My latest in PJ Media:
Trying to justify Old Joe Biden’s decision to limit his Supreme Court candidates to black women only, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-Sinister) on Thursday claimed that Old Joe was just trying to redress a historic injustice. “Until 1981,” Chuck intoned, “this powerful body, the Supreme Court, was all white men. Imagine. America wasn’t all white men in 1981, or ever. Under President Biden and this Senate majority, we’re taking historic steps to make the courts look more like the country they serve.” Schumer, of course, left out Thurgood Marshall, the first black Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. And so the question once again arises: is Schumer stupid, dishonest?
Those are really the only two choices. Stephen Kruiser on Friday morning called Schumer a “paste-eating fool,” and forgetting the existence of Thurgood Marshall would certainly seem to reinforce that assessment. On August 30, 1967, when Marshall became a Supreme Court Justice, Schumer had just graduated from high school as valedictorian of his class and was entering Harvard College, where he immediately became politically active, working on the presidential campaign of Eugene McCarthy in 1968. In all that time, as a clearly politically aware young man, did he never hear that Lyndon Johnson had appointed a black man to the Supreme Court? Did Schumer never once hear of Marshall any time after that during the twenty-four years Marshall served on the Court, as Schumer attended Harvard Law School, became a New York State Assemblyman, and after that a Congressman? (He became a Senator after Marshall had retired.)
Of course Schumer has heard of Thurgood Marshall. The justice just slipped his mind when he was speaking on Thursday, right? Sure. It could happen to any of us. But as of this writing, Schumer has issued no correction or clarification. Ironically, his Twitter feed is filled with tweets for Black History Month, commemorating Rosa Parks, Ethel Waters, and Connie Mitchell (“the first Black woman elected in Monroe County, NY”), but there is no sign of Thurgood Marshall.
So is Schumer just abysmally stupid, as Stephen noted, or actively dishonest?
The most likely answer is that he is both. His speech defending Biden’s racism and sexism was put together by some miseducated millennial staffer who doesn’t know Thurgood Marshall from Marshall Matt Dillon (another name from the murky past), and Schumer is so uninterested and disengaged that he didn’t notice the omission, or care if he did. After all, he could very well have said, “Until 1967, this powerful body, the Supreme Court, was all white men” and decried the injustice of that, and his argument would have been perfectly reasonable. But to say 1981 instead of 1967 makes the injustice all the worse, and that works in Schumer’s favor. Why correct the record when the false narrative makes your point even more effectively than the truth would?
There is more. Read the rest here.
BexarKat says
I say neither stupid or lying – this sock puppet is just mouthing what his masters tell him. How will the Supreme Court look like America with the selection of a female Black? One could argue that Blacks comprise just 13% of the American populace, yet adding a Black to the SCOTUS would give them a disparate 22% representation. Why would another Hispanic not be considered; specifically a male as there is one female now sitting on the court? Why would Biden not select an Asian jurist? What of an aboriginal American-Indian justice? Selecting someone solely because of race or gender truly “dumbs down” the court, we are getting best politically suited rather than best qualified. His selection would certainly be a benefactor of “Affirmative Action.” If I could channel great jurists like Brandeis, Frankfurter, Marshall, Hughes, Holmes, or Warren – what would they say about this?
somehistory says
Stupid and dishonest. He’s proven both so many times, there should no longer be a question of which.
Rufolino says
Limiting Supreme Court nominees to “black women” is blatant racism and sexism.
nicholas tesdorf says
Stupid or Dishonest? Schumer is both stupid and dishonest and has been so for a long time.
PRCS says
If you look up the word smarmy in a dictionary, you’re likely to see Schumer’s picture.
Manuele Lui says
Is Schumer stupid, dishonest? THERE IS NO DOUBT ABOUT IT. CHUCK SCHUMER IS NOT ONLY STUPID, DISHONEST. HERE’S ANOTHER ONE, “HE IS A LIAR” ABOUT THE STATEMENT THAT HE MADE ABOUT THE PREVIOUS SUPREME COURT JUDGES BEING ALL WHITE.
Infidel says
Speaking about race & gender in SCOTUS, Justice Clarence Thomas has been an unwavering constitutionalist even when the Trump appointees – Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett – failed to uphold it like during the last elections. Otoh, every female justice to date – Sandra Day O’Conner, Amy Coney Barrett – has been a disaster
Next time Trump gets a vacant seat, he should look at someone other than the Federalist Society for his nominees. The thing I’ve noticed about Trump is that the things he knows about and does himself, he does a great job. The things where he delegates it to traditional Republican politicians, they blow it for him. Whether it was Paul Ryan and Tom Price on repealing Obamacare or the USCIRF guys pushing back on jihad or the Federalist Society screening judges – everyone let him down
CogitoErgoSum says
Is Schumer stupid or dishonest? The correct answer to that is yes. My brain thanks you for an easy question today.