So, President Joe Biden gets to pick a nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court. Back on the campaign trail he pledged to choose a black woman for the position. Why? Because, he said, it’s time.
If there is any good news in this situation, it is that with 99.9 percent certainty his selection, if approved, will not affect the balance on the Court.
Replacing Justice Stephen Breyer, one of the three liberals on the Court, will almost certainly result in the nomination of a liberal/progressive, keeping the activist — “make law from the bench” — number at three, against six who usually follow the strict constructionist or original intent philosophy when interpreting the U.S. Constitution and laws.
America was once a nation where one earned his or her place on a court bench, in a hall of fame, or at the top of a rating or activity through merit. We are now, more and more, selecting people based not upon their abilities and accomplishments, but on their race or gender. This system is referred to as “equity.” It is more about evening out numbers than seeking out the best.
And there is the possibility that the person Biden nominates may feel that she got the nod only because of her race and gender, not because of her positive attributes.
If we are going to start picking justices for the Court based upon these new criteria, when will the time be for a Hispanic male, an Asian man or woman, or a transgender person? And who will decide when the time is right?
Many or most times — and filling this Supreme Court vacancy is one of those times — the proper choice is the most qualified person. That may well be a black woman. But it might be someone else. And, if no others are even considered, how can we the people be sure that we are going to have the best possible person nominated for this crucial position?
Every Justice on the Court should be someone trained in the law, who understands and is devoted to the task of upholding the principles of the U.S. Constitution and the laws of the land as written and intended. There are already three on the Court who try to make law from the bench.
The nominee should be someone who has held a judgeship long enough to be familiar with the job, and without regard to their race, gender, political preferences, or the wishes of the woke.
Hopefully, Biden will nominate a black woman with abilities and qualifications equal to Clarence Thomas — who is a black man and one of the greatest Justices of any color, ever — and others seated on the Court.
From SCOTUSblog.com, which has covered the U.S. Supreme Court since 2002, here is some information on potential nominees: “Two potential nominees therefore stand apart from all others: Leondra Kruger, a justice on the California Supreme Court, and Ketanji Brown Jackson, a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.”
“Both are well known to the White House team that will lead the nomination process,” the blog continues. “Kruger is a former Department of Justice attorney. Biden recently appointed Jackson to the court of appeals.”
The report goes on to say that “The president’s bottom-line calculus may reduce to the following. Jackson was recently confirmed by the Senate, making a Supreme Court confirmation process likely to go smoothly. Kruger has never faced Senate confirmation.”
That distinction matters, because if Democrats lose control of the Senate later this year, that would be important if hearings on the president’s nominee were substantially delayed until after the election, or if the first nominee is rejected. A candidate that has cleared the Senate previously would likely speed the process.
Several other names have also been mentioned for the position.
And exactly when did Biden catch the fever for choosing justices based upon the race and/or gender?
His disapproval and opposition to current Justice Thomas in his 1991 nomination hearing gathered headlines. As the then-Senate Judiciary Committee Chair, Biden actually tried to discredit Thomas as a crazy libertarian and reckless judicial activist.
“I assure you I have read all of your speeches, and I have read them in their entirety,” Biden said after Thomas’ opening statement. “And, in the speech you gave in 1987 to the Pacific Research Institute, you said, and I quote, ‘I find attractive the arguments of scholars such as Stephen Macedo who defend an activist Supreme Court that would’ — not could, would — 'strike down laws restricting property rights.’”
Thomas responded by denying what Biden accused him of, but Biden didn't buy it. “Quite frankly, Biden said, “I find it hard to square your speeches with what you are telling me today.”
So, while opposing a well-qualified black man 40 years ago, who despite Biden’s opposition was confirmed, he now believes a black woman should be the next associate justice because “it is time.”
Time will tell whether Biden intends to nominate the next potential justice for the best reasons, as polls show Americans want. But given his support for the radical left’s agenda, we should not hold our breath.
No comments:
Post a Comment