Biden Judicial Nominees Predictions Forum

[Anonymous User]

Spoken as someone who hasn’t spent their career in criminal law and has no idea what they don’t know in that area that every criminal practitioner knows, meaning they’d look equally “stupid” at a confirmation hearing. And of course Cotton and Kennedy were looking for gotchas, it’s the whole purpose of their existence. You actually think they were questioning her in good faith?

Obviously, they were hoping that she'd screw up. Which she did. It's not unfair to ask a nominee the basics of civil cases - it's pretty important to the job. And even if she's spent her career working in criminal law, she has to handle civil cases, it's not an excuse for not being prepared.

Most nominees fly through questioning, we only hear about the ones that mess up very badly, indicating on some level, that yeah, most nominees, regardless of background, generally know this stuff.

Strangely, the only people who think Lee screwed up badly are people who oppose her/Biden politically. I’ve been googling about the confirmation hearing and there’s almost nothing out there saying she screwed up. Saying that certain Republicans weren’t happy with her answers, sure, but no media circuses about her performance being somehow deficient. In fact, I’d never heard this criticism until this thread.

Yeah "throawayt14" is very clearly a Fed Soc troll who is not worth taking seriously - if they were consistent, then where are the condemnations of Barrett for not being prepared enough to know the actual text of the First Amendment (and to the poster who said it's "not how lawyers conceptualize the amendment," 1A literally states "to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" - and given that Cotton asked the question, it was clearly intended to be the softest of softballs).

I detest Barrett (who was certainly not the most qualified conservative judge on the Seventh Circuit at the time of her elevation, let alone in the country), but even I'm not arguing that her stumble at the hearing alone makes her incompetent. The Fed Soc trolls are trying to make this argument with Lee are just embarrassing.

[throwawayt14]

Spoken as someone who hasn’t spent their career in criminal law and has no idea what they don’t know in that area that every criminal practitioner knows, meaning they’d look equally “stupid” at a confirmation hearing. And of course Cotton and Kennedy were looking for gotchas, it’s the whole purpose of their existence. You actually think they were questioning her in good faith?

Obviously, they were hoping that she'd screw up. Which she did. It's not unfair to ask a nominee the basics of civil cases - it's pretty important to the job. And even if she's spent her career working in criminal law, she has to handle civil cases, it's not an excuse for not being prepared.

Most nominees fly through questioning, we only hear about the ones that mess up very badly, indicating on some level, that yeah, most nominees, regardless of background, generally know this stuff.

Strangely, the only people who think Lee screwed up badly are people who oppose her/Biden politically. I’ve been googling about the confirmation hearing and there’s almost nothing out there saying she screwed up. Saying that certain Republicans weren’t happy with her answers, sure, but no media circuses about her performance being somehow deficient. In fact, I’d never heard this criticism until this thread.

No one who listened to the hearing was happy with her answers, but the blithe and unsupported accusations of racism you receive (repeated here a few times in this thread) when you point out that she performed atrociously is the main reason why no reporter will cover things like this honestly.

[throwawayt14]

Yeah "throawayt14" is very clearly a Fed Soc troll who is not worth taking seriously - if they were consistent, then where are the condemnations of Barrett for not being prepared enough to know the actual text of the First Amendment (and to the poster who said it's "not how lawyers conceptualize the amendment," 1A literally states "to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" - and given that Cotton asked the question, it was clearly intended to be the softest of softballs).

I detest Barrett (who was certainly not the most qualified conservative judge on the Seventh Circuit at the time of her elevation, let alone in the country), but even I'm not arguing that her stumble at the hearing alone makes her incompetent. The Fed Soc trolls are trying to make this argument with Lee are just embarrassing.

I've been very consistent here - also I'm posting openly instead of hiding behind anon.

If you must know my thoughts on not knowing the "five freedoms" -- yes, no one conceptualizes the right to petition outside of freedom of speech nowadays -- I'm also fairly certain the Court has explicitly stated that it's largely coextensive with freedom of speech as well. Perhaps this it's an interesting academic question if you want to revisit our broad speech protections today, but not really relevant otherwise.

