Breyer Out Forum

[nixy]

I wonder why that could be??

The above claim is that black candidates are being discriminated against by the GOP. More likely the reverse, no? Black support for the GOP (and FedSoc) is pretty low. If 4% of trump's appointments were black, then that is probably proof that he sought black candidates. What percent of conservatives, with federal judge credentials, are black? From gallup: "The Democratic candidate for president over the five presidential elections since 2000 has averaged 91% of the Black vote, with 8% on average going to the Republican candidate." If 13% of the population is black, and less than 10% vote GOP, then way less than 4% of the population are both black and conservative. Yes you could control for turnout etc. But the point being - GOP presidents aren't discriminating against black candidates. They love to play the "durrrr, dems are the real racists" game.

My point wasn't really that Black candidates were being directly discriminated against by the GOP (though I'm sure that happens, especially for black women). My point was exactly that there are fewer Black conservatives and, gee, why might Black people find conservatism less appealing?

[Anonymous User]

Srinivasan is turning 55 in a few weeks, and it would take an unlikely confluence of events for Biden to get another nomination (a justice dying unexpectedly and Dems holding the Senate). Perhaps if he won a second term Sotomayor would consider retiring, but he'll be well too old by then.

[Anonymous User]

Srinivasan is turning 55 in a few weeks, and it would take an unlikely confluence of events for Biden to get another nomination (a justice dying unexpectedly and Dems holding the Senate). Perhaps if he won a second term Sotomayor would consider retiring, but he'll be well too old by then.

Right, and Childs is turning 56 in March as well. Compare to the recent Republican nominees at the time of their nomination: ACB was 48. Gorsuch was 49. (Kavanaugh was 53.)

Based on nothing but a hunch, I think we are going to see late 40s to early 50s become the range of SCOTUS eligibility from now on. 55 is too old. (And "late 40s" might push it with the next Republican president; after all, Allison Rushing just turns 40 this year and by the next administration will have had 6 years of experience on CA4 already.)

Biden very well may nominate Childs, but her age is a minus factor and it will get a lot of negative attention by Democratic-aligned groups if she gets the nod.

[Anonymous User]

If Biden miraculously gets a second nomination, I'm sure Srinivasan would top the list of candidates.

I know there's another thread on this, but I will be curious if Trump/the next Republican president will nominate Thapar (or Lagoa to build on the GOP's growing appeal to Latinos/Bumatay or Ho to really enflame the culture war) vs. going back to white male nominees.

On the first part of this - I doubt it. Right now is already about as late in the day as is acceptable for a SCOTUS nom these days, since Srinivasan is a few weeks from turning 55. (This is also why I think Childs, who will soon turn 56, is not really a serious candidate and it's going to be KBJ vs. Kruger.) One underrated political benefit to Biden of getting KBJ on SCOTUS is that he then has a real opportunity to fill her DC Circuit seat with someone who could be in the Sotomayor-replacement waiting room for, say, 2026 if Biden is still POTUS and Dems hold the Senate then.

On the second part - I think that you're right because the next GOP president will be savvy enough to understand the political benefit of doing so while still getting a reliable FedSoc vote on the court.

Yeah sorry that's what I meant - Srinivasan is only likely to be nominated if there's a second vacancy this year. Assuming the Dems lose the Senate this fall, they'll probs be in the minority for the rest of the decade if not the foreseeable future. I honestly don't know who their next SCOTUS nominee would be if they want someone in their late 40s/early 50s in the 2030s - Biden's COA nominations have been young, but only a handful are in their early 40s.

I actually think Sotomayor should retire now too because if she wants to be replaced by a Democratic president. Given the growing Republican advantage in the Senate, she could be RBG/Breyer's age (if not older) by the next time there's both a Democratic president and Senate.

[Anonymous User]

I'm not saying it's all-things-considered justified or unjustified to pick her, or that she would be undeserving, just that sometimes you have to call a spade a spade. Two things can be true simultaneously: that she's just as (if not more) deserving/qualified than anyone else, and that she got the gig -- over similarly deserving/qualified non-POC persons -- because of favorable race-based discrimination.

The irony of course is that Asian-American jurists are entirely excluded from the nomination conversation just as SCOTUS is about to hear argument on the allegedly anti-Asian admission policies at Harvard/UNC.

If Biden miraculously gets a second nomination, I'm sure Srinivasan would top the list of candidates. Also, does anyone seriously believe that Edward Blum/SFFA is out here trying to eradicate anti-Asian discrimination or advocate for Asians? Because if so, I have a bridge to sell you.

