Supreme Court

Georgetown Should Not Fire Ilya Shapiro for a Bad Tweet

“I regret my poor choice of words, which undermine my message that no one should be discriminated against for his or her gender or skin color,” Shapiro tells Reason.

|

Georgetown University's Black Law Students Association is demanding the firing of Ilya Shapiro, a director of constitutional studies at the Cato Institute, from his brand new position at the university. Shapiro was slated to start work as executive director of the Georgetown Center for the Constitution next week, but a poorly worded tweet about President Joe Biden's pledge to appoint a black woman to the Supreme Court has landed him in hot water.

Shapiro agrees that the tweet was not great.

"I regret my poor choice of words, which undermine my message that no one should be discriminated against for his or her gender or skin color," Shapiro tells Reason.

On Wednesday, Shapiro tweeted the following:

Objectively best pick for Biden is Sri Srinivasan, who is solid prog & v smart. Even has identify politics benefit of being first Asian (Indian) American. But alas doesn't fit into the latest intersectionality hierarchy so we'll get lesser black woman. Thank heaven for small favors?

Because Biden said he's only consider[ing] black women for SCOTUS, his nominee will always have an asterisk attached. Fitting that the Court takes up affirmative action next term.

I sincerely and deeply apologize for some poorly drafted tweets I posted late Wednesday night. Issues of race are of course quite sensitive, and debates over affirmative action are always fraught. My intent was to convey my opinion that excluding potential Supreme Court candidates, most notably Chief Judge Srinivasan, simply because of their race or gender, was wrong and harmful to the long term reputation of the Court. It was not to cast aspersions on the qualifications of a whole group of people, let alone question their worth as human beings. A person's dignity and worth simply do not, and should not, depend on any immutable characteristic. Those who know me know that I am sincere about these sentiments, and I would be more than happy to meet with any of you who have doubts about the quality of my heart.

In seeking to join the Georgetown community, I wanted to contribute to your worthy mission to educate students, inform the public, and engage in the battle of legal ideas that lead to justice and fairness. I still want to do that. Recklessly framed tweets like this week's obviously don't advance that mission, for which I am also truly sorry. Regardless of whether anyone agrees or disagrees with me on a host of legal and policy issues, I can and will do better with regard to how I communicate my positions.

Shapiro's wording was certainly misguided, as he freely admits. But it's not right to say he had asserted that black women as a category would make poor Supreme Court justices. Rather, he indicated that he thought the absolute best choice—from a progressive standpoint—was a specific judge, Sri Srinivasan (an Indian American and member of the Hindu faith, which would also be a first for the Court). In his tweet, Shapiro was lamenting that Biden's commitment to choosing a justice who fits a specific demographics profile would preclude him from making this selection.

This is an understandable opinion. While ensuring that the Supreme Court better reflects the diversity of the country is a worthwhile goal, there are many ways to accomplish this. (Currently, eight of the nine justices attended law school at either Harvard or Yale—Biden could look outside the Ivy League, for one.) It is fine to criticize the idea that Biden's primary and overriding criteria would be along racial and gender lines.

The phrasing "lesser black woman" was particularly ugly by itself, of course, but is being misconstrued by those calling for Shapiro to be fired. Members of the Georgetown community are not wrong to demand more precise wording from someone of Shapiro's stature, but given that he has apologized, the university should accept this and move on. If Georgetown's administration were to fire Shapiro, it would be tacitly endorsing the unfair smear that he is a racist and a sexist.

NEXT: Massive Subsidies Won't Solve the Semiconductor Supply Chain Crisis

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

Please to post comments

170 responses to “Georgetown Should Not Fire Ilya Shapiro for a Bad Tweet

  1. better: "Prove me wrong, Brandon."

  2. There was nothing wrong with that tweet.

    1. Do not ever apologize when you've done nothing wrong.

      Calling at racism makes you racist now... these leftist fucks truly are evil scum. Biden has said he will discriminate on the basis of race and sex which is against the civil rights act and the constitution, and the fucking left clap like the monsters they are.

      They haven't changed one bit since 1860

        1. Everybody can earn $500 Daily... Yes! you can earn more than you think by working online from home. I have been doing this job for like a Uio few weeks and my last week payment was exactly 2537 dollars. See More Info.... > http://moneystar33.blogspot.com/

      1. In 1860 tariff protectionist upstarts imagined some women had rights other than to labor in childbirth to increase the "property" of the plantation. Don't come to Texas and try to git away with that shit!

