logo
The real ‘DEI hire' was Clarence Thomas

The real ‘DEI hire' was Clarence Thomas

The Hill06-05-2025
Was Amy Coney Barrett a 'DEI hire' to the Supreme Court?
That's what President Trump's MAGA acolytes have been saying since his State of the Union Address last March, when Barrett allegedly glared at him as he walked down the aisle. The next day, she sided with the court's liberal justices in rejecting the Trump administration's bid to freeze nearly $2 billion in foreign aid.
'She is evil, chosen solely because she checked identity politics boxes,' right-wing activist Mike Cernovich posted on X. 'Another DEI hire. It always ends badly.'
But the real DEI hire on the Supreme Court — chosen solely because of identity politics — isn't Barrett. It's Clarence Thomas.
There, I said it. But so did every honest observer back in 1991, when George H. W. Bush nominated Thomas for the court. Bush claimed that Thomas was the 'best qualified' candidate for the seat vacated by Thurgood Marshall. But the real reason Bush selected him was that Thomas, like Marshall, is Black.
Thomas knew it, too. Ten years before he joined the court, while serving as assistant secretary for civil rights in the Department of Education, he reportedly told a colleague that he had set his sights on Marshall's seat. In 1981, the Yale-educated Thomas was already the highest-ranking Black attorney in the federal government. Marshall 'wouldn't last forever,' Thomas said, and no one was in 'as good a position' to replace him as Thomas was.
The year after that, President Ronald Reagan appointed Thomas to chair the U.S. Equal Opportunity Commission. He won accolades from conservatives for condemning affirmative action, which he called 'belittling to minorities.' At Yale, he said, everyone assumed he was admitted because of his race rather than his merit. So long as Black people received special consideration, Thomas argued, they would be dismissed as 'second rate.'
Behind the scenes, that's exactly what White House officials said about him. He was passed over for a judgeship on the D.C. Court of Appeals because the Justice Department said his legal scholarship was weak.
But when George H. W. Bush replaced Reagan, things changed. A country-club Republican, Bush was eager to burnish his reputation among the right-wing rank-and-file. So he appointed Thomas to the D.C. Court of Appeals and even considered nominating him for the Supreme Court when liberal lion William J. Brennan stepped down.
Don't do it, Bush's advisers counseled. Thomas had never litigated a case before a jury, they noted, and he hadn't issued any substantive constitutional opinions during his brief stint on the appeals court.
Bush instead chose David Souter, who disappointed conservatives. But when Marshall announced his retirement the following year, Thomas got the nod. He had the requisite right-wing credentials. And he would become the next African American justice, which would insulate him from criticism on the left.
The strategy worked. Democrats were afraid to attack Thomas' legal philosophy too harshly, lest they be perceived as racist. And when Thomas faced sexual harassment accusations from his former aide, Anita Hill, he famously denounced his confirmation hearing as a 'high-tech lynching.'
That worked, too. America has an ugly history of violence against African American men, often triggered by false reports of sexual misconduct. Although Hill's charges were entirely credible, nobody wanted to be seen as dragging another Black man through the mud.
No matter what Thomas says about race, then, it clearly helped him secure a place on the Supreme Court. And it's fair to say that gender gave Barrett an advantage, too. Just as Thomas replaced an African-American on the court, Barrett followed Ruth Bader Ginsburg. And even before he nominated Barrett, Trump announced that he would appoint a woman to Ginsburg's seat.
But unlike Thomas, Barrett was a legal superstar. She graduated first in her class at Notre Dame Law School and clerked for Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, whose other clerks routinely describe her as the sharpest of the bunch.
She is also conservative, of course. Barrett voted to overturn Roe v. Wade, reverse affirmative action and expand gun rights. And let's not forget that she signed on to an opinion granting Trump immunity for official acts he takes as president.
But she has also crossed Trump several times this term, which makes her a turncoat in the eyes of his disciples. In addition to bucking his freeze on foreign aid, Barrett joined an opinion that said Trump couldn't deport Venezuelan migrants under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798.
That led one right-wing activist to denounce her as — wait for it — 'Amy Commie Barrett.' That's an absurd moniker for someone so obviously conservative.
So is the idea of Barrett as a 'DEI hire,' if that means someone who used identity — not merit — to get to the top. Yes, her gender might have helped her along the way, but her legal skills are beyond doubt, no matter what you think of her decisions.
And nobody on the Supreme Court got a bigger boost from identity than Thomas. If you don't believe me, simply listen to the man who chaired his Senate confirmation hearing: 'Had Thomas been white, he never would have been nominated,' declared Joe Biden, who would later displace Trump from the White House. 'The only reason he is on the court is because he is Black.'
Sounds like another DEI hire, chosen to check the right boxes. But it's so much easier to ignore that fact and flay Barrett. It will end badly for her two-faced critics — it always does.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Elon Musk must face lawsuit claiming he ran illegal $1 million election lottery
Elon Musk must face lawsuit claiming he ran illegal $1 million election lottery