I know there's another thread on this, but I will be curious if Trump/the next Republican president will nominate Thapar (or Lagoa to build on the GOP's growing appeal to Latinos/Bumatay or Ho to really enflame the culture war) vs. going back to white male nominees.

Regardless of their intent going in, which was definitely to create a test case, the stuff SFFA turned up in discovery was really bad, and it's silly to dismiss it. I think a lot of people suspected there were de facto Asian quotas at top schools, but the charts on pages 16 and 18 of SFFA's cert petition are damning.

[Anonymous User]

If Biden miraculously gets a second nomination, I'm sure Srinivasan would top the list of candidates.

I know there's another thread on this, but I will be curious if Trump/the next Republican president will nominate Thapar (or Lagoa to build on the GOP's growing appeal to Latinos/Bumatay or Ho to really enflame the culture war) vs. going back to white male nominees.

On the first part of this - I doubt it. Right now is already about as late in the day as is acceptable for a SCOTUS nom these days, since Srinivasan is a few weeks from turning 55. (This is also why I think Childs, who will soon turn 56, is not really a serious candidate and it's going to be KBJ vs. Kruger.) One underrated political benefit to Biden of getting KBJ on SCOTUS is that he then has a real opportunity to fill her DC Circuit seat with someone who could be in the Sotomayor-replacement waiting room for, say, 2026 if Biden is still POTUS and Dems hold the Senate then.

On the second part - I think that you're right because the next GOP president will be savvy enough to understand the political benefit of doing so while still getting a reliable FedSoc vote on the court.

Lagoa will probably age out, Thapar is getting close too, and on Bumatay I'm not sure that the GOP would go for a gay nominee yet, but I think Michael Park has a good shot, especially as the next vacancy may be Alito.

[Anonymous User]

I'm not saying it's all-things-considered justified or unjustified to pick her, or that she would be undeserving, just that sometimes you have to call a spade a spade. Two things can be true simultaneously: that she's just as (if not more) deserving/qualified than anyone else, and that she got the gig -- over similarly deserving/qualified non-POC persons -- because of favorable race-based discrimination.

The irony of course is that Asian-American jurists are entirely excluded from the nomination conversation just as SCOTUS is about to hear argument on the allegedly anti-Asian admission policies at Harvard/UNC.

If Biden miraculously gets a second nomination, I'm sure Srinivasan would top the list of candidates. Also, does anyone seriously believe that Edward Blum/SFFA is out here trying to eradicate anti-Asian discrimination or advocate for Asians? Because if so, I have a bridge to sell you.

I know there's another thread on this, but I will be curious if Trump/the next Republican president will nominate Thapar (or Lagoa to build on the GOP's growing appeal to Latinos/Bumatay or Ho to really enflame the culture war) vs. going back to white male nominees.

Regardless of their intent going in, which was definitely to create a test case, the stuff SFFA turned up in discovery was really bad, and it's silly to dismiss it. I think a lot of people suspected there were de facto Asian quotas at top schools, but the charts on pages 16 and 18 of SFFA's cert petition are damning.

+1. As an Asian who has seen which of my peers (from high school through college through law school) get into top places and which don't (and knowing their merit-based credentials), it's hard to stomach, especially when socio-economic demographics aren't taken into account and people know how leverage/exploit the factors that are taken into account. Pretty sure most of us know the person who, around law school application season, suddenly took an interest in their Native American heritage, etc. (And it does no good to respond by pointing to rich white folks enjoying benefits based on nepotism or donations or whatever: two wrongs don't make a right; we should get rid of that, too).

Also, discussion around the role and significance of intent is frankly ridiculous because people are so hypocritical about it. We're told all the time that an individual's intent is not indicative of whether their statements or actions are racist--that racism is a systemic phenomenon--but the very people chiding us about that then turn around and question the intent of folks like SFFA, as though ulterior motives somehow undermine the substantive merits of their arguments.

Here's another damning example: if Colin Kaepernick's intent in kneeling was not to signal disrespect to the military, and so we should interpret his actions in accordance with his intent rather than that perception by others, then it follows that we should also look at the subjective intent, and not the external, environmental perception, when people utter racial epithets. You can't have it both ways.

[nixy]

Wait, are you really comparing Kaepernick kneeling during the national anthem to uttering racial epithets? One of those is a symbolic gesture that is inherently ambiguous, thus requiring explanation, involving a non-protected class, and the other …is racial epithets.

