Editor's note: This piece was co-authored by Carol Vance.
On January 27, 2022 President Biden announced that he would select only a black woman to replace Justice Breyer. This is the perfect opportunity for an Asian or Hispanic woman of jurisprudential caliber to file a federal lawsuit for racial discrimination since only black female jurors have only beeb considered by the President.
It was a promise Joe Biden made during one of the many low points in his presidential campaign, after he lost both the Iowa caucus and the New Hampshire primary. Just days before the South Carolina primary, when Black voters would effectively hand him the Democratic nomination, Biden said at the end of a debate that if he were elected, he would nominate the first Black woman to the U.S. Supreme Court.
This is very strange conduct given that Mr. Biden was Vice President under Barack Obama who claimed his presidency was the beginning of a post-racial America. Dr. Christopher J. Metzler, Associate Dean at Georgetown University believes we live in a race-conscious, not race-blind society. You would be right if you attributed such race-consciousness to President Biden’s Supreme Court nomination of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson. Afterall, we already have a distinguished black justice in Clarence Thomas, just not a woman.
There are a number of things wrong with President Biden’s selection of Ketanji Brown Jackson for the Supreme Court vacancy due to Stephen Breyer’s announced retirement. None of these have to do with her qualifications which are appreciable. They have to do with the blatant racism with which Biden and his politically progressive handlers selected Judge Jackson among the twelve Black, female nominees put forth.
The fact that Biden overlooked supremely qualified Asian and Hispanic female judges, qnf thereby missing some more noteworthy choices, wreaks of racial discrimination--the very thing the left has been accusing conservatives of being. In so doing, Biden thumbs his nose at Asian and Hispanic women (Judge Sotomayor included), and by default, suggests that these “other” minorities are somehow inferior--less qualified to sit on America’s Supreme Court.
Of course, the legacy media won’t even consider, let alone present this issue for fear they will be indicted for the same virulent racism they believe pervades American society. To them, President Biden will deserve historic notoriety for selecting not the best person but a black woman and thus failing to remember and implement Reverend Martin Luther King’s admonition to judge people by the content of their character, not the color of their skin. This seems totally lost on the President and his cadre of progressive supporters.
Worse is the idea of exclusion. President Biden is ipso factor breaking the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. In 2016 the Federal Court of Appeals held that skin color discrimination is cognizable in the Batson v. Kentucky challenge to juror exclusion. This Batson challenge derived from the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. Further, People v. Bridgeforth recognized a multiracial color class--composed of a group of dark-skinned individuals of different races, and in so doing, opened up possibilities for expanding color-based anti-discrimination suits to include Hispanics and Asians, in addition to Blacks.
It would be both important and fitting to challenge President Biden’s overt discriminatory exclusion of other women of color, giving unlawful exclusivity to only a black woman for his Supreme Court pick.
Evan Gerstmann in Forbes asked rhetorically why Biden gave Brown-Jackson the nod? Gerstmann’s answer is simple: “She pleased the largest number of interest groups and, while having all the right academic qualifications, has too thin a written record for any sort of Republican attack to be effective.” Less than a year ago, Jackson was appointed by Biden to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, often considered the second-highest court. So, does being a black woman trump the genuine quality for Trump’s successor in the White House?
During the first day of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson’s hearing, she was queried by Republican lawmakers about her soft sentencing of sex offenders: As the progressive news rag, The Washington Post, reported: “Supreme Court nominee forcefully defended her approach to sentencing Tuesday amid allegations from Republican Senator Josh Hawlet that she has been too lenient in sex offense cases involving minors…Jackson also told senators that the law does not direct judges to rely solely on the federal sentencing guidelines nor to impose the maximum penalty possible, but orders them to devise a sentence that is “sufficient but not greater than necessary to promote the purposes of punishment.” Parents of the child victims must be greatly reassured by Brown’s response. Of no surprise to conservative America, White House officials played their “Trump Card”, dismissing his arguments against Judge Brown and instead linking Senator Hawley to QAnon, an alleged extremist ideology the ever-reliable FBI has deemed a domestic terrorism threat.
We don’t endorse the hi-tech lynching Justice Clarence Thomas underwent during grilling by Democrat Senators led by Joe Biden. There are some actions that can be taken to mitigate Biden’s Supreme Court appointment of Judge Brown. First, bring a constitutional against Mr. Biden for his nomination being against the Fourteenth Amendment which provides equal protection against racial discrimination for all races. Mr. Biden’s failure to consider Asian and Hispanic female candidates is just such a constitutional violation. It would, however, take an Asian or Hispanic woman who has standing and was equally or even better qualified than Judge Brown to file such a lawsuit.
The time is right to stop this wrong and force President Biden to follow the Constitutional-based laws of our land instead of shamelessly virtue signaling to the progressive, barely controlled U.S. Senate and mainstream media. In the likely chance this doesn’t happen, Republican senators should insist that Judge Brown drop her use of prepared notes she relied upon for the first two days of hearings, for her final day of questioning--a precedent set by Amy Comey Barrett who used absolutely no notes or prepared materials during her senate confirmation.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member