Everyone who said the eminently qualified Justice Jackson was a "DEI hire" is a racist. But Clarence Thomas wasn't for some reason. Corrupt, black, white nationalists are the exception. I have spoken.
Demeritocracy - "Demeritocracy is a satirical or critical opposite of a meritocracy, representing a system where power, status, or punishment are distributed based on demerits, failures, or negative behaviors rather than skill and achievement" a somewhat satirical version of the "Peter Principle:" where people end up one level above their conpetense and ability. A keynote of the Tr8mp administration. People voted for this?
Jackson was more qualified than Trump's white Justices. Naturally racists howl "DEI" over the more qualified woman of color.
List of Trump's Black Cabinet and Cabinet-level appointees: Scott Turner HUD That's all. ONE Black person. Probably DEI, amirite? He DID play in the NFL, so that makes him "qualified".
Look how women and Blacks were conveniently purged by Hegseth the White.
Well, well, minus man thinks he knows what DEI is. But once again, as usual, he does not.
His, (as well as others) racist storylines percolating constantly in his Conditioned Grey Matter (echo chamber) merely signals his deep fear of losing his privileged white man status in rasist America.
trump is the direct results of this fear. And it resides in a great number of Americans yet today.
We are a global community of deeply interconnected beings. It high time MAGA clears their fog and fear and begin acting according to reality as it is. Not how they wish it to be.
Mullin was hired because he possesses all the qualities Trump admires in his courtiers: Loyalty and fatuity.
Judge Jackson's educational and professional qualifications speak for themselves, (she was one of THE most qualified nominees for the SCOTUS. FACT.) even if you cannot bring yourself to admit this.
Jackson served on the United States District Court for the District of Columbia for nearly 8 years, giving her more trial court experience than any sitting Supreme Court justice and more than any justice since Edward Sanford, who was nominated to the Supreme Court in 1923.
Jackson would be only the second sitting justice to serve at all three levels of the federal judiciary.
"Former Republican Speaker of the House Paul Ryan: “My praise for Ketanji’s intellect, for her character, for her integrity – it is unequivocal.”
Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX): “Very impressive background … extensive trial court experience.”
Republican-appointed judge Thomas Griffith, who supported Jackson’s elevation to the D.C. Circuit after observing her work as a judge, recently said: “Her academic record is remarkable. She has a breadth of experience, which is really quite unique.”
When Jackson was nominated to the D.C. Circuit, she received support from Supreme Court clerks for Justices Scalia, Thomas, Rehnquist, Kennedy, Souter, and O’Connor."
But tell me again that she was only a DEI appointee. Give us your evidence.
So you're accusing former President Joe Biden of being a racist because he nominated one of the MOST qualified people to be on the Supreme Court. It's evident to a lot of us here that it is Justice Jackson's skin color that prevents you from acknowledging how eminently qualified she was/is for that position.
"Her skin is dark, so, therefore, the person who nominated her is a racist" is your thought process.
Markwayne Mullin's skin is white, he had zero qualifications for being the head of Homeland security, and he's a Trump ass-kisser, and you ignore that?
You're comment is a joke. And you know it.
Your purpose in posting it here is to be nothing more than a disrupter and provocateur.
No, he's a racist because he refused to consider any qualified person who wasn't black. He was also a sexist because he refused to consider any qualified candidate who wasn't female.
Democrats are the party of anti-white neo-racism and anti-straight male neo-sexism.
No, President Joe Biden did not consider non-Black or male candidates for the vacancy, having explicitly pledged during his 2020 campaign and reaffirmed during the vacancy to nominate a Black woman. This decision restricted his formal selection pool to Black female.
Out of 115 Supreme Court Justices in U.S. history up to that point, 108 had been white men. Deliberately seeking a Black woman was a legitimate attempt to correct centuries of structural exclusion and ensure the nation's highest court better reflected the demographic makeup of the country.
I've never heard any white male speak up when ONLY WHITE MALES were considered for the Supreme Court up until Sandra Day O'Connor in 1981.
No one believes for a moment that a qualified woman wasn't available before that. And no one believes that a qualified black candidate wasn't available until 1967 when Thurgood Marshall was nominated and confirmed.
You and many like you only complained when the playing field was leveled, screaming "RACISM!" When you and people like you never asked why for 178 years no one asked why no qualified Black person was considered and for 191 years no qualified female was considered.
Women are STILL the most discriminated citizens in America. Black men got the vote before women, a Black man was seated on the SCOTUS before a woman, and a Black man was elected POTUS, before a woman.
And here you are whining about the attempt to right that centuries-long wrong.
I did a bit more research after I posted my comment above.
