could be interpreted as "Affirmative Action". There's the underlying belief that someone else was probably more deserving but was overlooked for the position.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

63. Hmmm. Or could you be missing the view of liberal dems

Who are very attuned to the hope that all people will one day be treated the same?

[NurseJackie]

64. Nope. That's not it.

I know racism and resentment when I see it. (I'm smarter than I look.)

[Laura PourMeADrink]

65. So who are you referring to? The GOP? Never seen what

You look like so hard to judge if you sound smarter. Lol

[NurseJackie]

66. Actually, I think you're smarter than you want me to believe.

So who are you referring to?

Actually, I think you're smarter than you want me to believe. I was just as clear as I needed to be. --- So, here's the thing: all I'm trying to say is just give it a little thought, and the answer will come ... without my having to spell it out.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

68. Ok I'll just guess - right wingers. Guess there may be a couple in the closet here

Carry on.

[NurseJackie]

70. E for effort.

Ok I'll just guess - right wingers.

E for effort. It's a rather perfunctory answer, but if nothing else, I'll give points for confidence.

Guess there may be a couple in the closet here

Everyone knows that that this type of resentment that I'm referring to has no exclusive domain. It's sad but true that this exists across the entire political and socioeconomic spectrum. Even the best of us are imperfect and it serves no good purpose to deny it; or to live is some alternate reality fantasy world; or to try and bully people by demanding that everyone look the other way... and act as if this mental poison only belongs to the "other". That solves nothing. Denying reality changes nothing. It's my hope that reasonable, rational and thoughtful people will have the courage be able to look within and recognize their flaws; accept their flaws; and be willing to learn and change. It's time for good people to stop hiding from the truth and call-out soft-bigotry and stealth-racism rather than making excuses for it or ignoring it.

Carry on.

HA! Oh, you! That's so funny!

[betsuni]

78. Right-wingers trolling DU pretend to be more-progressive-than-thou.

Attacking Democrats from the "Left," calling Democrats corporate Dems, same as Republicans, they do nothing, status quo, corrupt, ignore the working class, elites, and on and on.

[NurseJackie]

79. You see it too, eh?

Attacking Democrats from the "Left," calling Democrats corporate Dems, same as Republicans, they do nothing, status quo, corrupt, ignore the working class, elites, and on and on.

It's amusing (but also maddening) whenever I see people on the internet and on Twitter (and elsewhere) engaging in that type of behavior... but then when challenged or when the behavior is called out, the response is always this highly predictable Bambi-eyed "who me-e-e-e?" while feigning innocence and pretending to be insulted.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

82. Wow. Sounds like you are suspicious of almost

everyone's motives. Sorry for that.

[NurseJackie]

83. No. Wrong again.

Sounds like you are suspicious of almost

No. Wrong again. Do not try to make this about me. This is not about me. That type of behavior suggests that someone is arguing from a position of weakness or want to change the subject by getting personal, or insulting, or making ridiculous judgements in an effort to put others on the defensive.

Sorry for that.

Yes, I'm sure. Please... Carry on.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

91. Checking out for sure! Obviously I will never understand. Carry on

[NurseJackie]

95. That's the best decision.

Checking out for sure!

That's the best decision. On that we can agree.

Obviously I will never understand.

I believe you're actually smarter than you think I think you are.

Carry on

Dismissed.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

96. One might want to just for one day try commeraderie

with those on your side. Just might make for a happier existence

[NurseJackie]

98. Clearly that's intended to be some sort of poke or backhanded swipe at me...

One might want to just for one day try commeraderie with those on your side.

Clearly that's intended to be some sort of poke or backhanded swipe at me... but honestly, I really have no idea what that's supposed to mean... or why anyone would say something like that. Fact of the matter is that I'm always pleasant and friendly with "those on my side".

Just might make for a happier existence

Seriously? What a rotten thing to say to me. I'll be honest when I tell you that I it's presumptuous and insulting for anyone to think they're in a position to judge what kind of "existence" I have, and whether it's happy or fulfilling.