(And yes this has basically nothing to do with Breyer retiring but come the fuck on.)

[Anonymous User]

Wait, are you really comparing Kaepernick kneeling during the national anthem to uttering racial epithets? One of those is a symbolic gesture that is inherently ambiguous, thus requiring explanation, involving a non-protected class, and the other …is racial epithets.

(And yes this has basically nothing to do with Breyer retiring but come the fuck on.)

The post responded to another post earlier in the thread about an upcoming SCOTUS case; that case has to do with intent and its relation to things like race or gender based discrimination. I didn't just parachute in here a propos nothing.

The two examples I used are illustrations of the general point about the role and significance of subjective intent when we attribute meaning to something. If you can't see that, I don't think you're reading my post with an open mind or critically enough. (Also, plenty of people say Kap's symbolic gesture was CLEARLY not X or not Y; similarly, there is reasonable context in which epithets are used but aren't intended in the way critics make them out to be. The two are not ridiculously incommensurate at all unless you're totally unwilling to read people's posts in a way that might upset your view of the world.)

[Anonymous User]

The fact that a poor Hmong kid in Minnesota is told by the system that she's too privileged to have an equal shot at a top college--moreso than a rich white kid who went to Phillips Exeter, even--is utterly disgraceful. The same goes for anyone who defends that sort of practice. Asian poverty in this country is real, and no one seems to care about throwing entire generations of poor Asian kids under the bus. And if Asians speak up, they're told nonsense like "you'll never be white" or "you're an Uncle Chan."

We can defend giving boosts to students who come from historically marginalized communities. But putting that point to one side, the way Asians are treated by both sides in this country is an unmitigated travesty.

As for the topic of this thread, both Jackson and Kruger are obviously exceptionally qualified. Platinum credentials. Can't go wrong with either. Hopefully, we'll get an Asian SCOTUS justice too in the not-so-distant future.

[Anonymous User]

If Biden miraculously gets a second nomination, I'm sure Srinivasan would top the list of candidates.

I know there's another thread on this, but I will be curious if Trump/the next Republican president will nominate Thapar (or Lagoa to build on the GOP's growing appeal to Latinos/Bumatay or Ho to really enflame the culture war) vs. going back to white male nominees.

On the first part of this - I doubt it. Right now is already about as late in the day as is acceptable for a SCOTUS nom these days, since Srinivasan is a few weeks from turning 55. (This is also why I think Childs, who will soon turn 56, is not really a serious candidate and it's going to be KBJ vs. Kruger.) One underrated political benefit to Biden of getting KBJ on SCOTUS is that he then has a real opportunity to fill her DC Circuit seat with someone who could be in the Sotomayor-replacement waiting room for, say, 2026 if Biden is still POTUS and Dems hold the Senate then.

On the second part - I think that you're right because the next GOP president will be savvy enough to understand the political benefit of doing so while still getting a reliable FedSoc vote on the court.

Yeah sorry that's what I meant - Srinivasan is only likely to be nominated if there's a second vacancy this year. Assuming the Dems lose the Senate this fall, they'll probs be in the minority for the rest of the decade if not the foreseeable future. I honestly don't know who their next SCOTUS nominee would be if they want someone in their late 40s/early 50s in the 2030s - Biden's COA nominations have been young, but only a handful are in their early 40s.

I actually think Sotomayor should retire now too because if she wants to be replaced by a Democratic president. Given the growing Republican advantage in the Senate, she could be RBG/Breyer's age (if not older) by the next time there's both a Democratic president and Senate.

I was hopeful for Breyer to retire in 2021, allowing Biden to fulfill his campaign promise and fill that seat with KBJ, and then Sotomayor would retire in 2022 and be replaced by Srinivasan (or another qualified Asian-American candidate that I’m not thinking of). I agree that most Democrats don’t seem to be taking seriously the possibility of losing the Senate for decades based on the way rural overrepresentation has dramatically shifted to favor Republicans.

[Anonymous User]

If Biden miraculously gets a second nomination, I'm sure Srinivasan would top the list of candidates.

I know there's another thread on this, but I will be curious if Trump/the next Republican president will nominate Thapar (or Lagoa to build on the GOP's growing appeal to Latinos/Bumatay or Ho to really enflame the culture war) vs. going back to white male nominees.