There are historical examples where presidents explicitly looked for specific identities — Ronald Reagan promised to appoint the first woman to the court (Sandra Day O'Connor); and Trump explicitly committed to nominate a woman to fill Ruth Bader Ginsburg's seat ( Amy Coney Barrett).
It appears that a Conservative and a MAGA president had no problem in specifically considering only a woman for a vacant SCOTUS seat.
When Joe Biden did the very same thing, Conservatives and MAGAs lost their collective minds! Screaming RACISM!
The only difference among the three women being considered was KBJ's skin color.
She was "the best" from a pool of 3 black females... The Biden administration publicly indicated it did a deep dive and intensive background vetting on about four candidates for Ketanji Brown Jackson's Supreme Court position, ultimately conducting final personal interviews with three finalists.
Vetting and Shortlist Details
The Final Three: President Joe Biden personally interviewed three prominent Black female jurists on the final shortlist: Ketanji Brown Jackson, Leondra Kruger, and J. Michelle Childs.
The Total Vetted Pool: While the administration acknowledged closely reviewing roughly four top candidates in the final phase, the exact total number of preliminary candidates considered in the wider initial discovery list was never fully disclosed by the White House.
My privileged white man status within the DSA would entitle me to be a MAXIMUM of 50% of the party's candidate selection committee that can be straight males and that a MINIMUM of 31% must be from non-white minority groups. I feel SO privileged!
A Conservative president, George Bush, Sr., chose Clarence Thomas to fill the seat vacated by Thurgood Marshall. Bush Sr. explicitly chose a Black male candidate to fill the seat vacated by a Black Justice.
What former President Biden did is a time-honored tradition among Conservative presidents. What are you complaining about??
Why are you whining about it now and labeling Joe Biden a racist and not George Bush, Sr., Ronald Reagan, and Donald Trump?
There's a logical reason for it. There weren't many qualified candidates
When Sandra Day O'Connor was nominated to the Supreme Court in 1981, women made up only about 8% of practicing lawyers in the United States and roughly 36% of law school students.
Historical Data Points (1900–2024)
1900: ~1,000 women (out of 114,000 total lawyers) 1920: 1,738 women 1940: ~4,500 women 1950: ~6,500 women 1970: 13,000 women 1980: 62,000 women 2000: ~276,000 women (27% of total) 2024: ~542,286 women (41% )
Historical Data Points (1900–2024) 1900: ~700 to 1,000 lawyers (Out of 114,000 total U.S. lawyers) 1925: ~1,000 lawyers (The year the National Bar Association was founded to represent Black attorneys) 1940: 1,400 lawyers 1960: ~2,200 lawyers 1970: 3,406 lawyers 1985: ~12,000 lawyers 2000: 33,865 lawyers 2024: ~66,000 lawyers (Representing roughly 5% of the 1.3 million total active U.S. lawyers)
DEI = affirmative action beyond blacks, to include women, gays, and every Tom, Dick, and Harry of non-cisgen white males. That was Barrack Obama's neo-racist legacy.
Marshall was an affirmative action Johnson hire post Civil Rights act (to serve as a model of the possible). Reagan duplicated to gesture w/ O'Conner to demonstrate women's equality of opportunity. No more such non-meritocratic gestures are required. Sotomayor was the first DEI pick (by Obama)... from when the Democratic Party turned full Neo-racist.
Marshall was MUCH more qualified for SCOTUS than O'Conner. According to Google AI: The odds that Sandra Day O'Connor would have been appointed to the Supreme Court in 1981 if she were a man were virtually zero. President Ronald Reagan explicitly pledged during his 1980 campaign to appoint a woman to the first high-court vacancy, and he chose O'Connor specifically to fulfill that promise.
The Campaign Promise
Ronald Reagan made a formal political commitment to place a woman on the Supreme Court.
When Justice Potter Stewart retired, the White House actively searched for a qualified female candidate to satisfy this pledge.
Without the gender-based criteria driving the search, O’Connor—an Arizona state appellate judge and former state senator without a prominent national legal profile—would not have topped a traditional shortlist of male federal appeals court judges or prominent legal scholars.
When Tomas was appointed there was no such thing as DEI. That was back in the day when LGB didn't take a whole alphabet and racial tensions were minimal. Of course that was back when there were two political parties who worked to run the country for the people.
I am surprised that the leftist are so against Native Americans but maybe it is because they are have been given everything so what can the democrats run on if not elect me and everything will be free.
Your post does show how out of touch the left is and why they got beat so bad in 2024. They have no touch with the working class because they have become the elite crowd. AOC as a frontrunner is going to be interesting.
