Poll: 76% Disagree with Biden’s SCOTUS Quota

CLAY: We called it the Bidas touch, Buck: Everything that Joe Biden touches turns to crap, whether it is the border, whether it is everything surrounding covid, whether it is the inflation rate and the economy, whether it is Afghanistan, maybe whether it’s Ukraine. Basically everything that Biden could do that he’s involved with, he makes worse. And this is interesting.

He’s finally got his Supreme Court opportunity to make an appointment to replace Justice Stephen Breyer, and I saw this stat from ABC News over the weekend: 76%, Buck, of the American public disagrees with Joe Biden choosing to name a black woman to the Supreme Court based on her race and sex in advance before we even know who that woman is. Now, that doesn’t mean that they’re opposed to the idea of a black woman on the Supreme Court.

Just that, Buck, I would say in general, there are probably a hundred people that are qualified to be Supreme Court justices based on their educational background, based on their jurisprudence, based on the jobs that they have held. Let’s say there are a hundred people — and the audience may be broader than a hundred, but let’s say there’s a hundred. Roughly 50 of those are Republican potential nominees, 50 of those are Democratic potential nominees.

So, if Joe Biden did what Donald Trump did, which was put out a list of potential nominees that he was going to consider… I love that idea. I think it’s one of the best things that Trump did, because it let people know, “Hey, these are the guys and girls that are going to be in the running to become a Supreme Court justice if an opening occurs,” which obviously was occurring because of Scalia in that election, right?

“If this occurs, these are the people I’m gonna consider.” If Joe Biden, Buck, had come out with a similar list, let’s say he narrowed it down to 20 and he had black, white, Asian, Hispanic, people on that list, and he ended up selecting a black woman, I don’t think anybody would have said that it was an issue at all. But when you say specifically, “I am going to put a black woman on the Supreme Court,” 76% of Americans disagree with that.

And, remember, even in 2020 California voters shot down the idea of using race as it pertains to college admissions. So in a 50-50 country, Buck, to get 76% of people disagreeing with Biden’s pre-existing quota that he’s going to put a black woman on, that he’s only going to consider black women, that he’s not going to consider 94% of the overall population, this is the Bidas touch one more time, Buck. He’s even blown it on his Supreme Court pick based on the criteria that he put in place.

BUCK: In doing what Biden has done here — and you analyzed this well last week when we were discussing this — he actually upsets everybody except people in this country who explicitly want a racial entitlement state, which, as I’ve said, I believe an Alito line from a pretty recent Supreme Court decision on the issue of affirmative action. Effectively, yeah, we’re going to make determinations as a country, as a society about who gets what based upon skin color — I mean, based upon your actual skin color — because of historical wrongs or because of disparate impact or any number of theories that the left uses to justify what is really the clearest example that you can think of right now of the violation of equal protection under the law.

There is no such thing as equal protection under the law if some people get some things because they are a certain skin color or a certain ethnicity, religion, whatever the case may be. The left has gotten away with this for a long time by playing this game. Remember, no quotas, can’t have quotas. What they do is they say, “We have a holistic practice here.” The holistic practice they use for college admissions at a place like Harvard — which is gonna be at the forefront now because of the Supreme Court case that has been brought, ’cause Harvard is a…

Remember, it’s not just that Harvard explicitly penalizes Asian-American and Asian students, ’cause obviously people from all over the world will apply. Bbut Asian-American applicants. The way they penalize them, Clay, there was a lot — and this is in the court documents. This is a matter of record. Somehow a lot of Asian applicants, the Harvard admissions committee says, “Well, lacks personality” or “lacks leadership.” They come up with these kinds of amorphous, subjective criteria to knock them down and not take them.

It’s so blatant, so obvious what they’re doing. So to your point about the Bidas touch and what Biden did here, he made explicit what usually the left allows some gray area and wiggle room with. When you say, “I will only hire a person who fits in this category,” not only are you violating equal protection — and not only are you clearly engaged in, let’s just say it, discrimination, folks — that is, if I own a house and I say, “I will only rent my house to people who are from the South Pacific,” that’s discriminatory.

You can’t do that. But with Biden, he’s also upset a large portion, I think, of Democrat voters who realize this makes it seem like you would not have whoever this black Supreme Court justice — female Supreme Court justice — will be were it not for this pre-existing promise which undermines them on the bench in a way that upsets the left too. So that’s why I think he’s kind of made everybody who’s paying attention agitated by this. But it’s interesting ’cause at the time, politically — when he needed to win South Carolina — this was considered an astute move.

CLAY: Yeah, and I think that’s significant, by the way, Buck. Not only has he undermined his own candidate, this woman, it’s gonna be the crowning moment of her career. You get nominated to the Supreme Court, it is the absolute apex of any lawyer who has aspired to this role of their career, and many people are going to react to this by saying the only reason she’s getting this is because he limited his criteria to 6% of the population, to black women. This honestly may call into question… Alan Dershowitz, who is a pretty skilled constitutional lawyer, said this might be unconstitutional itself. Listen to this cut.

DERSHOWITZ: I think it may be unconstitutional. If he had said he was gonna appoint the first Muslim to the court, that would be unconstitutional ’cause the Constitution, Article VI, specifically provides that no religious test shall ever be required. I think the Fourteenth and Nineteenth Amendments also extend that to no racial or gender tests. Nobody should ever be excluded because they don’t fit a racial or gender criteria. To announce in advance no whites, no males need apply, brings us back to the days when the Supreme Court was an exclusively white male institution.

BUCK: Can I just say, last week when I said he couldn’t do this… If you were hiring a CFO for your huge company, you couldn’t say, “No white males, by the way; nobody except for black females allowed in this role.” People would recognize that as problematic. It just wouldn’t sit right, never mind even just the immediate legal implications.

You’d say, “Hold on a second. That’s not… You can’t really do that,” right? The same clearly is housing, the same thing, and now when you sit here; you say, “Shouldn’t this even be a higher standard of that application of principles?” The notion that you would say this for a Supreme Court seat? It’s actually outrageous, when you sit there and think more through it.

CLAY: Just think about what the reaction, Buck, would have been when Ruth Bader Ginsburg died, if Donald Trump had come out and said, “I’m only considering white women to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg,” the left would have lost its mind. They would have lost their mind if Trump said that. So Biden says, “I’m only considering a black woman,” and it’s as if the same standard should not apply.

This is why I talk about principle over politics here. The same logic should apply. Flip it: Trump replacing Ruth Bader Ginsburg with Amy Coney Barrett and saying before he even announced her, “It’s gotta be a white woman. That’s the only person that I’m considering.” That would have been an outrageous act, and Trump would have been dragged over the coals for it. Biden does it and people pretend on the left that it didn’t even happen.