On the first part of this - I doubt it. Right now is already about as late in the day as is acceptable for a SCOTUS nom these days, since Srinivasan is a few weeks from turning 55. (This is also why I think Childs, who will soon turn 56, is not really a serious candidate and it's going to be KBJ vs. Kruger.) One underrated political benefit to Biden of getting KBJ on SCOTUS is that he then has a real opportunity to fill her DC Circuit seat with someone who could be in the Sotomayor-replacement waiting room for, say, 2026 if Biden is still POTUS and Dems hold the Senate then.

On the second part - I think that you're right because the next GOP president will be savvy enough to understand the political benefit of doing so while still getting a reliable FedSoc vote on the court.

Yeah sorry that's what I meant - Srinivasan is only likely to be nominated if there's a second vacancy this year. Assuming the Dems lose the Senate this fall, they'll probs be in the minority for the rest of the decade if not the foreseeable future. I honestly don't know who their next SCOTUS nominee would be if they want someone in their late 40s/early 50s in the 2030s - Biden's COA nominations have been young, but only a handful are in their early 40s.

I actually think Sotomayor should retire now too because if she wants to be replaced by a Democratic president. Given the growing Republican advantage in the Senate, she could be RBG/Breyer's age (if not older) by the next time there's both a Democratic president and Senate.

I was hopeful for Breyer to retire in 2021, allowing Biden to fulfill his campaign promise and fill that seat with KBJ, and then Sotomayor would retire in 2022 and be replaced by Srinivasan (or another qualified Asian-American candidate that I’m not thinking of). I agree that most Democrats don’t seem to be taking seriously the possibility of losing the Senate for decades based on the way rural overrepresentation has dramatically shifted to favor Republicans.

Why are we all so quick to delay in our minds the idea of nominating an Asian Justice? There have been numerous Black Justices and Female Justices, including on the current Court, but never an Asian Justice. Shouldn't we be nominating firsts in each minority category before we start branching out into firsts in minority combination categories (which we of course should do, eventually)? Also, its highly offensive that we're even referring to "Asian" as a monolithic category. Nominating an Indian doesn't mean you can just check the "Asian" box and move on. We need an East Asian Justice and a South Asian Justice. Also, Middle-Eastern and Central Asian Justices are long overdue. Don't get me started with all of the different religions that are not represented on SCOTUS, as others in this thread have rightly pointed out, as well as the gender identities/expressions and sexual-orientations that aren't represented. We need to do better.

[nixy]

We're delaying the idea of appointing an Asian justice because Biden has specifically said that he wants to appoint a Black woman as justice. No one is arguing that a Black woman *should* be appointed before an Asian American, just accepting that since this is what Biden wants to do, it's probably what's going to happen, and so speculating within those parameters.

(Also, while I totally get that there have been more Black justices than Asian American justices, because there haven't been any of the latter, and so I also get your argument for appointing an Asian American and don't have any real beef with it, there have still only been two Black justices, out of 114, which isn't exactly "numerous.")

[Anonymous User]

We're delaying the idea of appointing an Asian justice because Biden has specifically said that he wants to appoint a Black woman as justice. No one is arguing that a Black woman *should* be appointed before an Asian American, just accepting that since this is what Biden wants to do, it's probably what's going to happen, and so speculating within those parameters.

(Also, while I totally get that there have been more Black justices than Asian American justices, because there haven't been any of the latter, and so I also get your argument for appointing an Asian American and don't have any real beef with it, there have still only been two Black justices, out of 114, which isn't exactly "numerous.")

Agreed 100%. Also, SCOTUS and its appointments are inherently political no matter what Roberts wants to pretend. Barrett was nominated because social conservatives are one of the main bases of the Republican party (and the libertarian/deregulatory wing of the GOP had gotten their pick with Gorsuch). Since Black voters (and especially Black women) are a major base of the Democratic party, it makes political sense for a Democratic president to focus on using SCOTUS to shore up support with them. Especially for Biden, who hasn't been able to deliver anything else for Black voters because of Manchin/Sinema.

Besides, any Republicans suddenly clamoring for an Asian American justice instead of a Black woman had three chances to put one up themselves. If you're all for Asian representation on the federal courts, don't forget who filibustered Goodwin Liu when Obama nominated him to the Ninth Circuit.

As an Asian American myself, I have no interest in being the GOP's prop for anything, whether it's attacking affirmative action while preserving legacy admissions (AKA affirmative action for whites) or baselessly questioning the credentials of objectively qualified candidates like KBJ or Kruger.

[Anonymous User]

If Biden miraculously gets a second nomination, I'm sure Srinivasan would top the list of candidates.