CNBC

time2 minutes ago

  • CNBC

Elon Musk must face lawsuit claiming he ran illegal $1 million election lottery

Elon Musk was ordered on Wednesday by a federal judge to face a lawsuit by voters accusing the world's richest person of defrauding them into signing a petition to support the U.S. Constitution for a chance to win his $1 million-a-day giveaway. U.S. District Judge Robert Pitman in Austin, Texas said Jacqueline McAferty plausibly alleged in her proposed class action that Musk and his political action committee America PAC wrongly induced her to provide personal identifying information as part of the giveaway, late in the 2024 election campaign. Lawyers for Musk and America PAC did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Musk founded America PAC to support Republican Donald Trump's successful 2024 presidential run. McAferty, an Arizona resident, said Musk and America PAC induced voters in seven battleground states to sign his petition by promising that $1 million recipients would be chosen randomly, as in a lottery, though the voters had no real chance to collect. She said voters who signed were also required to provide names, addresses, email addresses and phone numbers. In seeking a dismissal, Musk listed several "red flags" as proof he had not run an illegal lottery. He said these included statements that the $1 million recipients were "selected to earn" the money and expected to become America PAC spokespeople, defeating the idea that the payment was a "prize." But the judge cited other statements suggesting the defendants were "awarding" the $1 million, and the money could be "won." "It is plausible that plaintiff justifiably relied on those statements to believe that defendants were objectively offering her the chance to enter a random lottery--even if that is not what they subjectively intended to do," Pitman wrote. The judge was appointed to the bench by President Barack Obama in 2014. Musk had also rejected the suggestion that petition signers suffered harm by providing contact information. Pitman said an expert in political data brokerage could testify what that information was worth for voters in battleground states. The lawsuit was filed on Election Day, Nov. 5, 2024. A day earlier, a Philadelphia judge refused to end Musk's giveaway, saying that city's top prosecutor failed to show it was an illegal lottery. Musk is a Texas resident, and his electric car company Tesla TSLA.O is based in Austin. The case is McAferty v Musk et al, U.S. District Court, Western District of Texas, No. 24-01346.

Brazilian police say ex-President Bolsonaro had planned to flee to Argentina seeking asylum
Brazilian police say ex-President Bolsonaro had planned to flee to Argentina seeking asylum

NBC News

time5 minutes ago

  • NBC News

Brazilian police say ex-President Bolsonaro had planned to flee to Argentina seeking asylum

