Thread by @michaelharriot

There’s actually a good reason why @washingtonpost didn’t call on other presidents to nominate an “impartial” Supreme Court Justice until today

The problem is, understanding this op-Ed requires something that we shouldn’t discuss right now:

Critical Race Theory

A thread:

https://twitter.com/curlychrys/status/1486505210864443396

First, I invite you to read the entire piece. If you don’t have a subscription, we’ll look at the relevant parts.

After you read it, you should know one other thing…

washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/…

Let’s be clear, I’m not calling ANY of these people racists. Neither would CRT. In fact, the entire discipline of CRT doesn’t even concern itself with racist individuals.

But there has also been 120 SCOTUS justices in the history of the country…

96.6% have been male
97.5% have been white

Maybe it’s because 97.8% of the presidents have been white.

Only a white person could think that the only people in the HISTORY OF AMERICA who were qualified to sit on the Supreme Court were white dudes

Now I’m not saying this article was written because the popular consensus is that Biden is gonna choose a Black woman. But have you ever seen anything like this?

What qualifies as “best candidate?” Who determines that?

Well most people would say experience is a good metric

If that’s the case, I know who should pick:

What if we let the president who has literally voted on & picked more Supreme Court justices than anyone in the history of the world.

Oh wait… that’s Joseph Robinette Biden.

But let’s move on to the next part:

Now we’re getting somewhere. This is actually a good point. No single individual is truly unbiased. But the collective qualified opinion of a knowledgeable group of people is the best we can hope for. That’s the entire point of diversity, unless…

What if they all had the same background and all came from a handful of schools in a handful of states? If you’re waiting for me to make this about race, here it goes:

We can agree that nonwhite people are likely to be more progressive and those biases play out on the bench.

But you know what we never really talk about? How white people are so much alike. They’re more likely to vote Republican. They are more likely to be conservative. And they are more likely to be harsher on criminals. This isn’t an opinion. There’s too much data to dismiss it.

But the white people advising us to be careful what we do with this white institution gets more interesting when you look at why they feel this is important:

To preserve the SCOTUS’s “legitimacy”

This is the 2nd-whitest thing I read this week. (I read an Aaron Rodgers quote)

Ask the Asian Americans who were held in American concentration camps if the SCOTUS is legitimate. Do they know there was an whole KLANSMAN named Hugo Black on the court? Remember “separate but equal?” How about when it okayed forces sterilizations? Or when…

hold up…

This:

The Framers…
The legitimacy

The Caucasian urge herald & hold sacred the intent of a bunch of white men by white people who don’t consider that the founders were ALSO white supremacists is the MOST critical race theory. But just read what the noble SCOTUS said about it:

There are a lot of good reasons for bipartisanship and moderation. But when anyone pulls the founders out of their ass, they are dogwhistling in such a high-pitched key only fit for Caucasian ears that the only only response is:

“Bitch please!”

The Framers can suck my dick.

To be fair, I have not taken a weighted poll to see which percentage of African America wishes fellatio upon the founders rank mouths crammed with the teeth they stole from slaves (look it up) but this is the whole point…

I see things my way, you see things the white way.

Look at this bullshit.
Look at this bullshit
Look at this bullshit paragraph here:

Translation:

“Remember all that stuff I said about the esteemed white men of this esteemed white institution that we select to interpret the esteemed words written by those esteemed White supremacists in that esteemed document so perfect we only had to amend it 27 times?”

“Well, now that we’re talking about nominating Black women, allow me to introduce a new word:

‘BUT’”

But now qualifications shouldn’t matter that much. But now that Black women are just as qualified as the white men, maybe we should consider some outside-the-box nominations.

Why should all the Supreme Court justices be in the field of justice?

How about Chuck Norris? He dishes out justice. Or Andre Agassi? He played on a court! Or how about Ghostface Killa? He made Supreme Clientele! Plus the Wu Tang clan had 9 members!

Anybody but Black women.

They’ll say Biden is nominating a Black woman because she is a black woman. Because they don’t know critical race theory, they can’t see that 98% of justices became justices BECAUSE THEY WERE WHITE MEN.

It wasn’t the only qualification…

But statistically and historically, whiteness has been more important than education, experience or even KNOWING THE LAW.

But apparently, none of that old-school knowing-stuff BS matters anymore.

Finally…

This.

The idea of “Partisan politics” is an inherently white idea. It is easy to believe in bipartisanship and consensus building if your political & physical existence isn’t threatened by one side winning. Being threatened by high taxes & having to wait 3 days for your AR-15.

The entire ability to even participate in politics is at stake. The power of entire communities erased by gerrymandering is at stake. The right to choose what to do with your body is at stake.

But I totally understand the Washington Post’s perspective because I know CRT

I’m not saying it’s racist or even wrong. But when I read something like this, the first thing I ask myself is: “who wrote this?”

I think knowing an individual’s background & sensibilities or the group’s makeup can lend insight on how they reached certain conclusions

Because this opinion piece is from an editorial board, it’s essentially a group project.

And being that it’s from the Washington Post, it’s kinda like a decision from the Supreme Court of political journalism. So who wrote this?

Oh.

By the way, this ain’t about Capehart. He’s just one dude. That’s the entire point.