For the most part, I agree that it wasn't wise for Biden to say long before that he would nominate a black woman to the Supreme Court; however, I'll also say that he owes his Presidency to James Clyburn, who pressured Biden for more AA appointments. It should have been no surprise, and some of the nominees are clearly qualified in their…
For the most part, I agree that it wasn't wise for Biden to say long before that he would nominate a black woman to the Supreme Court; however, I'll also say that he owes his Presidency to James Clyburn, who pressured Biden for more AA appointments. It should have been no surprise, and some of the nominees are clearly qualified in their own right to be on the SC. I think for the most part its a messaging problem more than a big whoop.
One thing that has been ignored though is the long term implications of the nomination. Clarence Thomas, the only current AA on the Court? Nominated by GHWB to fill THURGOOD MARSHALL'S seat. Amy Coney Barrett? Chosen to fill Ruth Bader Ginsburg's seat. The only occassion the demograhic didn't stay the same was when Alito filled O'Connor's seat-- but the first nominee in that case was Harriet Myers (technically, it was Roberts, but that was withdrawn once Rehnquist died and GWB re-nominated him to be Chief Justice). So in the least, there tends to be a desire to re-nominate demographics (or for Dems to expand the demographics of the Court) once an opening occurs. In that sense, nominating a woman (which will bring the current number to 4) and an African American (which will bring it to 2) seems to bring the Court more in line with the nation's demographics.
To be sure, the Court still has some over-representation (most are Catholic, almost all of them Ivy League), but the trend is in the right direction. And I'm OK with that.
For the most part, I agree that it wasn't wise for Biden to say long before that he would nominate a black woman to the Supreme Court; however, I'll also say that he owes his Presidency to James Clyburn, who pressured Biden for more AA appointments. It should have been no surprise, and some of the nominees are clearly qualified in their own right to be on the SC. I think for the most part its a messaging problem more than a big whoop.
One thing that has been ignored though is the long term implications of the nomination. Clarence Thomas, the only current AA on the Court? Nominated by GHWB to fill THURGOOD MARSHALL'S seat. Amy Coney Barrett? Chosen to fill Ruth Bader Ginsburg's seat. The only occassion the demograhic didn't stay the same was when Alito filled O'Connor's seat-- but the first nominee in that case was Harriet Myers (technically, it was Roberts, but that was withdrawn once Rehnquist died and GWB re-nominated him to be Chief Justice). So in the least, there tends to be a desire to re-nominate demographics (or for Dems to expand the demographics of the Court) once an opening occurs. In that sense, nominating a woman (which will bring the current number to 4) and an African American (which will bring it to 2) seems to bring the Court more in line with the nation's demographics.
To be sure, the Court still has some over-representation (most are Catholic, almost all of them Ivy League), but the trend is in the right direction. And I'm OK with that.