Here's a distinction people like the -FJ group of commenters choose not to understand. For almost every presidential appointment, there's a pool of "qualified" candidates. Some Black, some white, some Latino, some conservative, some liberal. From those pools, appointments are made, people are nominated, and then the Senate advises and consents. Presidents are elected; appointees are by nature political choices, chosen from a pool of qualified people.
As it relates to the Supreme Court, here is how nominees since Bush the Elder have stacked up: Of the 13 evaluated nominees, 12 have been judged "Well Qualified," the highest rating. Only one, Justice Clarence Thomas, was rated the lower "Qualified." And one nominee, Harriet Miers, was withdrawn after a bipartisan consensus realized she lacked deep constitutional expertise. Justice Thomas was nominated by Bush the Elder and Miers by GW Bush.
I get the anger from people about actual unqualified DEI hires. No one should get nominated if they do not meet the elite standards for the job. Miers fell into that category. Justice Thomas was deemed qualified, though he holds the lowest peer-review rating of any confirmed justice in modern history. But the fact that President Biden chose a Black woman to be a justice—a Black woman who was judged unanimously "Well Qualified" by the American Bar Association and possessed a mountain of judicial experience—does not make her a DEI hire. Biden did not nominate someone unqualified.
Why -FJ continues to push that narrative is beyond me.
As for Joe C and this... "My privileged white man status"... too bad. We could raise your share to 3/5s if you'd like. Or give you the same share we gave native Americans for over a century.
Yeah Skud... there was no DEI. But it's grandfather boogeyman within the GOP then was "Affirmative Action". Another program to give qualified minorities a chance to be evaluated, just like DEI. And which conservatives hated.
As for an out of touch post, Geeez Skud, do you expect a bunch of libs to bring up a bunch of crummy nominees every day? Do you make those same snarky asides at conservative blogs about Trump?
I for one have repeatedly agreed with you on this, frequently saying so here at PE.
What is it you specifically want us, or me to say?
Biden sucked in 2024. As I've said numerous times, I felt he should have bowed out after the 2022 mid terms. But he chose not to and the Dems got burned.
But I believe, and maybe you disagree, that even a weakened Biden and his superior team of staff members, would have been better than what we have now with Trump.
Dave, I don't believe it was that she wasn't qualified it was that biden said he was going to appoint a black female. Totally political and conformed to his DEI push not based on the best person for the job.
I do question your presidents are selected from a qualified pool. Qualifications have little to do with it or we wouldn't have had the three worst candidates choices over the last 10 years.
"Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was not overturned on appeal significantly more than other judges. During her time as a U.S. District Judge, legal analysts and independent watchdogs found that her reversal rate fell well within the normal, average range for district court judges in her circuit.
Judge Jackson wrote nearly 600 written opinions while on the district court bench. Around a dozen or fewer of her decisions were completely or partially reversed or vacated on appeal (roughly 2% of her total rulings or about 11.9% of the small fraction of her cases that were actually appealed).
Legal reviews showed her overall reversal rate placed her in a standard average or lower tier compared to her peers on the D.C. District Court, contradicting claims that she had an abnormal record of being overturned."
WRONG AGAIN, -FJ, AS IS USUAL FOR YOU. You got your information from a Conservative/MAGA outlet that was WRONG.
Did you click the link? She ranked in the bottom 30% of judges overturned on appeal. That means that 70% of judges in her district were likely more qualified for the Supreme Court than her.
Actually Skud... many groups, including the ABA and even some GOP leaders said Brown was one of the most qualified nominees we've ever had.
Ever.
Not just when she was nominated, but ever.
Was Sandra Day O'Conner a DEI nomination? How about Clarence Thomas? How about Harriet Miers? Those nominations were also telegraphed by presidents.
Was every nomination ever made, by every president that did not include the person some group said was the "best person for the job" a DEI nomination?
Of course not, and only an idiot would think that. As I wrote, SCOTUS nominations are inherently political. Are you aware that in US history, 41 of the SCOTUS nominations included people who had never been judges? Were they all DEI hires?
You think Amy Coney Barrett was the best person for the job? Of course she wasn't. Hell, I'd argue she wasn't even the best woman. She wasn't as qualified for the job as Brown. Why did she get the nomination? Why are you not angry and calling her nomination a DEI hire?
Why have we've not see you criticizing Trump for his DEI nominees?
Is it because his nominees are white? Is it because Trump is the leader of the GOP? Is it because you generally support his and Barrett's politics? My gosh Skud, have you ever supported a SCOTUS nomination from a Dem? I'm on record saying when Obama nominated Garland, he made a mistake. He should have nominated Brian Sandoval from Nevada. A great GOP Governor who would've been a wonderful nomination.