        1. What the hell are you babbling about, grandpa?

          Did someone give Hank prune juice again?

          1. Like so many others he spent his youth in the 60s, an era of great Rebellion! Unlike so many others, HIS 60s didn’t start with “19”….

          2. that aint powdered sugar on Hanks face...
            That level of stupid aint natural

          3. Hank has an inquenchabke thirst for the murdered blood of infants, and an unrelenting hatred towards Christianity. He’s just another leftist shitweasel.

            He’s also suffering from dementia, and belongs in hospice.

        2. Stop it, sarcasmic.

      2. The worst guilt is to accept an unearned guilt.
        Ayn Rand

        Especially with Marxists. Your apology is the rope they use to hang you.

        1. Marxists should always be beaten imprisoned and executed. Their existence is incompatible with the well being of the human race.

          1. Wood chippers. The French Revolution would have been speeded up significantly with this time saving method.

            1. I think log splitters would be rather entertaining.

      3. Agreed. 1984; being anti-racist and sexist is the new Racist and Sexist.

      4. Do not ever apologize when you've done nothing wrong.

        Fixed it for you.

    2. Yep.

      He stated who he thought was the best. Anyone other than "the best" is "lesser". Period. If Biden is going to confine the search to Black women, then that person would be a lesser Black woman.

      Georgetown shouldn't fire him for a truthful tweet.

      They should fire him for his groveling apology for a truthful post. He exposed himself as a spineless cuck who bends over to the racist Marxists. All such creatures should be fired.

      1. +1
        You said it better than I could on a full stomach.

    3. its the typical " attack the messenger" lie.

      It goes "He brought it on himself."

      No, Gtown, which has NOTHING to do with the matter, are doing it TO him for political retaliation.

      He didnt " bring it on himself.

      This is the same sick thinking as " women invite rape by wearing mini skirts."

      Might cause a few auto accidents, maybe, but not rape.

    4. Blasphemy is the highest of all crimes.

      1. Exactly. As in not showing the proper respect to sacred cows.
        (Hey, I think I managed a comment that's both racist and sexist!)

      2. Don Nico....see my comments from an executive management perspective.

  3. " ----- so we'll get lesser black woman. "

    Such a comment is almost certainly a sign of a conservative background, IMHO, who have a big tendency to generalize on race, sex, etc. with lack of concern for the individual and the difference that an individual supplies.

    1. What the hell are you even trying to say?

      1. What am I trying to say ?

        I said it.
        If you question what a certain phrase means, then ask !

        1. So determining that the next SCOTUS nominee must be a Black female is a sign of a conservative background because it generalizes by race, sex, etc., regardless of individual merit?

          Got it.

      2. Someone's making sock puppets and trolling today.

        The is obviously that. Pick something provocative: "conservative background". Make a big and vague statement that seems unintentionally ironic. Then blame other people for not understanding to start a fight.

        Mute the sock and move on.

        1. Not sure. Could simply be a new batch of steaming piles of lefty shit.
          Let's take this as an example:

          "Such a comment is almost certainly a sign of a conservative background, IMHO, who have a big tendency to generalize on race, sex, etc. with lack of concern for the individual and the difference that an individual supplies."

          Now this fucktard needs to explain who supports affirmative action in school placement, for example. Would that be conservatives generalizing on race, asshole?

    2. ya dude all that shit's totes right-wing lol

    3. Yeah, people on the left never generalize based on these characteristics, or use group identity politics or anything like that. Thank goodness.

      1. You seem to think that because my statement was about conservatives that it did not apply to social liberals on certain topics. .

        1. "Such a comment is almost certainly a sign of a conservative background"

          * * *

          "You seem to think that because my statement was about conservatives that it did not apply to social liberals on certain topics"

          That's because you asserted that the comment was "almost certainly" a sign that the person is conservative. If your meaning was that social liberals are also bigots, what function is the "almost certainly" modifier serving?

          1. Obfuscation. Plausible deniability.

        2. "You seem to think that because my statement was about conservatives that it did not apply to social liberals on certain topics.'

          Asshole, you seem to think you can walk back idiotic comments and get away with it.
          Fuck you with a rusty garden implement.

    4. True, most generalizations a garbage but at least we can all agree that black people don't care about logic, reason, time, family, or reality.