I know there's another thread on this, but I will be curious if Trump/the next Republican president will nominate Thapar (or Lagoa to build on the GOP's growing appeal to Latinos/Bumatay or Ho to really enflame the culture war) vs. going back to white male nominees.

On the first part of this - I doubt it. Right now is already about as late in the day as is acceptable for a SCOTUS nom these days, since Srinivasan is a few weeks from turning 55. (This is also why I think Childs, who will soon turn 56, is not really a serious candidate and it's going to be KBJ vs. Kruger.) One underrated political benefit to Biden of getting KBJ on SCOTUS is that he then has a real opportunity to fill her DC Circuit seat with someone who could be in the Sotomayor-replacement waiting room for, say, 2026 if Biden is still POTUS and Dems hold the Senate then.

On the second part - I think that you're right because the next GOP president will be savvy enough to understand the political benefit of doing so while still getting a reliable FedSoc vote on the court.

Yeah sorry that's what I meant - Srinivasan is only likely to be nominated if there's a second vacancy this year. Assuming the Dems lose the Senate this fall, they'll probs be in the minority for the rest of the decade if not the foreseeable future. I honestly don't know who their next SCOTUS nominee would be if they want someone in their late 40s/early 50s in the 2030s - Biden's COA nominations have been young, but only a handful are in their early 40s.

I actually think Sotomayor should retire now too because if she wants to be replaced by a Democratic president. Given the growing Republican advantage in the Senate, she could be RBG/Breyer's age (if not older) by the next time there's both a Democratic president and Senate.

I was hopeful for Breyer to retire in 2021, allowing Biden to fulfill his campaign promise and fill that seat with KBJ, and then Sotomayor would retire in 2022 and be replaced by Srinivasan (or another qualified Asian-American candidate that I’m not thinking of). I agree that most Democrats don’t seem to be taking seriously the possibility of losing the Senate for decades based on the way rural overrepresentation has dramatically shifted to favor Republicans.

Yeah I don't get why Dems/liberals aren't treating this like the DEFCON 1 it so clearly is - are they just giving up because rural voters can't be won back at this point? Even though I'm closer to AOC's positions than to Manchin's, I can see the need for the national Democratic party to be closer to Manchin's positions to win back the Senate after 2022. Or I wonder if Dems in rural states should disband the party entirely and create an entirely separate one (with a different name) that is more socially conservative but liberal on economic issues? Kind of like how in the UK the Lib Dems and Labour both compete against the Tories, but are competitive in different seats (Labour in the North, Lib Dems in the Southeast). Not saying I love the idea of a more socially conservative left-of-center party, but IDK how else to credibly challenge a Republican...

But also back on topic, has anyone crunched the numbers about where KBJ has hired her past clerks from as a D.D.C. judge? Or even who her clerks are now/will be in the future on the DC Circuit? Given all the brouhaha about her own diverse experiences, I wonder if she'll look for similar professional diversity among her clerks or if she'll be similarly HYS-focused as the other liberals (though in terms of demographics, I'm sure she won't be like RBG and have a total of 1 Black clerk period).

[Anonymous User]

If you're all for Asian representation on the federal courts, don't forget who filibustered Goodwin Liu when Obama nominated him to the Ninth Circuit.

Similarly, if you're all for Black female representation on the federal courts, don't forget who filibustered Janice Rogers Brown when George W. Bush nominated her to the D.C. Circuit. And if you're all for Hispanic representation on the federal courts, don't forget who filibustered Miguel Estrada when George W. Bush nominated him to the D.C. Circuit. And if you're all for female representation on the federal courts, don't forget who filibustered Pricilla Owen and Carolyn Kuhl when George W. Bush nominated them to the Fifth and Ninth Circuits.

[Anonymous User]

Given all the brouhaha about her own diverse experiences, I wonder if she'll look for similar professional diversity among her clerks or if she'll be similarly HYS-focused as the other liberals

I suppose it will depend, as with all of the justices, on when & whether a friend's underperforming kid wants a spot.

[Anonymous User]

Why are we all so quick to delay in our minds the idea of nominating an Asian Justice? There have been numerous Black Justices and Female Justices, including on the current Court, but never an Asian Justice. Shouldn't we be nominating firsts in each minority category before we start branching out into firsts in minority combination categories (which we of course should do, eventually)? Also, its highly offensive that we're even referring to "Asian" as a monolithic category. Nominating an Indian doesn't mean you can just check the "Asian" box and move on. We need an East Asian Justice and a South Asian Justice. Also, Middle-Eastern and Central Asian Justices are long overdue. Don't get me started with all of the different religions that are not represented on SCOTUS, as others in this thread have rightly pointed out, as well as the gender identities/expressions and sexual-orientations that aren't represented. We need to do better.