BRASILIA, Brazil — Brazil's federal police said that messages found on the telephone of embattled former president Jair Bolsonaro showed that at one point he wanted to flee to Argentina and request political asylum, according to documents seen Wednesday by the Associated Press. Bolsonaro is currently awaiting a Supreme Court ruling about an alleged coup attempt and on Wednesday found out he might face another case as police formally accused him and one of his sons, Eduardo Bolsonaro, of obstruction of justice in connection with his pending trial. The AP had access to the police investigation, messaging app exchanges, voice messages and reviewed the documents, which were sent to Brazil's Supreme Court. The 170-page police report said that Bolsonaro had drafted a request for political asylum from Argentine President Javier Milei's government dated Feb. 10, 2024. Bolsonaro saved the document two days after authorities searched his home and office as part of an investigation into an alleged coup plot. In a 33-page letter addressed to Milei, Bolsonaro claimed he was being politically persecuted in Brazil. 'I, Jair Messias Bolsonaro, request political asylum from Your Excellency in the Republic of Argentina, under an urgent regime, as I find myself in a situation of political persecution in Brazil and fear for my life,' the former Brazilian leader wrote. Argentina's presidential spokesperson did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Bolsonaro did not make comments about the investigation either. On Feb. 12, Bolsonaro reportedly spent two nights at the Hungarian Embassy in Brasília, fueling speculation among critics that he may have been attempting to avoid arrest. Brazilian federal police investigators also said in their report that Bolsonaro's decision to ignore precautionary measures established for his house arrest and spread content to his allies 'sought to directly hit Brazilian democratic institutions, notably the Supreme Court and even Brazil's Congress.' With regards to Wednesday's obstruction of justice accusations, Eduardo Bolsonaro, a lawmaker who has lived in the United States, said in a statement that he 'never aimed at interfering in any ongoing proceedings in Brazil.' He added the conversations with his father that are part of the investigation are 'absolutely normal' and its publication has a political bias. Silas Malafaia, an evangelical pastor who is a staunch ally of Bolsonaro's, was also targeted by police. He had his passport seized by investigators but was not formally accused of obstruction of justice. Several messages exchanged between Bolsonaro and his son show their interest in praising U.S. President Donald Trump to affect legal proceedings in Brazil. Last month, Trump imposed 50% tariffs on some Brazilian exports and claimed the trial of the former president was the main reason for his sanctions. 'You won't have time to reverse the situation if the guy here turns his back on you. Everything here is very touchy, every little thing affects you,' Eduardo Bolsonaro told his father in one of the exchanges. 'In today's situation, you don't even need to worry about jail; you won't be arrested. But I'm afraid things will change here (in the United States). Even inside the White House, there are people telling (Trump): 'OK, Brazil is gone. Let's move on',' Eduardo Bolsonaro said. Some exchanges also show frictions sauced with expletives between father and son. Eduardo, who moved to the U.S. earlier this year despite holding a seat in Brazil's congress, calls Bolsonaro 'ungrateful' for his efforts to influence the Trump administration in their favor.

Jasmine Crockett says she's not paid enough to buy new home in redrawn Texas district
Jasmine Crockett says she's not paid enough to buy new home in redrawn Texas district

Yahoo

time9 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Jasmine Crockett says she's not paid enough to buy new home in redrawn Texas district

'As a single woman who has one income, who's not allowed to make outside income, there's a lot to be had there,' the Texas U.S. congresswoman shared. U.S. Rep. Jasmine Crockett has much to think about as Texas Republicans prepare to approve a new congressional map that would significantly impact her district. During a recent interview with CBS News, Crockett shared she is considering running in a different district next year after Texas Republicans redrew a map that puts her residence outside her 30th Congressional District. Crockett will have to decide whether to run for office in the neighboring 33rd Congressional District or potentially find a new home. However, the latter option is not an ideal one for Crockett. 'As a single woman who has one income, who's not allowed to make outside income, there's a lot to be had there,' Crockett said about her decision-making process. 'The idea of actually buying a new home…We don't get enough money. I mean, I'm being honest, and I know that some people may take issue with that, because they talk about how much money we make, and I get it. It's not that we're obviously getting minimum wage,' the Texas congresswoman explained. 'It's a matter of do you sell your home, then go somewhere else and get a higher interest rate.' Crockett shared that the current mortgage interest rate is 3%. According to Freddie Mac, the average national interest rate is more than 6%. A major part of Crockett's decision will depend on how her constituents feel about her potentially living outside of her district. She explained that, unlike state legislators, members of Congress are not required to live within district lines. However, Congresswoman Crockett said her campaign will conduct polling to learn more about the new 200,000 voters in her redrawn 30th Congressional District, and whether they prefer a representative who lives there. Crockett said her decision is not being taken lightly, reiterating, 'They don't pay me enough to go and buy another home.' The annual salary for members of the United States Congress is $174,000. Despite the reality of having her district and others represented by Democrats, Crockett said the redistricting plan is clear racial discrimination, as the districts targeted have majority Black and Latino populations. 'These have to be some of the most obviously racially gerrymandered and terrible lines that I've ever seen in the state of Texas,' she told CBS. 'Why is it that you continue to try to dilute their voices and don't want them to be heard? She added, 'It is about making sure in the state that has more African-Americans than any other state, that they are not left with their voices only amounting to one-fifth the strength of their Caucasian counterparts.' More must-reads: Trump deputy Stephen Miller says DC crackdown is for the 'safety' of Black residents. These residents say it's causing more harm Kamala Harris calls Texas Rep. Nicole Collier during Capitol confinement: 'We are all there with you' Before his slavery remark, in 2017 Trump praised the National Museum of African American History and Culture. Here's what he said Solve the daily Crossword

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store