    5. This wasn't the point, and you know it. Are you a corporate journalist?

      1. *Shakes magic 8-ball*

        All Signs Point to Yes

    6. So, someone arguing that using race and gender as deciding factors for employment or otherwise is racist and wrong means the person must be a racist, sexist conservative?

      The contortions that people like you on the left have to do in order to claim people on the right are all just a bunch of racists bigots is just astounding.

      Your position that standing up against racism is now racist is just beyond the pale.

      1. That's been the Left's position for decades, and has been more and more of what they're about.

        "Hate Whitey" is one of the top 5 planks of the Democratic Party.

        1. “ Hate Whitey" is one of the top 5 planks of the Democratic Party.”
          What do you expect from the Party of Eddie Haskell?

    7. Seems to me the professor is trying to fit into the very narrow, race and sex based criteria that the president offered. The professor's choice would be a woman of color, just not black enough. Maybe black-ish?

      Seems the liberal, and particularly the progressive, backgrounds, IMHO, are the one's with a race and sex identity centric focus instead of one based on the candidates merits to bring the best justice to the SCOTUS.

      Currently, eight of the nine justices attended law school at either Harvard or Yale
      This is a far more interesting ideological grouping than one based on sex or skin color.

      1. I don't believe there is a single Protestant on the Court.
        Gorsuch is on the fence, but that's it. All else Catholics or Jews.

        Also, no unbelievers, at least no one admitting to being an unbeliever.

        1. There are lots of categories to explore when filling a spot that is supposed to represent a segment of the populace. More importantly, and what sleep Joseph fails to point towards, is the importance of the justice's commitment to our laws and constitution.

    8. Wait, Biden said he would only consider a black person to a position of the highest court of the land... because their blackness conveys a specific thing that a white person can't...

      Who in fuck's sake is generalizing about race?

    9. How cruel to point out that conservatism is code for National Socialism!

      1. How cruel to point out what a pathetic piece of shit you are.
        Fuck off and die, Hank. Make your family proud.
        Seriously, FUCK OFF AND DIE, asshole.

        1. Remember; they project.

      2. How cruel to point out how you’re not a libertarian and just a leftist bigot with an infanticide fetish.

    10. Are you retarded?

    11. in your lying opinion, Troll.

      Troll, conservative means ECONOMICS not socialism.

      You lying Leftards are the social disease.

    12. Imagine being so contradictory and hypocritical as to make a generalized statement “…certainly a sign of Conservative background…” immediately followed by “…lack of concern for INDIVIDUAL…”

      This user is most likely a Democrat troll.

    13. No. It is a response to the situation. It is the liberal President who said that the next justice would be a black woman. Shapiro laments that this requirement excludes who he views as the best candidate for the job. It would have been weird for him to confidently state that Srinivasan would not get picked without referencing the president's started criterion that excludes her from the job.

      Generally, conservatives actually seem to go out of their way to avoid acknowledging race and want to either treat people as individuals or group people based on their actions (felons, drug users, homeless, etc.).

    14. Agreed, only an evil right winger could think a back woman with initial choosing based solely on raced and gender is bad.

      In other news: By the latest poll that means 76% of the country of far-right wing and evil in your view.

      What's your plan to oppose the 3/4 of the country that disagrees with you now?
      Be specific and clear this time.

  4. I bet Georgetown University has been chomping at the bit to fire Shapiro for years now.

    Cato and Reason still think that they can deal with the devils and not get burnt. I hope this wakes them up a little.

    1. This isn't the first time nor will it be the last. They're too enamored with perceived legitimacy.

    2. Ilya is pretty progressive from what I've seen here

      1. Somin or Shapiro? I've seen Somin here but haven't noticed if Ilya Shapiro has written or been mentioned on Reason before now

        1. Somin often refers to what he calls “Ilya Confusion” when it comes to himself and Shapiro.

    3. He just started there.

  5. They should fire shipiro for back tracking

    1. This.

      Fire him for his groveling cuckery.

  6. Never apologize. All it does is make you look weak since the outrage to such an innocuous message is all performative anyway. But this is typical for Cato libertarians. Can't wait until they're pushed aside in the LP later this year.

    1. I still can't believe how many people actually apologize with historical data showing that apologizing does absolutely nothing for you.

  7. Get off Twitter. If you need to use V for Very because of an artificial character limit, you're using an inferior service for expressing complex ideas.