I also don't think KBJ refusing to answer all sorts of questions was disqualifying or anything either -- you don't need to take political questions or questions where the nominee clearly knows what they are talking about but isn't using the exact verbiage seriously.

All of that is quite different from having no idea about basic legal concepts they would need to review quite regularly on the COA. Maybe I'd take this criticism seriously if anon states that they think Matthew Petersen should have been confirmed too.

[Anonymous User]

Lee is the worst. Would have failed Civ Pro.

Yes, because Civ Pro is graded by a few on-the-spot questions during a hearing when you can literally be asked about any area of law. By this logic, Barrett is clearly the worst Trump nominee and would've failed Con Law - this is just racist trolling at this point.

To me, J. Michelle Childs is the most unusual/clearly political nominee for the position she holds. Unlike the poster above, I am NOT saying that she is unqualified or a bad judge because she's a Black woman - I think she would've made a lot of sense for the 4th Circuit. She just isn't what you usually see in terms of nominees to CADC, and it was pretty clear that the nomination was to appease Jim Clyburn.

Allison Nathan is probably the most conventional nominee out of all the Biden picks given her SCOTUS clerkship, White House Counsel's experience, etc. - in the unlikely chance that Biden gets a second SCOTUS nominee, I'd be surprised if it isn't her (though I could see them going with Pan or Koh for more diversity points).

In terms of best for Democrats/progressives/countering Fed Soc hacks, my personal favorites are Sung (labor lawyer), Perez/Desai (voting rights/election law), and H. Thomas (LDF/DOJ Civil Rights) given how few federal judges have their professional backgrounds.

Lee not knowing basic CivPro is a very bad look - failing similar questions took down a Trump nominee for starters. Nominees preparing for a lifetime appointment should be familiar with the basics of the job - even if confirmation hearings are largely a joke, it's the one time ever the American public gets to see the nominee, they should treat it seriously and study up. None of Cotton and Kennedy's questions were unfair or gotchas. And the vast majority of work COAs do is non-sexy, rote, basic work of checking motions and making sure the district court/EOIR checked all the boxes and crossed all their 't's. Not doing that work timely or properly gums up the works and hurts the average litigant far more than writing some crazy concurrence on a sexy Constitutional law case, and the judiciary is far better off focusing on the former instead of the latter.


Childs is a perfectly fine judge, and the DC Circuit has always been where personal friends of important politicians go. Nathan would be a great choice for any SCOTUS vacancy, immensely well respected and she works incredibly hard.

The odds Perez/Desai will ever hear an important election law case are fairly minimal, especially for Perez, and unless they moderate their approach, they are more likely to get the VRA struck down than anything else.

Rowan Wilson is ancient for a COA selection (he's 62 already) and was only picked because Hochul needed to pick a tried and true hack (and I don't use that term loosely) for her nominee. His dissent in the NY congressional district case was laughably bad.

Spoken as someone who hasn’t spent their career in criminal law and has no idea what they don’t know in that area that every criminal practitioner knows, meaning they’d look equally “stupid” at a confirmation hearing. And of course Cotton and Kennedy were looking for gotchas, it’s the whole purpose of their existence. You actually think they were questioning her in good faith?

I'll never pretend that anything the SJC does is in good faith, but worth pointing out that Kennedy does this to nominees from both parties, and he sank at least one Trump nominee this way. He is probably more aggressive with Democrats but Republicans absolutely need to be prepared for his pop quiz too.

[nixy]

Spoken as someone who hasn’t spent their career in criminal law and has no idea what they don’t know in that area that every criminal practitioner knows, meaning they’d look equally “stupid” at a confirmation hearing. And of course Cotton and Kennedy were looking for gotchas, it’s the whole purpose of their existence. You actually think they were questioning her in good faith?

Obviously, they were hoping that she'd screw up. Which she did. It's not unfair to ask a nominee the basics of civil cases - it's pretty important to the job. And even if she's spent her career working in criminal law, she has to handle civil cases, it's not an excuse for not being prepared.

