Ted Cruz on Biden's SCOTUS statement of guaranteeing a black woman.

Gomez Adams

Grammar Fascist
Staff member
Dec 1, 2020
11,642
6,897
113
Suwanee, Georgia
exposingwot.com
So here's the article:


And here's the relevant rant from Cruz:

"The fact that he's willing to make a promise at the outset, that it must be a Black woman, I gotta say that's offensive. You know, you know Black women are what, 6% of the US population? He's saying to 94% of Americans, 'I don't give a damn about you, you are ineligible'," Cruz said on an episode of his podcast "Verdict with Ted Cruz" that was released on Sunday. In 2019, Black women represented 7% of the US population, according to the US Census Bureau.​
The Republican continued, "And he's also saying -- it's actually an insult to Black women. If he came and said, 'I'm gonna put the best jurist on the court and he looked at a number of people and he ended up nominating a Black woman, he could credibly say, 'OK I'm nominating the person who's most qualified.' He's not even pretending to say that he he's saying, 'If you're a White guy, tough luck. If you're a White woman, tough luck. You don't qualify.'"​

Much as I hate Ted Cruz, he does have a point, albeit his is slightly wrong.

First off, it's not that Biden is telling 94% of Americans that he doesn't give a damn about them. The actual fact of the matter is that it's discriminatory.

Yes, Ronald Reagan did something similar when he famously said that if he got the chance he'd put a woman on the SCOTUS. And he did exactly that. That wasn't right either.

A president can nominate whoever the president wants to nominate, but what both Reagan and now Biden have done is blatantly discriminate to make political points. The decision for a life appointment to the court shouldn't be just to score political points and keep political promises. It not only cheapens the court altogether, but it is against U.S. law.

If a CEO of any company in the land were to say, "I'm going to hire an Asian man to run our new division" he would be sued clear to Mars for blatant discrimination. It is against the law in the United States to not hire someone for a job based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin or sexual preference.

And yet our presidents feel free to go out and do it at will.

Biden has played the race game his entire administration. Even democrats across the board have all joined in on it. Nobody is talking about who would be the best person for the job. It's always "an Asian woman should get this job" and "this would be a good opportunity for a transgender" and "now it's time to hire a Native American".

Whatever happened to simply looking at resumes to fill the jobs? You can pick whoever you want. But going out BEFORE the fact and saying, "Anybody who is not a black woman need not apply" is simply beyond the pale.

What's more, whoever he winds up nominating will have to recuse herself from any hearings on:
  • Discrimination
  • Affirmative Action
  • Hiring and Firing issues of any kind involving race or sex
and probably other legal issues I can't think of. After all, how can you weigh in on a case that you clearly are a product of? It's a massive conflict of interest.

I can't stand Ted Cruz. He's everything that's wrong with this country, but he does make a decent point for once: what Biden has done is just flat-out wrong. It flies in the face of everything the nation is SUPPOSED to stand for.
 
You've got to start somewhere.

And who the fuck is Ted Cruz to go on about this?? He was born Canadian. "She'll" have more right by birth to that bench then cruz has to a fucking seat in American politics.
 
You've got to start somewhere.
Breaking the law to make political points and corrupting the court in the process is no place to start.

If Biden really wanted to do it he could have done so easily and kept his mouth shut. But that wasn't what he did. He made a political promise to woo black voters and now he's using that promise to make them feel good about voting for him and to gain their continued support.

Nothing more. That's what makes it even worse than it is on its face.

And as far as serving on the court or in the House or Senate, there is no requirement that you be born in the United States. The only requirement is that you're a U.S. citizen for at least 9 years.

The only thing that requires you be born in the United States is the Presidency itself.
 
Isn't your SCOTUS supposed to reflect the population?
No. It's supposed to consist of the most knowledgeable legal minds in the nation, regardless of who that may be. It's not a representative body. It's a legal think tank.

And the sad fact is, trying to make a court consist of equal representation would mean there would have to be somewhere in the neighborhood of 40 judges. That's never going to happen.

