Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Tulsi Gabbard Blasts Biden for Using ‘Identity Politics’ to Choose SCOTUS Nominee

Tulsi Gabbard Blasts Biden for Using ‘Identity Politics’ to Choose SCOTUS Nominee

“Biden chose Harris as his VP because of the color of her skin and sex — not qualification. She’s been a disaster.”

https://youtu.be/ArO00Tcxga8

Former Democrat representative and presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard took aim at the ridiculous race and gender limitations Joe “I am the Democratic Party” Biden has placed on a potential Supreme Court nominee.

The New York Post reports:

Former Democratic congresswoman and 2020 presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard lamented President Biden’s vow to select the first black woman to the Supreme Court, tweeting Monday that “[i]dentity politics is destroying our country.”

“Biden chose [Kamala] Harris as his VP because of the color of her skin and sex — not qualification. She’s been a disaster,” wrote Gabbard, who is part-Samoan. “Now he promises to choose Supreme Court nominee on the same criteria.”

Gabbard, who represented Hawaii for eight years in the House of Representatives, endorsed Biden for president after she dropped out of the race in March 2020.

Biden confirmed last week that he would pick a black woman to replace the retiring Justice Stephen Breyer, saying it was “long overdue.”

Tulsi is getting support even from progressives (who are surprised they agree with her on anything).

This isn’t really very surprising given the recent poll that shows that the vast majority of Americans (76%), including 72% of “nonwhite” Americans and 54% of Democrats, reject Biden’s key requirements for a SCOTUS appointment being race and gender.

One of the problems being touted by the left is that this emphasis on race and gender over qualifications, fitness, and ability is actually doing a disservice to the ones “benefiting” from the racist practice.

I don’t think he’s wrong. In fact, I’ve said much the same thing myself, though I don’t think that is Kamala Harris’ problem. She was rejected outright by Democrat primary voters, including black Democrat voters, so her problems run much deeper than looking like a token hire. Though that doesn’t help.

The Hill opines:

Of course, there are numerous qualified Black women whom Democrats might enthusiastically embrace as welcome additions to the Supreme Court. But regrettably, Biden’s pronouncement risks undercutting their achievements by explicitly putting their race and gender first.

Most obviously, Biden’s pledge to consider only Black women for the nation’s highest court detracts from the individual excellence of nominees by making their selection more about identity than merit. It essentializes their identities, failing to treat nominees as individuals with diverse opinions, accomplishments and experiences.

Further, the pledge restricts the shortlist to a particular subset of under-represented groups, precluding the selection of a Black man, as well as members of groups or identities not represented on the Court, including indigenous Americans, trans individuals and Asian Americans.

One of the major problems with the Democrats’ Diversity, Inclusion, and Equity push, up to and including its push for racist CRT “antiracist” training, is that it is really about artificially and systemically lifting up black people.  Only black people.  But as they make up such a tiny segment of the population (about 13%), they begrudgingly included “POC,” a loathsome term that treats all nonwhites as the same, touted as essentially having the ‘same lived experiences’ as black Americans and therefore must accept that they are “oppressed” ‘victims’ and always will be no matter what.  This isn’t just unAmerican, it’s virulently anti-American, but that’s what is happening.

This is starting to sink in and to turn off significant segments of ‘identity’ voting blocs that the Democrats need to win elections, notably Latinos and Hispanics, and in growing numbers Asian-Americans, as well.  The reasons are naturally nuanced and different for each of these Americans, but they are rooted in the same thing: a rejection of the radical leftist racialization of (quite literally) everything.

If the radical regressive fringe had its way, identity politics would indeed, as Tulsi says, destroy our country.  But there is hope because people of all ‘colors’ and across the political spectrum are rejecting the Democratic Party.

No one wants to live in a country that is hated by its leaders, by its cultural output, by its institutions, and no one wants to be told that, in America(!), they have no future, no hope, because they were born with the ‘wrong’ skin color.  But that’s the evil, hopeless, dystopian lie Democrats are selling.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Tulsi is a leftist by any stretch of the definition but she’s not a complete idiot. She would have been a better president than Brandon and would have had exactly the same chance of beating President Trump.

The legal question is whether Title VII applies to the President when he exercises his appointment powers. I don’t think that it does.