I respect the troll - 7/10, solid work - but it rings completely hollow to me, since I imagine OP to be someone who applauded the previous president picking his nominees off of a list Leonard Leo handed to him, and who had an abysmal record of judicial diversity.

One great way for SCOTUS to achieve the kinds of diversity OP seeks would be to expand to 13, 15, 17 justices immediately - the Republican Party could show its commitment to a Court that looks like the country it represents by backing that proposal and voting to fill those news seats ASAP.

[nixy]

If you're all for Asian representation on the federal courts, don't forget who filibustered Goodwin Liu when Obama nominated him to the Ninth Circuit.

Similarly, if you're all for Black female representation on the federal courts, don't forget who filibustered Janice Rogers Brown when George W. Bush nominated her to the D.C. Circuit. And if you're all for Hispanic representation on the federal courts, don't forget who filibustered Miguel Estrada when George W. Bush nominated him to the D.C. Circuit. And if you're all for female representation on the federal courts, don't forget who filibustered Pricilla Owen and Carolyn Kuhl when George W. Bush nominated them to the Fifth and Ninth Circuits.

Still fighting the good fights of the early- to mid-oughts, I see.

[LBJ's Hair]

Putting aside its merits (on which I'm conflicted) and constitutionality (think it's totally consistent w/history + purpose of the EPC), ending affirmative action will make SCOTUS more, not less popular with the American public, and I really hope the Democrats aren't dumb enough to make it a campaign issue in midterms/2024

Would have hoped they'd learned something from ballot initiative the failures in majority-minority California in 2020. Not optimistic... seems like advisors live in this professional-upper-middle-class bubble where "The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race" is viewed as punch line and not an indictment.

[Anonymous User]

Putting aside its merits (on which I'm conflicted) and constitutionality (think it's totally consistent w/history + purpose of the EPC), ending affirmative action will make SCOTUS more, not less popular with the American public, and I really hope the Democrats aren't dumb enough to make it a campaign issue in midterms/2024

Would have hoped they'd learned something from ballot initiative the failures in majority-minority California in 2020. Not optimistic... seems like advisors live in this professional-upper-middle-class bubble where "The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race" is viewed as punch line and not an indictment.

Yeah I doubt running on it will help Dems with the swing voters they need (working-class voters of any race are not going to care about who's getting into Harvard). If they talk about it at all, hopefully it would be to ban legacy admissions - hard to see even some Republicans defending the idea of getting a boost in life because of where mommy & daddy went to school.

[nixy]

Putting aside its merits (on which I'm conflicted) and constitutionality (think it's totally consistent w/history + purpose of the EPC), ending affirmative action will make SCOTUS more, not less popular with the American public, and I really hope the Democrats aren't dumb enough to make it a campaign issue in midterms/2024

Would have hoped they'd learned something from ballot initiative the failures in majority-minority California in 2020. Not optimistic... seems like advisors live in this professional-upper-middle-class bubble where "The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race" is viewed as punch line and not an indictment.

I get that practically speaking, Dems don't have to try to appeal to (a lot of) the professional-UMC crowd and need to work on appealing to (more) working class voters, but I never understand why one group is viewed as a "bubble" and the other is somehow a monolithic "American public" (implied to be the "real" America).

But I'm also not sure that being in opposition to SCOTUS ending AA is going to translate to running on the issue. Abortion seems much more likely.

[Anonymous User]

I really doubt that ending affirmative action will have much of a real-world impact, since colleges and universities will design facially race-neutral admission criteria that in effect still benefit the same people that are now advantaged by AA. Like, you get bonus points based on the average household income of your zip code, or based on how poorly your high school performs. Since Black folks are more likely to come from lower-income areas and low-performing school, many will benefit.

[Anonymous User]

working-class voters of any race are not going to care about who's getting into Harvard

Tell that to my Asian mother who waited tables to give me a shot at achieving my dreams.

[Anonymous User]

To get away from the discourse about AA (not part of this thread not part of the process by Biden), does anyone know if Childs was a management or employee side l&e attorney? We certainly do not need a management hack on the Court (amongst other management hacks). She is certainly impressive.