Most nominees fly through questioning, we only hear about the ones that mess up very badly, indicating on some level, that yeah, most nominees, regardless of background, generally know this stuff.

Strangely, the only people who think Lee screwed up badly are people who oppose her/Biden politically. I’ve been googling about the confirmation hearing and there’s almost nothing out there saying she screwed up. Saying that certain Republicans weren’t happy with her answers, sure, but no media circuses about her performance being somehow deficient. In fact, I’d never heard this criticism until this thread.

No one who listened to the hearing was happy with her answers, but the blithe and unsupported accusations of racism you receive (repeated here a few times in this thread) when you point out that she performed atrociously is the main reason why no reporter will cover things like this honestly.

How convenient for you.

[nixy]

Lee is the worst. Would have failed Civ Pro.

Yes, because Civ Pro is graded by a few on-the-spot questions during a hearing when you can literally be asked about any area of law. By this logic, Barrett is clearly the worst Trump nominee and would've failed Con Law - this is just racist trolling at this point.

To me, J. Michelle Childs is the most unusual/clearly political nominee for the position she holds. Unlike the poster above, I am NOT saying that she is unqualified or a bad judge because she's a Black woman - I think she would've made a lot of sense for the 4th Circuit. She just isn't what you usually see in terms of nominees to CADC, and it was pretty clear that the nomination was to appease Jim Clyburn.

Allison Nathan is probably the most conventional nominee out of all the Biden picks given her SCOTUS clerkship, White House Counsel's experience, etc. - in the unlikely chance that Biden gets a second SCOTUS nominee, I'd be surprised if it isn't her (though I could see them going with Pan or Koh for more diversity points).

In terms of best for Democrats/progressives/countering Fed Soc hacks, my personal favorites are Sung (labor lawyer), Perez/Desai (voting rights/election law), and H. Thomas (LDF/DOJ Civil Rights) given how few federal judges have their professional backgrounds.

Lee not knowing basic CivPro is a very bad look - failing similar questions took down a Trump nominee for starters. Nominees preparing for a lifetime appointment should be familiar with the basics of the job - even if confirmation hearings are largely a joke, it's the one time ever the American public gets to see the nominee, they should treat it seriously and study up. None of Cotton and Kennedy's questions were unfair or gotchas. And the vast majority of work COAs do is non-sexy, rote, basic work of checking motions and making sure the district court/EOIR checked all the boxes and crossed all their 't's. Not doing that work timely or properly gums up the works and hurts the average litigant far more than writing some crazy concurrence on a sexy Constitutional law case, and the judiciary is far better off focusing on the former instead of the latter.


Childs is a perfectly fine judge, and the DC Circuit has always been where personal friends of important politicians go. Nathan would be a great choice for any SCOTUS vacancy, immensely well respected and she works incredibly hard.

The odds Perez/Desai will ever hear an important election law case are fairly minimal, especially for Perez, and unless they moderate their approach, they are more likely to get the VRA struck down than anything else.

Rowan Wilson is ancient for a COA selection (he's 62 already) and was only picked because Hochul needed to pick a tried and true hack (and I don't use that term loosely) for her nominee. His dissent in the NY congressional district case was laughably bad.

Spoken as someone who hasn’t spent their career in criminal law and has no idea what they don’t know in that area that every criminal practitioner knows, meaning they’d look equally “stupid” at a confirmation hearing. And of course Cotton and Kennedy were looking for gotchas, it’s the whole purpose of their existence. You actually think they were questioning her in good faith?

I'll never pretend that anything the SJC does is in good faith, but worth pointing out that Kennedy does this to nominees from both parties, and he sank at least one Trump nominee this way. He is probably more aggressive with Democrats but Republicans absolutely need to be prepared for his pop quiz too.

Not doubting you (some people are equal opportunity assholes), but it’s funny because I found a blog post commenting that Kennedy complained about Lee not wanting to commit to a particular style of constitutional interpretation, but never raised that complaint with Trump candidates. (Not linking because it’s clearly a partisan site and it also doesn’t mean Kennedy isn’t otherwise difficult to other candidates, it just made me laugh.)