Get some consistency amigo.
And as for our presidents, we've had lots of qualified people, and some unqualified people run for president over the last 50 years or so. But the members of both parties chose otherwise.
Who's been the most qualified candidate we've had in our lifetimes. It's GHW Bush. He'd never have a chance today. The responsibility for crappy candidates is on us.
skud: "I don't believe it was that she wasn't qualified it was that biden said he was going to appoint a black female. Totally political and conformed to his DEI push not based on the best person for the job."
Ronald Reagan did EXACTLY the same thing when he promised to put a woman on the SCOTUS. Was that, in your opinion, a DEI hire not based on the best person? Because you failed to use Reagan's choice for ONLY a woman as not based on the best person for the job.
You can't criticize Biden without criticizing what Reagan did.
It's interesting to hear skud, -FJ, JoeCon, and Thersites all going on and on and on about KBJ's appointment to the SCOTUS, when we heard *crickets* from them about Reagan's exclusionary choice for a female and Trump's exclusionary choice for a female to replace RBG's seat on the SCOTUS.
There is one glaring difference for their claim that KBJ's appointment is a DEI/Affirmative Action choice. KBJ's skin color.
Y'all see this as an injustice to white male candidates, ignoring the fact that ONLY white male candidates were considered for 177 years!
Apparently, considering brilliant people of color and giving them the opportunity denied for those 177 years is just too much for some people, and they feel threatened when opportunities are given to those who for centuries were denied them.
Were some qualified white males denied the opportunities given to women and people of color? Maybe. But did you, skud, -FJ, JoeCon, and Thersites worry about that for women and people of color in years past? EVER?
Maybe y'all are suffering from this:
"Equal opportunity often feels like oppression to those used to unearned advantage, because losing special preference looks like a loss of basic rights. When a system shifts to be fair for everyone, dominant groups may misinterpret sharing power as a personal attack."
AI Overview: "No, there is no factual basis or official metric stating that 70% of judges in Ketanji Brown Jackson's district were more qualified than her.
During her 2022 Supreme Court confirmation hearings, a statistic involving "70% of judges" was raised in a different context—not regarding overall qualifications, but rather pointing out that roughly 70% of federal judges fell into a similar statistical majority when giving certain below-guideline sentences in specific child pornography cases. Her nomination received a "Well-Qualified" rating from the American Bar Association and she possessed more judicial experience at the time of her confirmation than multiple sitting justices had combined."
Trump Administration Sued for Alleged Pattern of Firing Black Federal Officials at Independent Agencies
A new lawsuit claims 75% of Black officials at independent agencies have been removed under Trump, compared to 27% of white officials — and that the numbers cannot be explained by party affiliation alone.
"Whether First Liberty Institute is a reliable source of information on judicial nominees depends on how you view its advocacy, as it functions primarily as an ideological legal organization rather than a neutral, objective assessor. It is a prominent conservative Christian public interest law firm that evaluates nominees through the specific lens of religious freedom and originalist jurisprudence.
Perspective and Focus Advocacy Mission: Their research and public statements actively campaign for judges who share a traditional or conservative interpretation of religious liberty and constitutional law.
Selective Analysis: While they provide detailed legal tracking of a nominee's past rulings and public statements, their evaluations focus heavily on whether a candidate aligns with conservative judicial philosophies."
First Liberty is not part of the Heritage Foundation, but, according to my research, they FREQUENTLY collaborate. Both organizations have partnered together on shared policy initiatives, such as serving as advisory board or coalition partners for Project 2025.
44 comments:
Everyone who said the eminently qualified Justice Jackson was a "DEI hire" is a racist. But Clarence Thomas wasn't for some reason. Corrupt, black, white nationalists are the exception.
I have spoken.
They; are living their increasingly hypocritical and intentionally destructive agenda.
Was Mullin hired because he was white? Did the president make his skin colour the essential criteria for his hiring? How about Jackson?
Yes , we know what DEI is...
Demeritocracy -
"Demeritocracy is a satirical or critical opposite of a meritocracy, representing a system where power, status, or punishment are distributed based on demerits, failures, or negative behaviors rather than skill and achievement" a somewhat satirical version of the "Peter Principle:" where people end up one level above their conpetense and ability. A keynote of
the Tr8mp administration. People voted for this?
If Mullen was black he wouldn't have that job.
Jackson was more qualified than Trump's white Justices. Naturally racists howl "DEI" over the more qualified woman of color.
List of Trump's Black Cabinet and Cabinet-level appointees:
Scott Turner HUD
That's all.
ONE Black person. Probably DEI, amirite? He DID play in the NFL, so that makes him "qualified".
