A Black Female SCOTUS Judge Won’t Do a Darn Thing to Help Blacks
When Joe Biden’s earpiece expresses, through his mouth, its firm intention to nominate a black female Supreme Court candidate, critics will say that race and sex shouldn’t matter in such things. Well, don’t worry — they won’t.
Whoever Justice X ends up being, she’ll almost assuredly vote in lockstep with white Elena Kagan and Hispanic Sonya Sotomayor. She’ll almost definitely vote just the way white ACLU baby Ruth Bader Ginsburg did. This just underlines, too, how superficially made any “diversity” choice would be.
Biden’s earpiece’s SCOTUS pick could be a white man. He could be Asian-descent. The nominee could be purple with pink polka dots, a “transgender” primordial dwarf, an acromegaly sufferer with a watermelon-sized head, or an extraterrestrial who looks like Alf. It wouldn’t matter. He, she, ze ,or 'it' would vote as today’s Democrat picks generally do: as a rubber stamp for the leftist agenda.
It’s much as with Invasion of the Body Snatchers: Leftist judges look different — they reflect the “Rainbow Coalition” as Jesse Jackson might say. But they all act as members of a hive mind, and their “opinions” are mere rationalizations designed to justify the collective’s will.
This is why it’s so funny when commentators, black female ones included, of course, proclaim that with a black female SCOTUS justice black women’s interests “will finally be represented.” Funnier still is that some thus opining actually believe it.
It has been said and is true that while black Americans largely support Democrats, they hold many “conservative” positions. For example, California’s Proposition 8, which sought to define marriage as what it is (the union of a man and woman), wouldn’t have passed in 2008 if blacks had voted as other groups did. But while 51 percent of Golden State whites opposed the measure, 70 percent of blacks supported it.
(This didn’t escape leftist sexual devolutionary activists’ notice, as some at the time threw hissy fits that included the n-word. Because, of course, liberals are never, ever “racist” except when they want to be.)
What’s more, a December Rasmussen poll found that black Americans reject the MUSS (Made-up Sexual Status, a.k.a. “transgender”) claim that there are more than two sexes by a 10 to 1 margin. Most blacks also don’t consider prenatal infanticide morally acceptable (though the margin on this issue is quite slim).
If you think Biden’s earpiece will choose a black female SCOTUS candidate reflecting these views, well, then I have some stock in Kamala Harris’s political future to sell you. Instead, Justice X will represent what all left-wing jurists do: the primarily (though not completely) white pseudo-elite. She’ll dish their swill and vote their will.
In fact, the SCOTUS pick will just be another example of a rather disgusting phenomenon. As race-obsessed black leftist Pascal Robert himself recently lamented, all the equity talk and consequent policies merely “serve the class interests of a narrow section of the Black elite, a fact that is obscured through talk of a shared Black political agenda and a race-first political posture.”
“A typical example is a discussion sponsored by the African-American Alumni Association of the Harvard Business School called ‘Bridging the Racial Wealth Gap by Serving on Federal Reserve Boards,’” Robert later writes. “How a program targeting Black Harvard Business School graduates is going to change the lives of poor and working-class Black Americans is not entirely obvious.”
It won’t, of course, not any more than will further elevate an already privileged black female jurist (who almost assuredly benefited from affirmative action to begin with). It’s all a con. Justice X sure will help fellow liberal pseudo-elites, though: Her selection is meant to placate the Democrats’ most loyal constituency, black women, and ensure they continue to help empower today’s political plantation owners.
Some may now say that Justice X will be a Role Model™. That’s a laugh. Prominent black Americans have long been plentiful and highly visible; we have black entrepreneurs, politicians, athletes, entertainers, billionaires, scientists, doctors, lawyers, judges, professors, journalists, intellectuals (and pseudo-intellectuals), diplomats, generals, a (billed as) black vice president and even have had a (billed as) black commander in chief.
The problem isn’t a dearth of role models that black kids can see across the room on TV, but a lack of role models across the kitchen table. That is, approximately 73 percent of black children are born out of wedlock, and almost 58 percent live without their biological fathers according to the Census Bureau.
In fact, examining social indicators — crime rates, drug use, teen pregnancy, joblessness, etc. — informs that American blacks were faring better culturally and socially back when they had few prominent role models. This isn’t to say this correlation implies causation (it doesn’t), but that elevating one more black, pseudo-elite role model is only going to improve one black family’s prospects: his own.
In reality, any Biden earpiece pick would be the worst of role models because he’d be a “living document” judge; meaning, someone who tramples the Constitution and thus violates his oath. And undermining the very legal foundation of our republic harms all Americans, no matter their color.
Oh, this doesn’t mean Justice X wouldn’t have her pluses. Sure, she’d almost certainly not reflect black women’s views, not help blacks or anyone else, not be a good role model, and not abide by the Constitution. But consider other quota-filling figures. There’s Sotomayor, who called herself an “affirmative action baby” and proved it recently by claiming there were 100,000 American children hospitalized due to COVID (in reality, only about 3,700 were hospitalized with the disease and precious few because of it).
Then there was Bill Clinton’s first surgeon general, Joycelyn Elders, who specialized in saying stupid things stupidly and was possibly American history’s most buffoonish public official. If this affirmative-action-appointee track record is any guide, Justice X could provide substantial comic relief.
All this said, there is a tiny, ever-so-slight, outside chance that Justice X could break the Democrat nominee mold. What if she, having reached the pinnacle of her field and thus freed from career concerns, and perhaps enduring a nagging conscience and recollecting grandma’s moral instruction, bucks the wokesters on matters such as the MUSS agenda and prenatal infanticide? This isn’t to say she could be a Clarence Thomas (by far the best SCOTUS justice of the last many decades). But what if she becomes a swing vote, the Left’s John Roberts?
Some basic profiling informs that if any Democrat nominee would thus surprise, it would be a member of the group that voted 70 percent yea on Proposition 8 and, though supporting the men-in-dresses party, knows there are only two sexes. And then Justice X actually would, at least a bit, be helping black women.
I know, I dream. The Democrats don’t tolerate ideological diversity in candidates, and the left-wing spirit of the age militates against insanity-to-sanity, pseudo-elite transition. But, boy, it sure would be a real kick in the earpiece, wouldn’t it?
Image: Pixabay / Pixabay License