[lavarman84]

Lee not knowing basic CivPro is a very bad look - failing similar questions took down a Trump nominee for starters. Nominees preparing for a lifetime appointment should be familiar with the basics of the job - even if confirmation hearings are largely a joke, it's the one time ever the American public gets to see the nominee, they should treat it seriously and study up. None of Cotton and Kennedy's questions were unfair or gotchas. And the vast majority of work COAs do is non-sexy, rote, basic work of checking motions and making sure the district court/EOIR checked all the boxes and crossed all their 't's. Not doing that work timely or properly gums up the works and hurts the average litigant far more than writing some crazy concurrence on a sexy Constitutional law case, and the judiciary is far better off focusing on the former instead of the latter.

Have you clerked for a COA judge? You have weeks to months to review full briefing, do research, have your law clerks do research, and review a bench memo (either from your law clerk or another judge's law clerk). The idea that a smart jurist who has practiced entirely on the crim side can't learn what they need to know in preparation for a civil case is just laughable. It's not rocket science.

The political hacks who refuse to act like a judge instead of an advocate (ex. Matt Kacsmaryk) are a far bigger problem than some COA judge not being a Civ Pro expert at the time they joined the bench.

[Anonymous User]

Feel like people are talking past each other here and it doesn't matter, but the Lee flub was pretty bad regardless of whether the gotcha-type questioning employed by the SJC is appropriate. This isn't exactly an arbitrary rule of civpro like how many interrogatories a party is entitled to serve. The right to a civil jury trial is one of the bedrock principles of the American judicial system and one that makes it unique on the world stage, as very few other countries have an equivalent of the Seventh Amendment. I don't doubt that Lee is capable of researching and resolving legal issues as a judge, but failing to do even the most basic homework on how the civil half of the federal docket works suggests an embarrassing lack of preparation for the hearing.

[lavarman84]

Feel like people are talking past each other here and it doesn't matter, but the Lee flub was pretty bad regardless of whether the gotcha-type questioning employed by the SJC is appropriate. This isn't exactly an arbitrary rule of civpro like how many interrogatories a party is entitled to serve. The right to a civil jury trial is one of the bedrock principles of the American judicial system and one that makes it unique on the world stage, as very few other countries have an equivalent of the Seventh Amendment. I don't doubt that Lee is capable of researching and resolving legal issues as a judge, but failing to do even the most basic homework on how the civil half of the federal docket works suggests an embarrassing lack of preparation for the hearing.

And I still could not care less. Political theater has no bearing on how one will perform as a judge.

[Anonymous User]

Speaking as a clerk who’s sat with Lee’s chambers a few times, I think she’s been great—she’s asked sharp questions, thoughtfully engages with the oralists, and seems to be well-prepared on complex legal issues (both civil and criminal). She’s also quite careful and doesn’t seem to be much of an ideologue despite what people might assume from her PD background. It’s probably too early to tell what her jurisprudence will look like because she’s quite reserved and hasn’t authored many opinions, but I see no reason to single her out as a bad nominee when she’s been doing perfectly fine as far as I can tell.

[Anonymous User]

Yeah "throawayt14" is very clearly a Fed Soc troll who is not worth taking seriously - if they were consistent, then where are the condemnations of Barrett for not being prepared enough to know the actual text of the First Amendment (and to the poster who said it's "not how lawyers conceptualize the amendment," 1A literally states "to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" - and given that Cotton asked the question, it was clearly intended to be the softest of softballs).

I detest Barrett (who was certainly not the most qualified conservative judge on the Seventh Circuit at the time of her elevation, let alone in the country), but even I'm not arguing that her stumble at the hearing alone makes her incompetent. The Fed Soc trolls are trying to make this argument with Lee are just embarrassing.

I've been very consistent here - also I'm posting openly instead of hiding behind anon.

