re: Biden opposed and filibustered a black female judicial nominee in 2003 AND 2005

quote:

---

Doesn’t this go against the narrative that he’s picking someone based solely on “black woman?”

---

Yeah you must be straight up stupid. Because that is exactly what Biden said he would do. Nominate a black woman and wouldn’t consider anyone else.

quote:

---

I would say it is and you can’t really make a legit argument against it. The man said he would nominate a black woman if he had to pick a new SCJ. I will add every single list I have seen of potential candidates. No matter what network or news source, not a single list had anyone on it that was not a black woman. All I am going by is the evidence before us, if you know something else please share it?

---

Making “black woman” a prerequisite doesn’t mean it’s the only criteria. That’s my point. He’s limiting his pool to black women, but he’s not choosing someone like Candace Owens. They have to still meet other criteria. Which goes back to the OP. He didn’t blindly support a black female judicial nominee simply because they were a black female.

quote:

---

He isn’t pulling a name out of a hat.

---

He is limiting the names going into the hat by two arbitrary traits. Traits that one has no control over and thereby admitting ability is secondary to pandering for votes

Where did I contradict myself? Limiting one’s choice to a certain portion of the population doesn’t mean it’s the only criteria. If his only criteria was a black woman, it could be any black woman.

quote:

---

If his only criteria was a black woman, it could be any black woman.

---

I mean technically she could be dead so yeah that's not the ONLY criteria but it's definitely the primary and non-negotiable one

quote:

---

Obviously his choice isn’t based SOLEY on the person being a black woman.

---

That is true. She must also be a goose-stepping leftist that hates America.

Fortunately for the Democratic Marxists and their usurper, there is an almost inexhaustible supply of choices for them.

Joe and his supporters = idiocracy.

quote:

---

Where did I contradict myself? Limiting one’s choice to a certain portion of the population doesn’t mean it’s the only criteria. If his only criteria was a black woman, it could be any black woman.

---

You know it's ok to just admit that he's signaling and pandering instead of trying to make some weird point to make it look like something it isn't.

quote:

---

Making “black woman” a prerequisite doesn’t mean it’s the only criteria. That’s my point. He’s limiting his pool to black women, but he’s not choosing someone like Candace Owens. They have to still meet other criteria. Which goes back to the OP. He didn’t blindly support a black female judicial nominee simply because they were a black female.

---

He didn’t say political ideology or judicial philosophy was the primary qualifying feature. He said skin color was. That is racism and it isn’t some made-up narrative.

Obviously there has to be other considerations. Obviously a leftist isn’t going to nominate another Clearance Thomas or Candace Owens, but the issue at hand is the racist standard of using skin color to filter out candidates before looking at anything else.

It is against the law for a hiring manager at a private company to say that they will only consider black candidates or female candidates (or only black females) and then follow through with that criteria when hiring because it is discrimination.

quote:

---

narrative

---