  8. For anyone who hasn't gotten the message yet, Twitter is a trap. Stay the fuck away from Twitter.

    1. How else can I virtue signal? Radio? Whatever you say, Grandpa moses.

      1. Masks. Maskerbaters care. They are keeping people safe.

        While the Planet is dying from the masks in landfills.

      2. Blog. Nobody should have ever allowed themselves to get sucked into the walled gardens of Twitter and Facebook, when we already had a thriving blogosphere. One of the real setbacks for Internet autonomy.

    2. Get on Gab.

  9. Shapiro was right. Every black female judge mentioned as a potential candidate has lesser qualifications than Judge Srinivasan.

    1. Being nominated for the post by skin color is racist.

      She should be offended.

      Except all Leftists are ladder climbing hacks.

  10. Hahahahahahahahahahahahahha

  11. I think he had a point. Social media justice did it again.

  12. I am 100% certain we are going to get a lesser black woman than Janice Rogers Brown.

    1. I admired her for not mincing her words. She speaks her mind very forthrightly. 🙂

  13. I still don't see what was wrong with the tweet. The administration doesn't even try to hide its appalling racism, they get called out on it, and the person who calls them out on it is in trouble? The fuck have we gotten to?

    1. He's a spineless cuck.

    2. youre intelligent.

      The Left have devolved into a hate and rage motivated fit of opposition and contradiction.

      Youre applying rational analysis to patholigical liars. Not fitting.

      Democrats are Mentally Ill.

      They need little paper cans with quarter slots at C stores to collect funds for treatment.

  14. When your FIRST and PRIMARY condition for nominating someone to the highest court in the land is not their competence for the job, but their race, you ARE a truly appalling person. And dangerous.

    1. Imagine being the negress justice whose sole distinguishing feature is being birthed of African ancestry, as you spend your first day at work down the hall from a portrait of Thurgood Marshall.

      Congratulations. You may as well take Marshall off the wall, lay him down on the floor, and shit on him.

      Because he’s got to be turning over in his grave, knowing he worked his way up despite being black, only to be followed by an unqualified cunt like you.

      1. Hey, it worked for Kamala. She is revered by the ... oh, wait.

  15. All right, the choice of words was poor. But to say that Shapiro was claiming that black women are incapable of serving as Supreme Court justices is a gross distortion in bad faith. If anyone should be fired it should be the Dean.

    By the way, why have I never seen a white player on the Georgetown basketball team?

    1. I thought the choice of words were the direct, honest type that need to be said more often.

    2. Gross distortion in bad faith is what lawyers do.

  16. This kind of nit does nothing to advance racial justice. It's not hard to see that the original tweet was advocacy for a particular person. If you work at it you can misread "we'll get lesser black woman" to mean that any Black woman is lesser, but that's a reading comprehension problem. It's almost as if racial justice advocates had nothing better to work on, which is absolutely not true.

    1. And Soave reads it that same way. One of those soft ways that he reveals his biases and how he can't fundamentally understand some issues or apply libertarian principles

      1. He did not read it that way. What makes you say that?

        1. What makes you say that?

          Could be the part where he said:

          Shapiro's wording was certainly misguided

          Which can only be true if you take the wildly uncharitable interpretation. I know you don't actually ever bother reading anything you comment upon or link to, which is why you get your own sources stuffed up your ass so routinely, but it can actually be quite helpful.

          1. I’m sure Mike will make some excuse for Robby in the morning.

        2. Forget it Mikey, you're out of your element.

    2. Yes it’s an uncharitable reading, by people whose club Shapiro wants to join. It’s their standards he should be measured by, not the standards of a rational person.

  17. It was a prediction. Not a categorical statement that all black women are lesser than Sri.

    Law is a world built on hostile interpretation.

    1. Shapiro is hoisted by his own petard, both as a lawyer and as someone who has obviously been trying to avoid stepping on too many progressive toes.

      1. I will say that Professor Shapiro has been unsparing in his criticism at a policy level, and intuits personal motivations of others. More than once, he has ascribed malevolent personal motivations behind policy choices (ala, building and reinforcing the border wall on our Mexico border; prompt repatriation of illegal aliens to their home countries; etc), and those who support those policies.

        Now, the measuring stick he used to judge others will be used to measure him.

        1. So, iow, you advocate retaliation.

          Stick your head in a bucket of the Excrenent youre shoveling out..

          1. What he and I are advocating is for libertarians to ignore this. Shapiro is an illiberal opportunist who wants to join an illiberal organization and he has run afoul of their rules.