That being said, there are probably 100,000 lawyers in my age cohort. Each one of them has a mother who hoped that her son or daughter would grow up to become a Supreme Court Justice. Only a handful of people from each generation gets to serve, and they would expect that the best of the best would be selected. So, there is a bit of a zero-sum game here.

    CommoChief in reply to lawgrad. | February 1, 2022 at 4:34 pm

    That’s one of the major flaws in advocating for ethnic diversity solely for the sake of an ethnically diverse outcome. It eliminates from consideration, before the process begins, all other potential applicants or nominees outside the race or gender being selected for.

    Same for hiring, promotions and college acceptance. When there are limited slots and those running the selection process start by limiting the opportunity to subsets of the population they taint the eventual selection and discriminate against everyone who doesn’t fit in the ethnic or gender box being sought.

    There’s a carry over effect as well that isn’t really discussed. Age of the applicant. Even stopping the diversity olympics in selections, hiring and admissions today won’t benefit many prior applicants who were unjustly eliminated from consideration because they have ‘aged out’ of the zone of consideration.

2smartforlibs | February 1, 2022 at 4:38 pm

Her opinion on HER party is no more needed or valuable than anyone commenting here.

I’m not looking forward to the process. I’m already disappointed by the ground rules. Can I consider the new justice an Affirmative Action hire regardless of her talents. What a shame.

    mbecker908 in reply to r2468. | February 1, 2022 at 6:54 pm

    Talents? Right. Justices appointed by Democrats are just awash in talent. Not talented at the Constitution but they’re good at toeing the line.

    JohnSmith100 in reply to r2468. | February 2, 2022 at 2:05 am

    Affirmative Action’s intent was laudable and in line with what MLK asked for.

    It went horribly wrong when it morphed from helping those with ability to dumbing down educational standards and handing out cracker jack degrees.

      henrybowman in reply to JohnSmith100. | February 2, 2022 at 1:14 pm

      There really is no other route it could have taken.
      Every time you give government a power it COULD abuse, it WILL be abused.

She really doesn’t like to play along does she?

She is a young global leader with WEF!!!!

I want a black female
On SCOTUS – but which one?

The one who turns down Biden and says he has forever prevented any nomination from being fairly considered as anything other than filling certain check boxes. That’s the one I can respect.

Why none have said anything so far… that’s a mystery to me.

That Biden is a ‘disaster’ is by design. That Harris is a disaster is by design.

“This is starting to sink in and to turn off significant segments of ‘identity’ voting blocs that the Democrats need to win elections, notably Latinos and Hispanics, and in growing numbers Asian-Americans, as well. The reasons are naturally nuanced and different for each of these Americans, but they are rooted in the same thing: a rejection of the radical leftist racialization of (quite literally) everything.”

More to the point, every time a job opening is announced that will definitely not be filled by anybody who looks like you, it causes resentment. Politics is personal.

See also, inter alia, Buttigeig and Becerra.

I have seen this movie before, and the ending stinks. Some leftist or squishy GOPe type has a brief flash of sanity; we conservative go ga-ga over them and convince ourselves that the tide has turned against the Communists; then years/months/weeks/days later they goes scurrying back to their Communist masters, leaving us with yet another overwhelming feeling of betrayal. Frankly we should know the script by now, since it never changes.

Bill Maher. Lindsey Graham. Brett Kavanaugh. Mitch McConnell. Joe Rogan. Dick Cheney. George Bush (both of them – in fact, the entire worthless Bush clan). Bill Kristiol. John Roberts. Mitt Romneycare. George Will. Marco Rubio. Why should Tulsi Gabbard be any different?

Sooner or later Gabbard is going to shiv you. Be careful of how much you trust her.

Tulsi is the one democrat that has a logical thought process even though it is warped by socialism.

Tulsi is well spoken and packin’ a pretty face but she is a socialist at heart and her campaign positions and ultimate support for Creepy Joe tells you all you need to know.

Never to be trusted.

    henrybowman in reply to WISteve. | February 2, 2022 at 1:16 pm

    Today’s politics is all bears vs. bees.
    A bee never lets its personal welfare come ahead of the hive’s.
    Gabbard, like most Democrats, is a loyal bee.