Read on Twitter
@CNN @nypost @dcexaminer The @WashPost is gaslighting us again. A recent article claims Biden hesitates to nominate Merrick Garland for Attorney General because people fear he is too moderate on race issues.
We also see media claims that Biden hesitates on Garland because Biden doesn’t want to lose a seat on the important DC Circuit court. But 7 of 11 judges on that Court are Democrat appointed.
A central question Biden struggles with in selecting an AG is how to handle gender identity issues and litigation. But there is not a word about that in the @WashPost article. In fact, overwhelmingly, media omit the issue.
Pres. Obama nominated Garland for the US Supreme Court in 2016. At that time race-based civil rights groups firmly backed that choice. Why would they not back him now for attorney general because of “race” concerns? Ridiculous.
Back then, Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell refused to give Garland a confirmation hearing, claiming that, in an election year, the people should elect the President who picks the Court. Donald Trump was elected later that year.
Garland’s nomination languished and died without Senate confirmation. Of course, McConnell later reversed this approach when Amy Coney Barrett was nominated.
Moreover, enforcing existing civil rights laws is not a “radical” position. Most of those laws have been in place for decades, some even more than a century. The difficulty of enforcement is more often private access to contacts including lawyers and media to spur gov’t action.
Those limits on access are a direct result of the economic impact of race discrimination. Many forms of discrimination continue. But race is particularly devastating because the targets are highly visible thus severe economic harm can easily be imposed on an entire class.
So what is the Biden camp’s concern over Garland in the AG spot? In recent decades, especially in Obama’s second term, fringe liberals sought to use government to “rewrite” laws addressing race discrimination (and sex) to convert them for use in gender id cases.
This approach was used to try to urge a rejection of biology on courts by using race cases to set a standard usable in gender id cases. Thus, a 2d term Obama-led government saw race cases largely as a means to overcome using biology to define sex.
Facing a Senate leadership willing to use racial prejudice against him, Obama turned to the money & power of male-centered, gender identity, biology-rejecting campaigners to support his legacy. Under their guidance, he appointed people supporting this cause.
A classic example of the “use race to reject biology” approach is the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s position in Catastrophe Management. There, the EEOC refused to press a “disparate impact” claim on behalf of a black plaintiff alleging discrimination in employment.
She claimed she was not hired because she wore her hair in a dreadlocks style. Her hair was neat but the store had a general grooming policy that it applied to her.
A “disparate impact” claim asserts that a rule that appears facially neutral has a negative disparate impact on a particular protected class. A disparate treatment claim, argues that similarly situated people were treated differently under a rule.
The EEOC pressed a novel claim of “stereotyping”—but it was not a part of a disparate impact argument. The Courts rejected the claim out of hand, saying the policy was neutral & the parties were treated alike. They suggested the proper claim was disparate impact.
The courts offered the EEOC the opportunity to add the claim. But the EEOC, a gov’t agency, tasked with eradicating race & other discrimination, refused to. After dismissal, the Supreme Court declined review. The people leading that harmful strategy were Obama appointees.
The Obama Admin. & the Democrat-led House have pursued other strategies to condition relief from race discrimination on an embrace of gender identity instead of sex. I consider the strategy racist and illegal under civil rights laws.
Using arms of government, more powerful groups (lgbt centered ones) exploit less powerful ones (race or sex centered ones), offering carrots & sometimes sticks to groups or leaders that hesitate to go along.
While gender identity discrimination CAN sometimes be sex discrimination, courts have never held that considering biology is always sex discrimination. And they should not, lest women’s rights be compromised.
Related to this Biden AG debate is the attack against Bill Barr’s intervention to reverse decisions by US Attorneys General (eg, the Flynn case). Note peeps in the Biden camp are seeking commitments that the new AG won’t interfere with lower AG determinations.
Each AG’s office has long term (“career”) prosecutors. Each judicial district has an AG office. The “no interference” approach is claimed to protect the independence of career prosecutors. But it also protects prosecutors who go rogue on gender identity/Biology or any issue.
But note that the main AG (and not lower AGs) is statutorily charged with oversight of the entire Justice department & maintaining its consistency with existing law.
Biden is likely being pressured to appoint local AGs and other administrators who reject biology. An AG can use governmental power to pressure states, companies, & private actors without even going to court.
The @WashPost and other media want the public to think the Biden camp’s internal battle over whom to pick for AG is centered just on race or the DC Circuit or Hunter Biden. They are hiding the truth from us.