If you must know my thoughts on not knowing the "five freedoms" -- yes, no one conceptualizes the right to petition outside of freedom of speech nowadays -- I'm also fairly certain the Court has explicitly stated that it's largely coextensive with freedom of speech as well. Perhaps this it's an interesting academic question if you want to revisit our broad speech protections today, but not really relevant otherwise.

I also don't think KBJ refusing to answer all sorts of questions was disqualifying or anything either -- you don't need to take political questions or questions where the nominee clearly knows what they are talking about but isn't using the exact verbiage seriously.

All of that is quite different from having no idea about basic legal concepts they would need to review quite regularly on the COA. Maybe I'd take this criticism seriously if anon states that they think Matthew Petersen should have been confirmed too.

Yes because commenting using your literal throwaway account means so much.

On Barrett, the point is that Little Miss Textualist couldn’t even remember the text of the First Amendment. And yet here you are making excuses for her while bashing on Lee - it’s fine if you’re partisan and don’t like Lee because she was a Biden nominee or a former PD, but you’re not fooling anyone by trying to hide behind this SJC pretext.

As for Petersen, the issue was that he himself said he had never tried a jury or bench trial in federal or state court (or ever argued a motion) and yet was nominated to be a trial judge. Hard to trust someone to manage a courtroom or rule on objections in the moment if they admit to never having made an objection in court. It’s laughable to compare that to Lee, who both has plenty of appellate experience and was nominated to an appellate judgeship (where the whole point is to research and think through the issues).

I fully realize I’m not going to change your mind and this is pointless, so I’ll stop derailing the thread.

On a more relevant topic, anyone know what the hold up is with the Maryland CA4 vacancy? I’ve read of some disagreement between the White House and Cardin, but if they’re willing to negotiate with Cruz of all people…

[lavarman84]

As for Petersen, the issue was that he himself said he had never tried a jury or bench trial in federal or state court (or ever argued a motion) and yet was nominated to be a trial judge. Hard to trust someone to manage a courtroom or rule on objections in the moment if they admit to never having made an objection in court. It’s laughable to compare that to Lee, who both has plenty of appellate experience and was nominated to an appellate judgeship (where the whole point is to research and think through the issues).

I fully realize I’m not going to change your mind and this is pointless, so I’ll stop detailing the thread.

My outlook on Petersen is somewhat similar. I don't care about how he did on the stupid legal pop quiz. The issue with him is that he had little litigation experience and essentially no trial experience (IIRC). And he admitted that. I would 100% agree with criticizing a D nominee for a trial court for the same reasons. Trial judges have to make snap decisions on the spot, something that doesn't happen with COA judges.

That said, I really wouldn't have cared if Petersen was confirmed. I'm sure given time, he'd have gotten the hang of it. Although, those first months/years might have been tough for him.

[Quichelorraine]

In this administration, it’s most likely their race, let’s just call a spade a spade. And for some people, yes, picking someone based on their race is much ickier than picking someone based on age, ideology, or wacky views.

Bravo, brave anon. I see what you did there. How great the depths to which this forum has descended.

[throwawayt14]

Have you clerked for a COA judge? You have weeks to months to review full briefing, do research, have your law clerks do research, and review a bench memo (either from your law clerk or another judge's law clerk). The idea that a smart jurist who has practiced entirely on the crim side can't learn what they need to know in preparation for a civil case is just laughable. It's not rocket science.

The political hacks who refuse to act like a judge instead of an advocate (ex. Matt Kacsmaryk) are a far bigger problem than some COA judge not being a Civ Pro expert at the time they joined the bench.

For the record, yes I have.

I'm not sure how to respond to the person asking about CA4, but Cardin might want Stephanie Gallagher and the White House wants someone else. On CA5, the White House's insistence on a Latina nominee for the vacancy proved counterproductive, as I'm under the impression their approaches were declined by their most desired candidates. The deal with Cruz and Cornyn is presumably over district court judges/US attorneys, which might be more important on the 5th circuit anyway.