Blacks represent roughly 13% of the nation. They have 11% representation on the SCOTUS. That will become 22%.
White make up roughly 75% of the nation. They have 66% reprentation on the SCOTUS.
Hispanics make up roughly 19% of the nation. They have 11% representation on the SCOTUS.
Asians make up roughly 6%. They have no representation.
Native Americans make up 1%. They have no representation.

Census results: https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/PST045221

So basically, blacks will be over represented, whites under represented and Hispanics under represented with Asians and Native Americans not represented at all.
 
Last edited:
Everything is a dog and pony show now. Nobody does shit unless there's something in it for them. Trump rammed in people he thought would do as he wanted them to do. Biden is ramming in someone that he thinks will give him street cred. It's all a fucking joke. Nobody gives a fat rats ass about justice or the law or the constitution anymore. That ship sailed long ago.
 
No. It's supposed to consist of the most knowledgeable legal minds in the nation, regardless of who that may be. It's not a representative body. It's a legal think tank.

And the sad fact is, trying to make a court consist of equal representation would mean there would have to be somewhere in the neighborhood of 40 judges. That's never going to happen.

Blacks represent roughly 13% of the nation. They have 11% representation on the SCOTUS. That will become 22%.
White make up roughly 75% of the nation. They have 66% reprentation on the SCOTUS.
Hispanics make up roughly 19% of the nation. They have 11% representation on the SCOTUS.
Asians make up roughly 6%. They have no representation.
Native Americans make up 1%. They have no representation.

Census results: https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/PST045221

So basically, blacks will be over represented, whites under represented and Hispanics under represented with Asians and Native Americans not represented at all.


That's funny - no one lost their minds like this when trump said he'd nominate a woman....why are you losing yours over a woman?
 
That's funny - no one lost their minds like this when trump said he'd nominate a woman....why are you losing yours over a woman?
Trump never said, "I'm going to nominate a white woman for this opening."

Trump did it correctly. He didn't say a word. He published a list of prospects and then picked Barrett.

How sad is it that Trump can actually do it properly and Biden can not?

Edit to add: just went to fact check my memory and I am correct.

Trumps original list was extensive and included multiple men including Ted Cruz and Tom Cotton.

After a few interview sessions, Trump narrowed it down to 4 women and announced he'd be making his final decision the following week but it would be a woman.

That is how it should be done.
 
Last edited:

And, in fact, Haley appears to have said nothing when President Donald Trump signaled just two years ago that he had his own gender litmus test for a Supreme Court nomination.

Nor is Trump the only recent GOP president to make such a pledge.
In fact, two and potentially three of the last four Republican presidents did the same thing — with little sign of such conservative pushback.

Late in the 1980 presidential campaign, Ronald Reagan promised that he would appoint a woman to the Supreme Court if given the opportunity. He said he would pick “the most qualified woman I can possibly find,” adding: “It is time for a woman to sit among the highest jurists.”
George H.W. Bush arguably engaged in the same practice. When Justice Thurgood Marshall retired and Clarence Thomas was eventually picked, Bush took care to say his pick would not be based on a “quota” or anything other than the best person for the job. But administration officials noted at the time that his search just happened to focus almost exclusively on minority and female candidates.



President Donald Trump on Saturday announced that his Supreme Court nominee to fill the vacancy caused by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's death will be a 'very talented, very brilliant woman' because 'I like women more than I like men'.



Please don't re-write donald trump's and the gop's history for them.
 









Please don't re-write donald trump's and the gop's history for them.
Again, he only announced that AFTER he had been through several rounds of interviews and eliminated most of the list he started with. You're picking and choosing your argument. The FACT is that Trump started with an absolutely MASSIVE list of people. He carried a list his entire presidency. All of your articles are from the end of September right after Ginsberg died.

Trump had a working list of nominees that he added to and subtracted from the entire time he was president. In all, he published 4 separate lists of people during his presidency.

