Joe Biden promised on the campaign trail that he'd seat a Black woman on the Supreme Court. It's a good idea, but it's hard to say that he gained many primary votes from making the pledge, and while I expect the confirmation process to be a success, it's already being accompanied by grumbling that his pick will come with an "asterisk" and is an example of "affirmative action." This is racist talk, obviously, but it filters into the discussion. It influences the thinking of middle-of-the-road voters, in a country where many voters aren't solidly in either the racist or anti-racist camp, which we know because many of them voted for Barack Obama and then Donald Trump.
What if Biden had kept this plan private and simply fulfilled it when the time came? He could have told historians for the record that he had a strong belief that the Court would benefit from the presence of a Black woman. He could have allowed his actions to speak, not his words. Now this is a subtext to the confirmation process. Is that a good thing?
(And yes, I know that Ronald Reagan promised to appoint the first woman to the Supreme Court. But that was playing against type -- I'm a Republican, but I'm not a sexist pig.)
The counterargument is: Biden makes this pledge and fulfills it, then the public is informed that there's a long list of extremely impressive Black women who are highly qualified for the job. America learns something.
But on a related subject: Chuck Schumer is informing the press that Senate Democrats intend to have a rapid confirmation process for Biden's appointee. That makes sense, but why say so? Why let the public know that you want to put this nomination on a glide path, so Mitch McConnell can very publicly score a victory when he throws up roadblocks, even if he can't prevent confirmation?
Why open yourself up to disingenuous nonsense like this?
Susan Collins: “As you know, I felt that the timetable for the last nominee was too compressed. This time there is no need for any rush. We can take our time, have hearings, go through the process, which is a very important one it is a lifetime appointment after all.”
— Manu Raju (@mkraju) January 27, 2022
(And although Joe Manchin and Kysten Sinema have been voting with the party on judges, we can't rule out the possibility that they'll soon start grandstanding like this, too.)
Just say nothing to the press about timing. Say you'll give this serious matter an appropriate degree of deliberation. Line up everyone in your caucus. Then go public with the timetable as late as possible -- unless you really know you've got this and no one can stop you. Mitch McConnell would know when he had a win in hand. Do we have a reason to trust that Chuck Schumer knows this?
No comments:
Post a Comment