[regardsjeremiah]

In this administration, it’s most likely their race, let’s just call a spade a spade. And for some people, yes, picking someone based on their race is much ickier than picking someone based on age, ideology, or wacky views.

Bravo, brave anon. I see what you did there. How great the depths to which this forum has descended.

someone should report this anon. borderline racist?

[Anonymous User]

In this administration, it’s most likely their race, let’s just call a spade a spade. And for some people, yes, picking someone based on their race is much ickier than picking someone based on age, ideology, or wacky views.

Bravo, brave anon. I see what you did there. How great the depths to which this forum has descended.

someone should report this anon. borderline racist?

I had to resort to google to figure out why people were criticizing this post. Apparently, calling a "spade a spade" has an unpleasant racial history. Unless I am living under a rock, that is not common knowledge, so let's maybe back off of calling this poster racist.

[Anonymous User]

On a more relevant topic, anyone know what the hold up is with the Maryland CA4 vacancy? I’ve read of some disagreement between the White House and Cardin, but if they’re willing to negotiate with Cruz of all people…

It's actually harder to work through the sausagemaking process on circuit court nominees, post-blue slip, with same-party senators than with the other side because they actually still have close to a veto. The hardest circuit seat for Trump to fill wasn't in California or New York but in Mississippi.

[Anonymous User]

In this administration, it’s most likely their race, let’s just call a spade a spade. And for some people, yes, picking someone based on their race is much ickier than picking someone based on age, ideology, or wacky views.

Bravo, brave anon. I see what you did there. How great the depths to which this forum has descended.

someone should report this anon. borderline racist?

I had to resort to google to figure out why people were criticizing this post. Apparently, calling a "spade a spade" has an unpleasant racial history. Unless I am living under a rock, that is not common knowledge, so let's maybe back off of calling this poster racist.

I mean I usually would cut even randos on the internet some slack, but it’s harder in this case since the poster used the phrase while implying that any Biden COA nominee who isn’t white was picked because of their race.

I don’t think anyone is seriously disputing that this administration considers the personal backgrounds of their nominees, and yes race is part of that. But then they jump to “this person got the nomination just because she’s Black” when the nominees are well qualified and use a term with racial connotations — that’s what is “icky,” especially when the poster is saying that this is somehow worse than picking someone because of their age (also something the nominee has no control over). And on the same note, why is it not “icky” that Trump picked Barrett because she’s a woman?

[Anonymous User]

Feel like people are talking past each other here and it doesn't matter, but the Lee flub was pretty bad regardless of whether the gotcha-type questioning employed by the SJC is appropriate. This isn't exactly an arbitrary rule of civpro like how many interrogatories a party is entitled to serve. The right to a civil jury trial is one of the bedrock principles of the American judicial system and one that makes it unique on the world stage, as very few other countries have an equivalent of the Seventh Amendment. I don't doubt that Lee is capable of researching and resolving legal issues as a judge, but failing to do even the most basic homework on how the civil half of the federal docket works suggests an embarrassing lack of preparation for the hearing.

Obviously getting questions right is better than not, but I think people on here seriously overestimate how much lawyers remember bar-prep con-law stuff that doesn’t come up in practice. Even federal appellate judges. The reason the Peterson thing was bad is that motions in limine and Daubert do come up constantly in practice, and not knowing them indicates a basic lack of understanding of trial practice. Whereas the Seventh Amendment comes up… well, it doesn’t really come up. Likewise, the right to petition is, if anything, even more obscure.

Also seconding from a Second Circuit clerk’s perspective that Lee is both competent and more moderate than the average Biden nominee. She seems like a strange target; pick on Bjelkengren or something.

[Anonymous User]

What's up with Senator Kennedy's fake hokey accent? "Aw shucks, I'm just a country lawyer..." Strange how he didn't have that drawl years ago.

[Anonymous User]

What's up with Senator Kennedy's fake hokey accent? "Aw shucks, I'm just a country lawyer..." Strange how he didn't have that drawl years ago.

He went to Vanderbilt, Oxford, and Virginia and is a New Orleans litigator who has published a bunch. It's a hilarious schtick and somehow the people of Louisiana buy it.