            Shapiro has no right or expectation to work at Georgetown. that’s the libertarian view.

  18. Collectivists strive to out-collectivize "one" another. But Herbert Hoover, America's "Dry Hope," was named that after Jess Willard, the "White Hope," lost to Jack Johnson. During WW1 Bert became "Food Czar" who set housewives "Hooverizing Against The Hun." No newspaperman could resist dubbing Harry Anslinger Hoover's "Drug Czar." Then along comes Sweepy Joe Biden to institutionalize prohibitionist Czarism in 1986. Biden recently knighted "Rahul Gupta" with that coveted Title of Nobility.

    1. Take your fucking meds Hank. All of them. At the same time.

      1. ...with alcohol. Clinton amounts.

      2. I get the impression he wrote a term paper decades ago that had all his little factoids in them and is obsessed with quoting it. No matter how bizarre and irrelevant the context.

    2. And then Robert Taft became CHIEF Justice!! DO-O-O-OH doesn’t it just chap your hide to this day?!?!?! (Wait, what decade is it? Yep, 20s—back to Hoover and Taft) DO-O-O-OH!!!!!!!!

    3. Jesus H. Fucking Christ on a pogo stick, why did they let you out of the institution you batshit prog?

      Muted because you have yet to say anything more coherent than SQRLSY, even if your text vomit usually is shorter.

    4. Yeah? And then what happened?

  19. "The tweets' suggestion that the best Supreme Court nominee could not be a Black woman

    He didn't say a black woman could not be the best nominee, he said a black woman isn't the best nominee. When you have to lie about the facts to reach your conclusion it's an admission the facts don't support that conclusion.

    Also according to him the best nominee is not white or Asian, so the fact that it isn't a black woman doesn't seem particularly meaningful and is certainly not a slur.

    1. Should have said East Asian.

    2. "The tweets' suggestion that the best Supreme Court nominee could not be a Black woman"

      Another #LibertarianMoment at Woke Reason.

      They play to The Narrative even as they pretend to oppose it.

      Such is the life of the Controlled Opposition.

      1. That was a quote from the Georgetown dean, not Soave's own thoughts.

  20. "given that he has apologized, the university should accept this and move on"

    LOL

  21. “lesser black woman”? That qualifies as either too clueless or too racist to be a professor, or both. He’ll have to have a whole lot of bona fides to change my mind.

    1. What is "racist" about looking at Bidens list of potential nominees and find that they are worse than his preferred candidate?

    2. But he was totalky competent to be a Professor till now.

      You hate filled liberals are thin liars.

    3. He specifically identified the best candidate. Who happens to not be black, white, native American, Hispanic, pacific Islander, Arabic, or any other racial/ethnic group that is not Asian. I would say that someone who can identify a particular candidate and know enough about her jurisprudence to know both that she belongs on the bench and has an approach to the law consistent with the sitting president's desires has a clue. And barring any additional evidence that Shapiro consistently favors Asians, I think that claims of racism are a heavy lift. As Shapiro believes he has identified the best candidate, all other candidates by definition are lesser. He says "black woman" because that is the president's strated criterion and Shapiro is irritated that criterion excludes his preferred candidate.

  22. Oh , poor Shapiro is unhappy that the progressives are trying to kick him out of the cathedral again, after all that brown nosing he engaged in.

  23. What's funny is that what Biden's doing is the very definition of discrimination, but will simply be referred to as history because it fits what a large group of people want to believe. If I were a black women who was asked to interview, I would decline. It's one thing for being black and female to add something to the resume. It's quite another for it to be the resume.

    1. Yes but youre honest.

      Joe Biden is a child molester.

      He belongs to a church of child molesters. Catholic.

      One classic sign of being a sexual predator is memory loss. He has that.

      If hes that mentally disturbed, nothing he does or says is ' right.'

      Fuck Joe Biden

      1. He likely spent years raping his daughter in her childhood. Maybe the boys too. As Hunter is a sexual predator, raping niece Natalie since she was 14, maybe younger.

        1. And now hes putting the wood to his own party!

          Delicious! Love the smell of Democrat failure in the Morning.

  24. Right-wing bigots gotta stick together, eh, Robby?

    With all of this damned progress, it's getting hard out there for a clinger in modern America.

    Carry on, clingers. . . but only so far and so long as better Americans permit.

    1. Yeah if you're not careful Artie will sic his legions of skateboard wielding faggots upon you and you will shudder and quake at their fury, right before you blow their lung out the back of their chest.