Look how women and Blacks were conveniently purged by Hegseth the White.
Well, well, minus man thinks he knows what DEI is. But once again, as usual, he does not.
His, (as well as others) racist storylines percolating constantly in his Conditioned Grey Matter (echo chamber) merely signals his deep fear of losing his privileged white man status in rasist America.
trump is the direct results of this fear. And it resides in a great number of Americans yet today.
We are a global community of deeply interconnected beings. It high time MAGA clears their fog and fear and begin acting according to reality as it is. Not how they wish it to be.
The racist was the one who selected her.
Mullin was hired because he possesses all the qualities Trump admires in his courtiers: Loyalty and fatuity.
Judge Jackson's educational and professional qualifications speak for themselves, (she was one of THE most qualified nominees for the SCOTUS. FACT.) even if you cannot bring yourself to admit this.
Jackson served on the United States District Court for the District of Columbia for nearly 8 years, giving her more trial court experience than any sitting Supreme Court justice and more than any justice since Edward Sanford, who was nominated to the Supreme Court in 1923.
Jackson would be only the second sitting justice to serve at all three levels of the federal judiciary.
"Former Republican Speaker of the House Paul Ryan: “My praise for Ketanji’s intellect, for her character, for her integrity – it is unequivocal.”
Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX): “Very impressive background … extensive trial court experience.”
Republican-appointed judge Thomas Griffith, who supported Jackson’s elevation to the D.C. Circuit after observing her work as a judge, recently said: “Her academic record is remarkable. She has a breadth of experience, which is really quite unique.”
When Jackson was nominated to the D.C. Circuit, she received support from Supreme Court clerks for Justices Scalia, Thomas, Rehnquist, Kennedy, Souter, and O’Connor."
But tell me again that she was only a DEI appointee. Give us your evidence.
So you're accusing former President Joe Biden of being a racist because he nominated one of the MOST qualified people to be on the Supreme Court. It's evident to a lot of us here that it is Justice Jackson's skin color that prevents you from acknowledging how eminently qualified she was/is for that position.
"Her skin is dark, so, therefore, the person who nominated her is a racist" is your thought process.
Markwayne Mullin's skin is white, he had zero qualifications for being the head of Homeland security, and he's a Trump ass-kisser, and you ignore that?
You're comment is a joke. And you know it.
Your purpose in posting it here is to be nothing more than a disrupter and provocateur.
Black people and those who hire them are the "real racists". -FJ/JC keeps showing us racism isn't racism to racists.
Somehow, -FJ knows FOR A FACT! that Joe Biden chose Justice Jackson ONLY because she's black. How he knows this, he won't tell us. HE. JUST. KNOWS.
This is how MAGA conspiracists think. They know stuff no one else knows!
No, he's a racist because he refused to consider any qualified person who wasn't black. He was also a sexist because he refused to consider any qualified candidate who wasn't female.
Democrats are the party of anti-white neo-racism and anti-straight male neo-sexism.
Google AI:
No, President Joe Biden did not consider non-Black or male candidates for the vacancy, having explicitly pledged during his 2020 campaign and reaffirmed during the vacancy to nominate a Black woman. This decision restricted his formal selection pool to Black female.
Out of 115 Supreme Court Justices in U.S. history up to that point, 108 had been white men. Deliberately seeking a Black woman was a legitimate attempt to correct centuries of structural exclusion and ensure the nation's highest court better reflected the demographic makeup of the country.
I've never heard any white male speak up when ONLY WHITE MALES were considered for the Supreme Court up until Sandra Day O'Connor in 1981.
No one believes for a moment that a qualified woman wasn't available before that. And no one believes that a qualified black candidate wasn't available until 1967 when Thurgood Marshall was nominated and confirmed.
You and many like you only complained when the playing field was leveled, screaming "RACISM!" When you and people like you never asked why for 178 years no one asked why no qualified Black person was considered and for 191 years no qualified female was considered.
Women are STILL the most discriminated citizens in America. Black men got the vote before women, a Black man was seated on the SCOTUS before a woman, and a Black man was elected POTUS, before a woman.
And here you are whining about the attempt to right that centuries-long wrong.
Con Man Joe revealing further his white supremacist credentials.
Balancing the racial inequality within governmental jobs, including the scotus, is reasonable, fair, and justified.
The smell of jc's fear of losing his white privileged status is palatable.
.
Only a white racist would whine about a highly qualified Black woman being appointed to the Supreme Court.
And he's STILL WHINING!
I did a bit more research after I posted my comment above.
