Using Reagan’s nomination of O’Connor to justify the affirmative action that Biden is currently engaging in is nonsense.
Until Reagan nominated her, women - of all colors - had been deliberately prevented from attaining the credentials necessary to sit on the Court by sexism. /1
Until Reagan nominated her, women - of all colors - had been deliberately prevented from attaining the credentials necessary to sit on the Court by sexism. /1
O’Connor & Ginsberg & their peers were the first generation of women to be - reluctantly - allowed to attain them. The current generation of women nominees did not face that barrier. They are around my age - early 50s. My class (‘96) was the 1st at Gtown to be 50% women. /2
We were not (& younger women are not now) deliberately prevented from becoming lawyers, judges, or Justices as were women in the past.
In reality, women - of any color - have not been deliberately prevented from becoming Justices since the day O’Connor was nominated. /3
In reality, women - of any color - have not been deliberately prevented from becoming Justices since the day O’Connor was nominated. /3
That being said, women- of all colors -are still under-represented on the federal bench (27%) & the numbers are worse for women who are Black or Hispanic.
To conclude that that is deliberate though, you have to believe every President since Reagan intentionally excluded women./4
To conclude that that is deliberate though, you have to believe every President since Reagan intentionally excluded women./4
And as far as the Supreme Court goes, to have a comparable situation to O’Connor’s, you’d have to believe that all those Presidents in all their terms (including four terms of Clinton & Obama) deliberately excluded Black females. That is obviously nonsense. /5
Nominating a Black woman to serve on the Court would be historic & would be a visible step in righting the wrong of their historic exclusion from the federal bench & the SCOTUS.
That may be good for many reasons.
Other people will object to the affirmative action nature of it.
That may be good for many reasons.
Other people will object to the affirmative action nature of it.
Trying to use Reagan’s choice to claim that’s hypocrisy is incorrect.
Nominating from an identity group because it hasn’t been done yet - despite decades of prior opportunities - is qualitatively different from doing so for the 1st time after centuries of absolute prohibition./7
Nominating from an identity group because it hasn’t been done yet - despite decades of prior opportunities - is qualitatively different from doing so for the 1st time after centuries of absolute prohibition./7
To state it more pointedly: if nothing else, Clinton could have nominated a black woman instead of Breyer & Obama instead of nominating Kagan.
Blacks & women have not be deliberately excluded from the Court since at least 1981. (Thurgood Marshall having served since 1967.) /8
Blacks & women have not be deliberately excluded from the Court since at least 1981. (Thurgood Marshall having served since 1967.) /8
Reagan’s pick of O’Connor struck a blow for equality for all women- of every color, of every orientation, of every party -as a way to start righting the wrong. That political moment comes only once.
/9
/9
Biden’s moment may be historic also, but it’s of a different character at a far different time.
Consequently, Reagan’s action does not undermine criticism of Biden’s.
Consequently, Reagan’s action does not undermine criticism of Biden’s.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