    2. Careful Arty. A whole mob of rioters tried to take out Kyle Rittenhouse. A teenager with minimal training and no combat experience. That worked out very poorly for your friends.

      Pray that you don’t Rittenhoused by your betters.

    3. Conservatives are a majority not Americans.

      I am your better ????

  25. The problem is not Shapiro's sincerity of belief. When he says he does not believe that immutable characteristics determine the worth of a human being, it is 100% true; his body of work clearly shows this. The problem is the 'wokeness' of Academia today to brand anyone with the dreaded 'racist' label.

    From a management perspective: Close call on whether Professor Shapiro gets canned or not.

    Why a close call? Having read his tweet....Holy Shit. What the hell was Professor Shapiro thinking with the phrase "lesser black woman" in any sentence, let alone a fucking public tweet. Are you daft, Professor Shapiro?! I literally had to re-read your tweet three times to actually believe I was seeing it from your hand; it just did not compute.

    Now, Professor Shapiro is presumably going to fund raise in his new position, and do public speaking engagements. It is a prestigious position. So now when you google Professor Shapiro, guess what will be in the search results? Yeah, this tweet. And the controversy. The tweet that does not reflect his true heart and beliefs (I 100% believe him when he says this). This was a brain-fart of epic proportions, and to be brutally honest, it reflects a stunning lack of common-sense judgment on the part of Professor Shapiro. And that is a legitimate ground to question his further employment in his current capacity. Can you imagine a situation where Professor Shapiro attempts to give a public speech on behalf of CATO, and he is heckled as a racist over his tweet? Talk about a mess that the CATO Institute does not need...

    That is the management side of the equation, to me. Decent human being, a leading luminary in constitutional law, but completely and utterly blew it with that tweet. For the good of the institution he voluntarily serves, Professor Shapiro should consider all of his options, and absolutely take extreme care over the next couple of weeks to avoid exacerbating this sorry spectacle. Just do not make it worse.

    Maybe some good can come out of all of this. I choose to believe that Professor Shapiro has the innate human qualities and strength of personal character to actually make some good come from this. But it is challenging to see that path right now. But first, do no more harm!

    1. You hid your lying ' attack the victim" comment under a pile of linguistic excrement.

      Now go gargle.

    2. Did you read the WHOLE tweet? You know, where it's a "lesser black woman" compared to his preferred candidate? Because it's wrong to judge or hire someone on the color of their skin, rather than the content of their career and character, amirite?

      His only mistake was not realizing how stupid and racist the left is.

      1. Pretty bad judgment call, wouldn't you say = His only mistake was not realizing how stupid and racist the left is.

        That is the part that would concern me: the bad judgment.

        1. Yeah, it was him, not the Karens who chose to interpret his comments in a certain way, right?

          1. No Sevo, I mean look at it this way: Professor Shapiro has been hired into executive management for a non-profit. There should have been a teeny-tiny part of his 'executive management brain' that said "Danger Will Robinson" when reading the phrase "lesser black woman" in any public tweet. Men in his position are paid not to make those kinds of unforced errors. It is not just about him; it is also about the impact he is having on the organizations he serves.

            If you are a Board member, are you happy right now? No, you're not. This is a mess that you never intended and never wanted and never did anything to make....but for the completely idiotic tweet an executive manager from your organization. Maybe that person's executive judgment should be re-examined and re-assessed.

            The management aspect is a different lens, Sevo. It does not matter whether you and I agree with him (we probably do).

    3. It all comes back to this: if you don't agree with someone, you're a racist. If you don't agree with a Black person, you're a RACIST!!!!!.

      So sick of "woke".

      Let's go Brandon!

      1. It really is the wokeness of academia that is the problem here.

        Professor Shapiro is guilty of poor judgment. Today's woke academia is guilty of far worse, with much greater impact.

  26. He committed the greatest sin any person can commit. He offended a black person.

    To be fair he should have used a different word than lesser. But his underlying point is correct,

    1. how do you know she was offended?

      Youre a poor liar...

  27. Discrimination is good.

    Its the basis for Evolution. Leftists are ' all up in that.'

    The entire Nomination process is discrimination.

    His tweet was fine. Some liar misinterpreting it for political reasons to discriminate against him bc HES WHITE isnt his fault.