I haven't said rotten things about you. Why would you believe that it's okay to say such things about me. I haven't gotten "personal" with you. Why is it suddenly okay to get personal and insulting with me?

[betsuni]

97. Giveaways are they ALWAYS make it personal, then accuse others of what they're doing

and of what they are. Always. Those types are very bad at reading comprehension, too, for some reason.

[Sympthsical]

84. Eh, I've seen the inverse also true

People who make a great show of being 100% loyal to the party, then spending their every waking hour attacking liberal and progressive policies and the politicians most closely associated with them.

If nothing in our stated platform and goals is good to a person, well, that's kind of weird.

I am suspicious of an undershirt.

[NurseJackie]

89. Nobody here does that.

People who make a great show of being 100% loyal to the party, then spending their every waking hour attacking liberal and progressive policies and the politicians most closely associated with them.

Nobody here does that.

If nothing in our stated platform and goals is good to a person, well, that's kind of weird.

What does this even mean?

I am suspicious of an undershirt.

What a strange thing to say. How do you feel toward socks?

[George II]

90. Your second to last sentence describes a number of democrats in both houses of Congress....

...but none that I know of here on DU. They go on about how our "platform" is horrible even if they agree with 90-95% of it.

As has been incorrectly attributed to Abraham Lincoln, "you can fool some of the people some of the people some of the time, or some of the people all of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time." *

I guess that's the inverse of the inverse?

BTW, I always wear undershirts.

*The actual quote was “Judge Douglas cannot fool the people: you may fool people for a time; you can fool a part of the people all the time; but you can’t fool all the people all the time.”

[Sympthsical]

92. Have you ever had days

Where you just kind of feel like you're having an inadvertent seance?

[George II]

94. No, why do you ask?

[liberalhistorian]

69. Because certain groups of people have the mindset

that black women should only be cleaning the court offices, and not sitting behind the desk of them. Just like they were of the mindset that a black man should only be good for cleaning the Oval Office and not sitting behind the president's desk. To these people, that is their only proper "place"' and they can't handle the cognitive dissonance of seeing them in positions that they've been taught that only whites deserve.

These are the same dipshit ignoramuses who believe that POC and women, and especially POC women, only achieved higher up positions through affirmative action. They can't conceive of the fact that intelligence, skills and abilities know no skin color and that it's only the institutionalization of white supremacy that has made it seem otherwise.

[sheshe2]

71. We had so many of the good ones, black women here on DU.

Gone for various reasons. The African American Group, closed and basically shuttered. They turned out the lights.

Because certain groups of people have the mindset

that black women should only be cleaning the court offices, and not sitting behind the desk of them.

Yes. And having taught law and worked in judiciary are at times ridiculed and swept away.

I won't say more other than to thank you for your thoughtful post.

[mcar]

81. I miss those DUers

Follow some on Twitter now. I learned a lot from them.

[NurseJackie]

85. I do too.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

72. Opinion: Biden's options for Supreme Court include many qualified Black women

The persons on the short list announced by the press are all outstanding and very qualified lawyers who are actually far more qualified than partisan hacks like Kavanaugh and Barret Comey (neither of which were qualified)

Link to tweet

And excellence need not be sacrificed in the slightest to achieve diversity on the court. Consider the qualifications of the 13 women (all African American) who have been reported as possible Biden appointees. Ten of them are graduates of Harvard or Yale Law School, most having served or been editors on the law review. The three others have law degrees from Duke, Tulane and NYU, no slouch legal institutions themselves. Only two of the potential candidates do not possess federal judicial clerkship experience. Nine of the 13 are currently sitting judges. Two of the others are nominees to federal courts of appeals, and one is a law school dean and the other, the director of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund. They have all served with distinction in important positions.

