By Delilah Hammons
WASHINGTON, DC – President Joe Biden has nominated Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson—who would become the first Black woman on the court, if confirmed—as Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, according to The White House.
Earlier this year Justice Stephen Breyer announced his retirement. Since then “President Biden has conducted a rigorous process to identify his replacement, seeking, he said, a candidate with exceptional credentials, unimpeachable character, and unwavering dedication to the rule of law.”
President Biden also looked for a nominee that is pragmatic, wise and has a deep understanding of the Constitution as an enduring charter of liberty, like Justice Breyer.
Another important aspect of the nominee is that they should be committed to equal justice and understand intensely the impact that the Supreme Court’s decisions have on everyone in America, said the White House.
President Biden took this responsibility very seriously, following the “Constitution’s requirement that he make this appointment ‘by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate,’ seeking the advice of Senators in both parties, said the WH, noting Biden studied the histories and case records of candidates, consulted legal experts, and met with candidates.”
Judge Jackson is one of the nation’s brightest legal minds and is currently a judge in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, according to court observers. If Judge Jackson is confirmed she will be the first Black woman to ever serve on the Supreme Court.
The White House explains that Judge Jackson is a “former clerk for Justice Breyer, Judge Jackson has broad experience across the legal profession – as a federal appellate judge, a federal district court judge, a member of the U.S. Sentencing Commission, an attorney in private practice, and as a federal public defender. Judge Jackson has been confirmed by the Senate with votes from Republicans as well as Democrats three times.”
The WH noted that in high school Judge Jackson “told her high school guidance counselor she wanted to attended Harvard, and the guidance counselor warned that Judge Jackson should not set her sights ‘so high.’ That didn’t stop Judge Jackson. She graduated magna cum laude from Harvard College, then attended Harvard Law School, where she graduated cum laude and was an editor of the Harvard Law Review.
WH officials said Justice Breyer has been a mentor for Judge Jackson, and she even followed in his footsteps by “working on the U.S. Sentencing Commission—an important body, bipartisan by design, that President Biden fought to create as a member of the U.S. Senate. Her work there focused on reducing unwarranted sentencing disparities and ensuring that federal sentences were just and proportionate.”
The White House said “the Senate should move forward with a fair and timely hearing and confirmation,” noting Judge Jackson has always been devoted to serving the public…is a historic nominee who is an exceptionally qualified.”
And let’s not forget that Biden’s rigorous process included that the candidate had to be a black female.
Yeah, I have no problem with a black female supreme court justice, I just found it odd that it was that specific . . . like a qualified transgender native American or a hermaphroditic Korean American wouldn’t fit the bill? I don’t mean that as a joke, I don’t understand why other groups besides white males were excluded. I would be less puzzled if he’d just said we’re going to find a qualified candidate who isn’t a white male – since that class has dominated the court for 200 years.
I feel like there is a huge disconnect here. Biden wanted to make history. He and many other believe that having a Black woman on the court was long overdue. Blacks have traditionally been marginalized in society. Women have traditionally been treated as second class citizens or worse. The treatment of Black women in American history is perhaps as appalling as any. That’s why. Whatever history will write about Joe Biden – and I’m sure it will be mixed at best, perhaps worse, he will have named the first woman Vice President and nominated the first Black woman to the Supreme Court. Those are my thoughts.
I’m not denying any of what you are saying re: plight of black women in America, but why are you pitting one marginalized group as being the ‘winner’ against another? I actually agree that decreasing the white male count is a good thing.
I guess I don’t see it as pitting one against another. I see it as empowering one group that has never been appointed to the court. There are other groups in that category and hopefully they too will get their day.
So let’s get this right, the main qualifier was the candidate had to be a black woman. So the search started from that point and omitted countless others who might have been as or more qualified than the current nominee.
How would you quantify “more qualified”? From what I’ve seen, the quality of Jackson is beyond reproach.
When you narrow the field down out of the starting gate to only black women being considered how do we know if she was the best candidate out there?
Maybe she’s the best black female candidate, but the process excluded all other races and genders.