There are historical examples where presidents explicitly looked for specific identities — Ronald Reagan promised to appoint the first woman to the court (Sandra Day O'Connor); and Trump explicitly committed to nominate a woman to fill Ruth Bader Ginsburg's seat ( Amy Coney Barrett).
It appears that a Conservative and a MAGA president had no problem in specifically considering only a woman for a vacant SCOTUS seat.
When Joe Biden did the very same thing, Conservatives and MAGAs lost their collective minds! Screaming RACISM!
The only difference among the three women being considered was KBJ's skin color.
She was "the best" from a pool of 3 black females... The Biden administration publicly indicated it did a deep dive and intensive background vetting on about four candidates for Ketanji Brown Jackson's Supreme Court position, ultimately conducting final personal interviews with three finalists.
Vetting and Shortlist Details
The Final Three: President Joe Biden personally interviewed three prominent Black female jurists on the final shortlist: Ketanji Brown Jackson, Leondra Kruger, and J. Michelle Childs.
The Total Vetted Pool: While the administration acknowledged closely reviewing roughly four top candidates in the final phase, the exact total number of preliminary candidates considered in the wider initial discovery list was never fully disclosed by the White House.
My privileged white man status within the DSA would entitle me to be a MAXIMUM of 50% of the party's candidate selection committee that can be straight males and that a MINIMUM of 31% must be from non-white minority groups. I feel SO privileged!
A Conservative and a MAGA president did EXACTLY the same thing as former President Joe Biden did. The only difference is skin color.
I'm not going to publish any more of your complaining. You said nothing about two other presidents doing what Joe Biden did.
A Conservative president, George Bush, Sr., chose Clarence Thomas to fill the seat vacated by Thurgood Marshall. Bush Sr. explicitly chose a Black male candidate to fill the seat vacated by a Black Justice.
What former President Biden did is a time-honored tradition among Conservative presidents. What are you complaining about??
Why are you whining about it now and labeling Joe Biden a racist and not George Bush, Sr., Ronald Reagan, and Donald Trump?
Please answer that.
There's a logical reason for it. There weren't many qualified candidates
When Sandra Day O'Connor was nominated to the Supreme Court in 1981, women made up only about 8% of practicing lawyers in the United States and roughly 36% of law school students.
Historical Data Points (1900–2024)
1900: ~1,000 women (out of 114,000 total lawyers)
1920: 1,738 women
1940: ~4,500 women
1950: ~6,500 women
1970: 13,000 women
1980: 62,000 women
2000: ~276,000 women (27% of total)
2024: ~542,286 women (41% )
...as for Marshall
On Black Lawyer pool:
Historical Data Points (1900–2024)
1900: ~700 to 1,000 lawyers (Out of 114,000 total U.S. lawyers)
1925: ~1,000 lawyers (The year the National Bar Association was founded to represent Black attorneys)
1940: 1,400 lawyers
1960: ~2,200 lawyers
1970: 3,406 lawyers
1985: ~12,000 lawyers
2000: 33,865 lawyers
2024: ~66,000 lawyers (Representing roughly 5% of the 1.3 million total active U.S. lawyers)
Marshall was truly a long shot pick
DEI = affirmative action beyond blacks, to include women, gays, and every Tom, Dick, and Harry of non-cisgen white males. That was Barrack Obama's neo-racist legacy.
Marshall was an affirmative action Johnson hire post Civil Rights act (to serve as a model of the possible). Reagan duplicated to gesture w/ O'Conner to demonstrate women's equality of opportunity. No more such non-meritocratic gestures are required. Sotomayor was the first DEI pick (by Obama)... from when the Democratic Party turned full Neo-racist.
I'm not responsible for GHWB's poor judgement surrounding racial judicial appointments.
Over 18% of federal civil servants are black. They need more preferences?
Marshall was MUCH more qualified for SCOTUS than O'Conner. According to Google AI: The odds that Sandra Day O'Connor would have been appointed to the Supreme Court in 1981 if she were a man were virtually zero. President Ronald Reagan explicitly pledged during his 1980 campaign to appoint a woman to the first high-court vacancy, and he chose O'Connor specifically to fulfill that promise.
The Campaign Promise
Ronald Reagan made a formal political commitment to place a woman on the Supreme Court.
When Justice Potter Stewart retired, the White House actively searched for a qualified female candidate to satisfy this pledge.
Without the gender-based criteria driving the search, O’Connor—an Arizona state appellate judge and former state senator without a prominent national legal profile—would not have topped a traditional shortlist of male federal appeals court judges or prominent legal scholars.
Jackson got overturned a lot on appeal...which speaks to her actual judicial competence.