    Fuck Joe Biden

  28. WHAT MATTERS (MORE)? BIDEN'S ISM OR ONE LAW PROF'S

    Shapiro doesn't get to make the seat-filling pick; Biden gets to nominate, and Biden has already committed himself to discriminate on the basis of race and sex, and to limit the recruitment pool accordingly. So, shouldn't the latter be the controversy, not the former? The former involving Shapiro's favoritism for a specific jurist identified by name, rather than membership in a particular class of humans in which in/out status is based on or one more immutable characteristics unrelated to merit.

    If Shapiro thinks that Solomon/ia Grand Wisdom or whoever is the best candidate, the entire remainder of humanity is necessarily -- in his opinion -- "lesser" (or - let's say - the entire pool of persons that meet formal eligibility requirements for the office).  

    Also, there can be no "most qualified" candidate because that notion presupposes rankability of candidates in an objective fashion on a single recognized quantifiable/scalable performance measure ( metric). Legal talent/jurisprudential performance is not amenable to that, and the nominating decision is unavoidably political in any event.

    For one, the selection of a candidate must, after all, consider "electability" in terms of Senate confirmation. There can be no objectively "best" candidate even from that politico-realist perspective. Judgments have to be made, and Biden's a-priori race- and sex-based selection/exclusion criteria are what constitutes poor/terrible/reprehensible judgment before we even get to discussion of the qualifications and "temperament" of a small group of specific individuals.
     

  29. Just goes to show, black students are just fine with choices made on the basis of race so long as its their race. If Biden had made any other racial preference people would have been up in arms.

    1. Biden prefers teen age girls.

      Not sure if he cares about their skin colors, so long as they smell nice.

  30. It's bad, but I only have so many shits to give and I do not feel giving one about this.

  31. Shapiro's wording was fine, and meant exactly what needed to be said: pick the best, which means by definition, that someone else is not the best.

    It's time to stop apologizing.

    1. Yeah, he shouldn't have apologized. Just reworded and doubled-down:

      "Objectively best pick for Biden is Sri Srinivasan, any other candidate of any race is a lesser choice. If you think my choice is anti-black, talk to your President for making this about committing to black supremacy out of the gate. If you my choice is racist, talk to an Asian (Indian) about why they can't be the best candidate objectively. If you think it's both and you don't think there's anything wrong with it, you're every bit as much a racial supremacist as someone who thinks the seat should be filled by a white person and there's nothing wrong with that... objectively."

    1. Someone finally died of something other than covid.
      Weird.

    2. “Suddenly he started struggling to breathe. He was gasping and choking.”

      'I called the other girls for help and we started pumping his heart.'

      Robert John Swain
      1952-2022
      "You and the other girls can worry about pumping my heart when I'm dead, keep going."

      1. Yeah I BET they were pumping something....

        HA!

  32. The phrasing "lesser black woman" was particularly ugly by itself, of course, but is being misconstrued by those calling for Shapiro to be fired.

    If he had used the phrase "lesser white man" there would have been no student complaints, no admonishment from the school, and no Reason.com article right here.

    1. Give that man/woman/womyn a Cigar!

  33. The literal legal definition: prej·u·dice
    /ˈprejədəs/ harm or injury that results or may result from some action or judgment.

    A high-end hire is supposed to know better than to step on his own dick, then get in his car and back over it, then delete his tweets and thereby finish off his cock by shoving it into an air fryer.

    He can't know that Sri Srinivasan is better than Biden's pick because Biden hasn't made the pick yet. Q.E.D no black woman could be as good as Sri Srinivasan, no matter who she is. Total self-own.

    Meanwhile all the wingnut blathering about Biden's racism & affirmative action was fucking silent when Emperor Tang chose Barrett, who clearly is the leading legal mind in America.

    All the wingnut team players are full of vim and vigor on this thread. As Orange Julius likes to say: Sad.

    1. You could do us and the world a real favor; stuff your TDS up your ass so your head has some company, steaming pile of lefty shit.

      1. That's what you got? Where's the rest?

        1. How about, it doesn't matter who Biden picks and that isn't what Shapiro was writing about. He was writing about one particular person, Sri Srinivasan, who Shapiro feels is the best candidate. Unfortunately, Sri Srinivasan, is not considered black, nor a woman. Shapiro's gripe was the Sri Srinivasan would get no consideration because the pick had been determined to meet a very narrow consideration and discriminated against him. I would say that is a prejudicial action.