You didn’t answer how to quantify most qualified. IMO, there is no “best” candidate out there. It’s a subjective measure. That’s why did you didn’t answer the question about qualifying most qualified. There have been 115 people on the Supreme Court, she’ll be number 116. She’ll be the third Black. She’ll be the sixth woman. Given the history of this country, that’s an awful specious argument you are making.
Can whoever is deleting my comments please explain to me what rules I have broken?
I can see nothing wrong with my comments.
So that will make the SCOTUS over 22% black when the population of the U.S. is only 12% black. Does that bother any liberals/progressives who are all about racial percentages when it comes to just about everything? For instance, school board members, company board members, etc…
It bothers me your attempt to blatantly and intentionally attempt to misrepresent the position of many on here and that after more than 10 years on the Vanguard you still fundamentally do not get or intentionally distort the position of those concerned with the marginalization of communities of color.
Intentionally not getting or intentionally distorting position of the commenter, much?
Not at all, given that in the 503 years since the first black slaves were brought to this continent, chattel slavery was allowed 48.9% of the time.
Huh?
I double taked as well. I think what RC is saying is that the first slaves were brought to N. America 503 years ago, and during half of those years slavery was legal.
You are in the “minority” regarding this issue, so to speak. It’s essentially a quota/affirmative action.
Most people view themselves as individuals (first), rather than members of a particularly skin color hue. I’d go so far as to say that most people don’t really give a (particular) damn about “their” group. (You can see that in murder/violence statistics, as well.)
And as such, they’re not too keen on being denied opportunities based upon their skin color. Regardless of what other members of “their” group experienced in the past.
This is probably the biggest reason that three school board members were recalled in San Francisco (e.g., eliminating merit-based enrollments for the sake of diversity).
Nor do I believe that (most) people care that an “average” member of “their” group might be better, or worse-off than an “average” member of another group.
At least, not when it comes to being denied opportunities on an individual level – based upon skin color.
Affirmative action isn’t very popular among Asian students and their families, I would suspect. On “average”.
In my opinion, some progressive “lost their way” when they started focusing on skin color, rather than economic differences (which can cut-across all skin colors). I believe they’re on a losing cause, and not because of “white” people. (This type of racial preference system ultimately pits all different skin colors against other skin colors.)
I think we saw something like this regarding the replacement for Kamala Harris, as I recall.
To elaborate on the last sentence above:
https://www.npr.org/sections/biden-transition-updates/2020/12/22/947794594/california-secretary-of-state-alex-padilla-to-replace-harris-in-u-s-senate
Also, this:
https://abc7news.com/alex-padilla-kamala-harris-london-breed-barbara-lee/8984796/
I find this type of thing to be endlessly-amusing (and entirely predictable). Though it also displays selfishness and a lack of class. Personally, I think Mayor Breed looked really bad when making this statement.
But the fact that the “competition” didn’t even involve white people (among the potential selectees) is what really makes it amusing.
And just focusing on this one statement, let’s break it down:
Has a woman ever been appointed to the Supreme Court?
Has a black person ever been appointed to the Supreme Court?
Do both of these categories have to be “combined” together (in one person) to represent either of those categories?
I can hardly wait until a trans woman is nominated, in regard to whether or not the person is “counted” as a woman (by some). Or, whether or not that person “counts” as fully-representative of the LGBTQ community. And what if a selectee from the LGBTQ community is (god-forbid) “white”? ( I assume that the issue would not apply to a trans man, since males are discouraged.)
Same regarding those with disabilities, etc.
Oh, and let’s break down all the categories of Asians, unless you think that someone with Chinese heritage is the same as someone with Japanese, Indian, Indonesian, or Philippine heritage, for example. Can one “Asian” selectee count for all?
Hopefully, top government officials are keeping track of all of this via a spreadsheet, before making a selection.
Oh, what if someone has a “mixed” heritage – which no doubt is increasingly-common?
In fact, doesn’t this apply to Kamala Harris (and Barack Obama), for example?
I’d suggest that the spreadsheet I referred to keep track of exact percentages of each heritage. And use that information to select the person who “most represents” the desired heritage for a given appointment or preference.
The government probably needs a whole new department to accurately keep track of (and ensure compliance with) such things, to achieve proper representative selection.
Five comment rule is in effect. Please monitor your own comment count.