When Tomas was appointed there was no such thing as DEI. That was back in the day when LGB didn't take a whole alphabet and racial tensions were minimal. Of course that was back when there were two political parties who worked to run the country for the people.
I am surprised that the leftist are so against Native Americans but maybe it is because they are have been given everything so what can the democrats run on if not elect me and everything will be free.
Your post does show how out of touch the left is and why they got beat so bad in 2024. They have no touch with the working class because they have become the elite crowd. AOC as a frontrunner is going to be interesting.
Time honored tradition? Thomas filled the "black seat". Stephen Breyer was also a "Black Seat" on the Supreme Court? Who knew?
Here's a distinction people like the -FJ group of commenters choose not to understand. For almost every presidential appointment, there's a pool of "qualified" candidates. Some Black, some white, some Latino, some conservative, some liberal. From those pools, appointments are made, people are nominated, and then the Senate advises and consents. Presidents are elected; appointees are by nature political choices, chosen from a pool of qualified people.
As it relates to the Supreme Court, here is how nominees since Bush the Elder have stacked up: Of the 13 evaluated nominees, 12 have been judged "Well Qualified," the highest rating. Only one, Justice Clarence Thomas, was rated the lower "Qualified." And one nominee, Harriet Miers, was withdrawn after a bipartisan consensus realized she lacked deep constitutional expertise. Justice Thomas was nominated by Bush the Elder and Miers by GW Bush.
I get the anger from people about actual unqualified DEI hires. No one should get nominated if they do not meet the elite standards for the job. Miers fell into that category. Justice Thomas was deemed qualified, though he holds the lowest peer-review rating of any confirmed justice in modern history. But the fact that President Biden chose a Black woman to be a justice—a Black woman who was judged unanimously "Well Qualified" by the American Bar Association and possessed a mountain of judicial experience—does not make her a DEI hire. Biden did not nominate someone unqualified.
Why -FJ continues to push that narrative is beyond me.
As for Joe C and this... "My privileged white man status"... too bad. We could raise your share to 3/5s if you'd like. Or give you the same share we gave native Americans for over a century.
I mean, it was just back then right?
Yeah Skud... there was no DEI. But it's grandfather boogeyman within the GOP then was "Affirmative Action". Another program to give qualified minorities a chance to be evaluated, just like DEI. And which conservatives hated.
As for an out of touch post, Geeez Skud, do you expect a bunch of libs to bring up a bunch of crummy nominees every day? Do you make those same snarky asides at conservative blogs about Trump?
I for one have repeatedly agreed with you on this, frequently saying so here at PE.
What is it you specifically want us, or me to say?
Biden sucked in 2024. As I've said numerous times, I felt he should have bowed out after the 2022 mid terms. But he chose not to and the Dems got burned.
But I believe, and maybe you disagree, that even a weakened Biden and his superior team of staff members, would have been better than what we have now with Trump.
Dave, I don't believe it was that she wasn't qualified it was that biden said he was going to appoint a black female. Totally political and conformed to his DEI push not based on the best person for the job.
I do question your presidents are selected from a qualified pool. Qualifications have little to do with it or we wouldn't have had the three worst candidates choices over the last 10 years.
"Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was not overturned on appeal significantly more than other judges. During her time as a U.S. District Judge, legal analysts and independent watchdogs found that her reversal rate fell well within the normal, average range for district court judges in her circuit.
Judge Jackson wrote nearly 600 written opinions while on the district court bench. Around a dozen or fewer of her decisions were completely or partially reversed or vacated on appeal (roughly 2% of her total rulings or about 11.9% of the small fraction of her cases that were actually appealed).
Legal reviews showed her overall reversal rate placed her in a standard average or lower tier compared to her peers on the D.C. District Court, contradicting claims that she had an abnormal record of being overturned."
WRONG AGAIN, -FJ, AS IS USUAL FOR YOU. You got your information from a Conservative/MAGA outlet that was WRONG.
Did you click the link? She ranked in the bottom 30% of judges overturned on appeal. That means that 70% of judges in her district were likely more qualified for the Supreme Court than her.
The very existence of the quota makes the point as to 'bias'.
Actually Skud... many groups, including the ABA and even some GOP leaders said Brown was one of the most qualified nominees we've ever had.
Ever.
Not just when she was nominated, but ever.
Was Sandra Day O'Conner a DEI nomination? How about Clarence Thomas? How about Harriet Miers? Those nominations were also telegraphed by presidents.
Was every nomination ever made, by every president that did not include the person some group said was the "best person for the job" a DEI nomination?
Of course not, and only an idiot would think that. As I wrote, SCOTUS nominations are inherently political. Are you aware that in US history, 41 of the SCOTUS nominations included people who had never been judges? Were they all DEI hires?