          1. Too many words; if you're not making up funny names for Trump, this asshole doesn't have any interest.

        2. You got more than you deserved, TDS-addled asshole

          1. You didn't get enough. Probably from your mommy, but maybe your dad didn't want to spend any time with you either.

            TDS. That's hilarious. Because hating on Cheeto Benito can only be irrational. Meanwhile being an incel lifer hasn't done a thing to your cognition.

            Shapiro's gripe was the Sri Srinivasan would get no consideration because the pick had been determined to meet a very narrow consideration and discriminated against him .|

            And where was Shapiro's gripe when Barret, Kavanaugh, and Gorsuch were sent up? Nowhere, that's where. Because his gripe actually has nothing to do with Sri Srinivasan and everything to do with his revulsion that Biden has the power to decide that he wants a black woman on the court, for whatever reasons Biden may have, because that's the prerogative of the President.

            Like I said, sad.

    2. that was a lying contradiction.

      No harm was done, by your definition.

      Go stick your tongue i n a light socket.

  34. "...While ensuring that the Supreme Court better reflects the diversity of the country is a worthwhile goal,..."

    Assumes facts not in evidence.

    1. The SC should be the weakest of all federal branches. Take away judicial review focus only on federal crimes as defined by the Constitution. Federal matters of debate (constitutional or not) should be decided by the States at the States Legislatures. As Jefferson and Madison intended in 1798 and 1799

      1. That was a bullshit comment.

        You tried your best to be deceptive- fail

        You tried to subveryt the Constitution by pretending one Branch should be weaker, then you desperately and deceitfully tried to employ Red Herring by suddenly changing the topic to "State"

        Non sequiter Fail

        Youre not a good liar. Give it up.

        1. PS your deceptive Meme of 'weak Supreme court" is telegraphing your hate for SCOTUS catching and slapping Biden down for his vaccine mandate.

          The Court exists for just that purpose, to check power hungry Dictators like your Boy Groper Joe.

          Its Three Co Equal Branches whether you like it or not. Thats a Check against power mad Democrat Dictators trying to subvert the Constitution using both the Congress and Presidency.

          You Left Wing trolls do a poor job of hiding your Agendas.. all it takes is keeping up with the news and watching comments like yours for correlation with radical Leftist memes...

          As in this case..

          FAIL!

          1. ha ha ha...I've never been called a leftie (why not bolshie)..my point was the SC never was given judicial review and the Federal Govt was a creation of the States as such the States in the end should have the final decision on any federal law. Now every state can nullify by itself-the republic would go down in flames quick but a super majority of States (in this case 30) should be able to nullify any federal law or agency decision or sc decision. Excepting the Bill of Rights (which the Federal Govt has shredded anyway).

  35. The Shapiro story has raised a valid question: Is it racist to believe that a Scotus nomination based on race and gender necessarily excludes superior candidates from the pool of potential nominees?

    The accusation has been raised at an awkward time. It will take more than felicity of language to defend the concept of permissible racism against a defense of poorly-chosen words.

    1. Any primary qualification not based on merit will potentially exclude candidates with higher merit. It is part of the practical argument of why racial discrimination is bad for society.

    2. Does the process exclude superir candidates/.??

      Look at the CVs of the Justices on the SCOTUS site, that question answers itself.

      The three radical Leftists are clearly JV political appointees with extremely thin experience as Judges.

      Yes it does, when Democrat shill Presidents are nominating them solely because they are willing to subvert Justice for political ends.

      That should be offensive. To everyone.

      1. Giving the devil his due, Scalia actually suggested that although he would never agree politically with any Obama appointee, he would appreciate "some smart, like Kagan" to debate the cases with.

        OTOH, as to "the wise latina".....

  36. He has to go. A member of that privilege class who has pushed for equal outcomes for decades but not applied to himself. Needs to go...

    1. He needs to go why>?

      And a valid answer is NOT your hate and retaliation filled ad hominem attacks.

      Shes worthless as a Nominee. He knows it.

      You just dont like another INCOMPETENT DEMOCRAT being exposed.

      Go soak your head in gasoline then enjoy a cigarette.

      1. Are you reading my comments? I'm being sarcastic because his guy is the CATO type of libertarian. Mask mandates, vaccine mandates...see my point. CATO is a joke. Just wanna be NYT, Wapo, slate/salon, New yorker writers. When you spend most of your time bashing libertarians (esp those who came in with Ron Paul)..dont expect them to have your back.

Comments are closed.