[throwawayt14]

What's up with Senator Kennedy's fake hokey accent? "Aw shucks, I'm just a country lawyer..." Strange how he didn't have that drawl years ago.

He went to Vanderbilt, Oxford, and Virginia and is a New Orleans litigator who has published a bunch. It's a hilarious schtick and somehow the people of Louisiana buy it.

"New Orleans litigator" - somehow I think the people of Louisiana, who have seen him in state for close to 40 years after college, have a pretty good idea of who Senator Kennedy is.

[Anonymous User]

What's up with Senator Kennedy's fake hokey accent? "Aw shucks, I'm just a country lawyer..." Strange how he didn't have that drawl years ago.

He went to Vanderbilt, Oxford, and Virginia and is a New Orleans litigator who has published a bunch. It's a hilarious schtick and somehow the people of Louisiana buy it.

"New Orleans litigator" - somehow I think the people of Louisiana, who have seen him in state for close to 40 years after college, have a pretty good idea of who Senator Kennedy is.

Oh absolutely, I just meant he spent his private-sector career doing business litigation in a big city as opposed to being a country lawyer. Lindsey Graham is an example of someone who actually was the type of small-town lawyer that Kennedy comes off as.

[regardsjeremiah]

In this administration, it’s most likely their race, let’s just call a spade a spade. And for some people, yes, picking someone based on their race is much ickier than picking someone based on age, ideology, or wacky views.

Bravo, brave anon. I see what you did there. How great the depths to which this forum has descended.

someone should report this anon. borderline racist?

I had to resort to google to figure out why people were criticizing this post. Apparently, calling a "spade a spade" has an unpleasant racial history. Unless I am living under a rock, that is not common knowledge, so let's maybe back off of calling this poster racist.

I mean I usually would cut even randos on the internet some slack, but it’s harder in this case since the poster used the phrase while implying that any Biden COA nominee who isn’t white was picked because of their race.

I don’t think anyone is seriously disputing that this administration considers the personal backgrounds of their nominees, and yes race is part of that. But then they jump to “this person got the nomination just because she’s Black” when the nominees are well qualified and use a term with racial connotations — that’s what is “icky,” especially when the poster is saying that this is somehow worse than picking someone because of their age (also something the nominee has no control over). And on the same note, why is it not “icky” that Trump picked Barrett because she’s a woman?

Yes, exactly.

[Anonymous User]

In this administration, it’s most likely their race, let’s just call a spade a spade. And for some people, yes, picking someone based on their race is much ickier than picking someone based on age, ideology, or wacky views.

Bravo, brave anon. I see what you did there. How great the depths to which this forum has descended.

someone should report this anon. borderline racist?

I had to resort to google to figure out why people were criticizing this post. Apparently, calling a "spade a spade" has an unpleasant racial history. Unless I am living under a rock, that is not common knowledge, so let's maybe back off of calling this poster racist.

I mean I usually would cut even randos on the internet some slack, but it’s harder in this case since the poster used the phrase while implying that any Biden COA nominee who isn’t white was picked because of their race.

I don’t think anyone is seriously disputing that this administration considers the personal backgrounds of their nominees, and yes race is part of that. But then they jump to “this person got the nomination just because she’s Black” when the nominees are well qualified and use a term with racial connotations — that’s what is “icky,” especially when the poster is saying that this is somehow worse than picking someone because of their age (also something the nominee has no control over). And on the same note, why is it not “icky” that Trump picked Barrett because she’s a woman?

Yes, exactly.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Call_a_spade_a_spade

Wikipedia page clearly focuses on the more common usage I think most of us are familiar with (e.g. meaning "calling something what it is") and in context, the term wasn't directed at Judge Lee herself, but rather at the selection process. It might be distasteful, but let's not devolve into further accusations of blatant racism. There are plenty of people who object to race-based selection criteria in relatively good faith (as evidenced by the SFFA case). We can disagree, even forcefully, without accusing someone of being a hardened racist.