You think Amy Coney Barrett was the best person for the job? Of course she wasn't. Hell, I'd argue she wasn't even the best woman. She wasn't as qualified for the job as Brown. Why did she get the nomination? Why are you not angry and calling her nomination a DEI hire?
Why have we've not see you criticizing Trump for his DEI nominees?
Is it because his nominees are white? Is it because Trump is the leader of the GOP? Is it because you generally support his and Barrett's politics? My gosh Skud, have you ever supported a SCOTUS nomination from a Dem? I'm on record saying when Obama nominated Garland, he made a mistake. He should have nominated Brian Sandoval from Nevada. A great GOP Governor who would've been a wonderful nomination.
Get some consistency amigo.
And as for our presidents, we've had lots of qualified people, and some unqualified people run for president over the last 50 years or so. But the members of both parties chose otherwise.
Who's been the most qualified candidate we've had in our lifetimes. It's GHW Bush. He'd never have a chance today. The responsibility for crappy candidates is on us.
Unless you'd like to see another 600,000 Americans die in another Civil War.
skud: "I don't believe it was that she wasn't qualified it was that biden said he was going to appoint a black female. Totally political and conformed to his DEI push not based on the best person for the job."
Ronald Reagan did EXACTLY the same thing when he promised to put a woman on the SCOTUS. Was that, in your opinion, a DEI hire not based on the best person? Because you failed to use Reagan's choice for ONLY a woman as not based on the best person for the job.
You can't criticize Biden without criticizing what Reagan did.
It's interesting to hear skud, -FJ, JoeCon, and Thersites all going on and on and on about KBJ's appointment to the SCOTUS, when we heard *crickets* from them about Reagan's exclusionary choice for a female and Trump's exclusionary choice for a female to replace RBG's seat on the SCOTUS.
There is one glaring difference for their claim that KBJ's appointment is a DEI/Affirmative Action choice. KBJ's skin color.
Y'all see this as an injustice to white male candidates, ignoring the fact that ONLY white male candidates were considered for 177 years!
Apparently, considering brilliant people of color and giving them the opportunity denied for those 177 years is just too much for some people, and they feel threatened when opportunities are given to those who for centuries were denied them.
Were some qualified white males denied the opportunities given to women and people of color? Maybe. But did you, skud, -FJ, JoeCon, and Thersites worry about that for women and people of color in years past? EVER?
Maybe y'all are suffering from this:
"Equal opportunity often feels like oppression to those used to unearned advantage, because losing special preference looks like a loss of basic rights. When a system shifts to be fair for everyone, dominant groups may misinterpret sharing power as a personal attack."
AI Overview: "No, there is no factual basis or official metric stating that 70% of judges in Ketanji Brown Jackson's district were more qualified than her.
During her 2022 Supreme Court confirmation hearings, a statistic involving "70% of judges" was raised in a different context—not regarding overall qualifications, but rather pointing out that roughly 70% of federal judges fell into a similar statistical majority when giving certain below-guideline sentences in specific child pornography cases. Her nomination received a "Well-Qualified" rating from the American Bar Association and she possessed more judicial experience at the time of her confirmation than multiple sitting justices had combined."
Racists NEVER stop whining.
Not enough Blacks are being fired and being punished for being Black to suit them.
Maybe THIS will cheer him up.
https://www.bet.com/article/yirp7s/trump-administration-sued-for-alleged-pattern-of-firing-black-federal-officials-at-independent-agencies
Trump Administration Sued for Alleged Pattern of Firing Black Federal Officials at Independent Agencies
A new lawsuit claims 75% of Black officials at independent agencies have been removed under Trump, compared to 27% of white officials — and that the numbers cannot be explained by party affiliation alone.
Joe Conservative's SOURCE on KBJ's appeals:
"Whether First Liberty Institute is a reliable source of information on judicial nominees depends on how you view its advocacy, as it functions primarily as an ideological legal organization rather than a neutral, objective assessor. It is a prominent conservative Christian public interest law firm that evaluates nominees through the specific lens of religious freedom and originalist jurisprudence.
Perspective and Focus Advocacy Mission: Their research and public statements actively campaign for judges who share a traditional or conservative interpretation of religious liberty and constitutional law.
Selective Analysis: While they provide detailed legal tracking of a nominee's past rulings and public statements, their evaluations focus heavily on whether a candidate aligns with conservative judicial philosophies."
First Liberty is not part of the Heritage Foundation, but, according to my research, they FREQUENTLY collaborate. Both organizations have partnered together on shared policy initiatives, such as serving as advisory board or coalition partners for Project 2025.
Post a Comment