Here is the addition to Trump's list that he published in the early going from September 9th, just a couple weeks before your articles were ever published:
  • Bridget Bade (U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit)
  • Daniel Cameron (Kentucky attorney general)
  • Paul Clement (former solicitor general of the United States)
  • Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.)
  • Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.)
  • Stuart Kyle Duncan (U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit)
  • Steven Engel (Office of Legal Counsel, DOJ)
  • Noel Francisco (former solicitor general of the United States)
  • Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.)
  • James Ho (U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit)
  • Greg Katsas (U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit)
  • Barbara Lagoa (U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit)
  • Christopher Landau (U.S. ambassador to Mexico)
  • Carlos Muñiz (Supreme Court of Florida)
  • Martha Pacold (U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois)
  • Peter Phipps (U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit)
  • Sarah Pitlyk (U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri)
  • Allison Jones Rushing (U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit)
  • Kate Todd (deputy White House counsel)
  • Lawrence VanDyke (U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit)
Amy Barrett was already on the existing list that he had tweeted earlier, but that list has been removed by Twitter. Source:


Here's an article from USA Today on the same day, September 9th, that discusses the extensive list of people on it.


Notable snippet:

Six of the 20 Trump named are women and two are Latino. Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron is Black, and appeals court Judge James Ho was born in Taiwan. Missing from the list was Neomi Rao, a conservative favorite of Indian descent, who Trump named to the powerful U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in 2018.​
One name on Trump's earlier list – Judge Amy Coney Barrett, who he placed on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit – is said to be a possible nominee even sooner should ailing Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 87, leave the bench this year.​
It did NOT go down the way you're trying to warp it into going down.

It was talked about on the news nearly every single day because of Ginsberg going into and out of the hospital. At no time until after her death, shortly before the nomination did Trump say anything about eliminating anybody. At all.

Which is as it should be.
 
Last edited:
President Donald Trump on Saturday announced that his Supreme Court nominee to fill the vacancy caused by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's death will be a 'very talented, very brilliant woman' because 'I like women more than I like men'.

During a campaign rally in North Carolina on Saturday night that Trump branded a 'protest', he declared 'I will be putting forth a nominee this week, it will be a woman'.

'I have a shortlist, I've had a shortlist for a while. We added a number of people onto the list, the previous list, we have about 45 altogether. I do indeed have a short list,' Trump answered to a reporter's question before he left the White House by plane

'I've gotten to know many of them. I think it's probably, from a legal standpoint, from a sophisticated understanding of the law, from a constitutional standpoint, I think it's probably the greatest list ever assembled and I think that the other side should show their radical left list and you'd be surprised,' Trump added.

During his rally, as the crowd chanted 'Fill the Seat', Trump promised 'that's what we're going to do, we're going to fill the seat'.

He added that the constitution states: 'The president shall nominate Justices of the Supreme Court, I don't think it can be any more clear, can it?'

I understand my article is 10 days older then yours, but trump declared he'd had the list for a while and simply added to it to make it about 45 altogether.


Again, why is everyone in a tizzy about this? You currently have six men to three women and that, in no way represents the US population.

Women make up 50.8% of the population and have been at that percentage since 2013.


Your court should almost be 5 women to 4 men by population percentages.
 
I understand my article is 10 days older then yours, but trump declared he'd had the list for a while and simply added to it to make it about 45 altogether.


Again, why is everyone in a tizzy about this? You currently have six men to three women and that, in no way represents the US population.

Women make up 50.8% of the population and have been at that percentage since 2013.


Your court should almost be 5 women to 4 men by population percentages.

If you can't see the difference between Trump and pretty much every other president in American history having a list of multiple people, covering multiple races and then picking from that list when the time comes and Joe Biden not even bothering having a list just coming right out and eliminating anybody, no matter how long they've sat on the bench, no matter how extensive their experience, no matter how qualified they may be from ANY consideration at all unless they're a black woman, then you have some serious perception problems.

Again, it flies in the face of EVERYTHING this country is SUPPOSED to stand for. And again, that judge is going to have to recuse herself from tons of cases because of the way this was done, setting her up for a LIFETIME APPOINTMENT OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

No ruling she ever makes will be taken at face value because of the way Biden handled it, especially if it is anything at all having to do with race relations, affirmative action, discrimination of any kind and a whole hell of a lot more.