This is an incredibly impressive list of outstanding, talented women, any one of whom would be indisputably qualified to serve as an associate justice of the Supreme Court. Take just one — California Supreme Court Justice Leondra Kruger — as an example. Kruger is a magna cum laude, Phi Beta Kappa graduate of Harvard College and a former editor-in-chief of the Yale Law Journal. She currently serves as an associate justice on the California Supreme Court, a position she has held for seven years. Kruger clerked for Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, has argued 12 cases before the Supreme Court, taught at University of Chicago Law School, and worked for Jenner & Block and WilmerHale, both prestigious law firms.

Can anyone fairly claim those credentials reflect anything other than the most outstanding “qualifications” imaginable for a Supreme Court justice?

And there are 12 more African American women on the list just like Kruger in terms of background, experience, education, achievement and judicial aptitude.

So much for the “affirmative action” canard.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

76. Opinion: Earth to GOP: All of Biden's top Supreme Court candidates are qualified

The lawyers on the shortlist are all very qualified

Link to tweet

Maybe. But this prevarication strikes me as a strange place to make an ethical stand. Rather, we should ask: Is it generally a good thing when the country’s highest court becomes more diverse in background? Of course it is. For his vigorous assertion of this point, Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) deserves credit. “Put me in the camp of making sure the court and other institutions look like America,” the senator said. “You know, we make a real effort as Republicans to recruit women and people of color to make the party look more like America.”

Few would accuse Biden of considering candidates who are not qualified. Graham is partial to a contender from South Carolina, U.S. District Judge J. Michelle Childs, whom he calls a “fair-minded, highly gifted jurist” and “one of the most decent people I’ve ever met.” U.S. District Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, California Supreme Court Justice Leondra R. Kruger and others draw similar praise. The whole process is highlighting the Supreme Court-level achievements of Black women. Why should this immediately strike some Republicans as evidence of affirmative action and litmus tests? Isn’t that tendency itself an indictment?

Allowing diversity to matter is also allowing history to matter. It matters that the Supreme Court, led from 1836 to 1864 by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney — who wrote the decision that denied citizenship to all Black Americans — will eventually have a Black female justice. It matters that the historical legacy of the 1857 Dred Scott v. Sandford decision, which found Black people to have “no rights which the White man was bound to respect,” should die, in part, at the hand of a highly respected Black woman. It matters when the ghosts are finally exorcised and the spiritual high places of our democracy are cleansed.

None of this will be evident in the worst of the nomination process, when the culture war is revealed in its full ugliness. But what Biden promises to do in the elevation of a Black woman to the Supreme Court is not the problem.

[mcar]

80. I think I know

[ismnotwasm]

86. There is a misconception that racism, and evolving out of it is a natural process.

The beginnings of modern American racism rests on a LOT of carefully manipulated situations in general history but modern racism, in America, in entrenched and what is generally called out is the merely tip of the iceberg as the saying is.

For from being a “tribal” reaction, modern American racism is carefully orchestrated, encouraged and supported. Add what this racism has done to Black women, you get this bullshit. What should be a time of celebration is attacked by the right and sea-lioned by others.

[dwayneb]

87. Simple - they will never agree with any proposal by Democrats

It's not really so much about the nominee being black or female. It's because they must ALWAYS oppose any candidate that any Democratic Administration might propose.

Sure some of them might be overtly racist or misogynistic. But generally, it's because they can no longer ever agree to any proposal from the Democrats, because anyone not in lockstep with their neo-Fascist agenda is by definition their enemy.

This is no longer representative government, this is effectively a civil war. They view supporting any Democratic nominated Supreme Court candidate regardless of the race or sex as giving comfort to the enemy.

Imagine if Biden proposed some white moderate candidate. Do you really think they would vote to approve him either? They would simply find another reason to vilify him.

[electric_blue68]

100. Uh... Cause they're racist? So many Smart, Caring, Interesting Black Women in America.

[roamer65]

103. I'm excited about it.

It’s about damn time!