Thinking about the appointment of Judge Jackson to the court and the attendant celebration. Now it was stated more than two years ago that a black woman would receive the nomination. Biden did exactly that and she has been confirmed. No surprises there except for the blatant discrimination during the entire process being all but completely ignored. That was glossed over by everyone! An entire Congress and not one person mentioned that in the confirmation hearings. That I found amazing and have been saying that all along. But, I did expect her to be confirmed as that is the agenda after all, first black woman to be a supreme court justice, it's about time! Maybe a transgender person in the next round, in that way they won't even have to choose a gender! Never had a trans person on the court, same logic.
Now what I'm questioning is this celebration. What is it exactly that we are celebrating? Is it that we have chosen a highly qualified attorney, with years of judicial experience, held in the highest esteem by her colleagues or that she is a black female because, it's about time. Blacks are currently about 13% of the population in America. Black women would be slightly more than 8%. Black female judges would certainly be a very small percentage. How many supreme court justices are there? Nine, the answer is nine. There are about 1.3 million lawyers in the United States according to the BAR assoc. That is lawyers of all types, not just criminal lawyers. So that means about .389% of all lawyers will become a supreme court justice. What are the odds of a black female being appointed to the court? I haven't figured that out but I'm guessing the odds are pretty slim, but it has happened. Is that cause for celebration? I'm saying it would have been if it had happened on a level playing field, but it didn't. Over 90% of the candidates were eliminated before the selection process even began!
I'm not opposed to Judge Jackson being appointed. I have never been opposed to that. I have always been opposed to discrimination. In this case there was never even a pretense that it wasn't. That's what bothers me the most. Now Judge Jackson is on the television smiling like a Cheshire cat! How that woman can be proud of that nomination and be making speeches about it is beyond me. It's like I cheated to win the race and then stand in the winners circle bragging. Are we now to chose our candidates and nominees based on race and gender? Is that to be a qualification?
Article six of the Constitution prohibits any religious test to hold any office in the United States. I guess some lawmakers are now arguing that it doesn't say you can't apply a race or gender test! Biden says it is a "great moment of change", the Justice herself saying it is a matter of great pride and took over two hundred years but she made it! Yes it is a great moment of change, we have now decided to apply a race and gender test to nominations! We haven't had any Native-American supreme court justices despite there being many highly qualified to fill that seat. I haven't heard anyone talking about that in the last two hundred years either. Any other "marginalized" groups that you can think of?
Beyond all of that however another disturbing statement was made by Biden. No amendment is absolute! That was his statement in regard to the second amendment. So, we have a commander in chief, yes that's his job, that now says we can just change, rewrite or otherwise modify the constitution. Yes, we can, there are provisions in our Constitution to do that, most notably a Convention of the States. The Supreme courts' job is to judge proposed legislation as to the constitutionality of that proposal. The second amendment is quite clear: "shall not be infringed" being the key phrase there. What constitutional modification could be made to that? It isn't the amendment with the least number of words but I think it is in second place. It is precise in its' brevity and meaning.
Do not forget that statement was made by the same man that guaranteed a black female would become a supreme court justice if he were elected. That was a campaign promise over two years ago! And now he is talking about amendments to the constitution not being absolute. What is the implication? He is also talking about more stimulus money, student loan forgiveness, and using our fuel reserves. All of this leading up to the mid-terms. What's the plan? Pandering and placating seems to be the plan! The playbook of the Democratic party. It wasn't always that way but their power and influence began to wane, they began losing their "voter base" as that base became more educated, more liberated and integrated into society.
And so the campaign began. First and foremost the narrative became one of oppression. The poor black man can't make it on his own, he needs help. The Democrats will provide that help. Keep telling the black man, and any other minorities that exist including gender identification and sexual orientation groups, that they are being held back. Tell them how much they deserve more, much more. In fact, a huge debt is owed to them all! Tell the world how those people are no different than anyone else, but should be treated differently. They should receive special consideration, special programs and benefits. Get them all riled up, create unrest, and then offer "benefits" to placate them. Pander to their every demand, no matter how far fetched an idea it is. Hey, they deserve it! Install a black female as a supreme court justice and declare it a great triumph, a momentous occasion, something long overdue!
Yes, I'm certain the founding fathers intended just that. Surely they weren't expecting candidates to be chosen solely on their records? No, have we had one of "those" before? No? Better get one right away. The mid-terms are fast approaching! The mid-terms are coming, the mid-terms are coming. Judge Jackson shouldn't be celebrating, she should be embarrassed. She is just a tool, used for her gender and race. A pawn in the game. Shame too, she seemed otherwise fully qualified, could be she didn't need the "help" after all, just the opportunity to compete. I'm putting an asterisk beside her name. Same as the latest "woman" swimming champion. A fair and unbiased win? I don't think so.
No comments:
Post a Comment