WOW! An historic day indeed. I never thought this day would come to pass. Breathtaking. But it’s really about Judge (What’s Her Name) qualifications to serve as a Supreme Court Justice. I mean, every newscaster’s report and newspaper story you read goes on relentlessly about her judicial qualifications. Yet they always miss the most critical point, which is her nomination by the heroic President Biden which is clearly a victory, no it’s bigger than that! It’s clearly an historic occasion. I mean, perhaps it has slipped past you, and I understand how easily it could have, but this woman, Judge (What’s Her Name) is breaking down walls that makes Kamala Harris look a poor imitation. I know, we all thought the VP raised that bar so high that most people will undergo vertigo and all that implies, but just think about it! Judge (Girl With No Name) is making us all exhibit the effects of vertigo at 8 Miles High, and unlike VP Harris those effects are not triggered every time her name is mentioned.
However, I digress: Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson is, from all reports, eminently qualified to get a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court – and before I proceed, let me take this opportunity to remind everyone that Judge (What’s Her Name) is the very first African American nominated to the Supreme Court, who also is a woman! An historic event for sure. She has had a long lifetime serving under the man she will replace – did I mention yet that Judge (You Know Her Name) is the first woman nominated to the Supreme Court that also just happens to be an African American? This event will certainly become a national holiday. Not to mention, as we all know, her record as a judge promises that she will likely revolutionize the way the Court rules on cases. I doubt it bears repeating all the amazing court decisions she made before being nominated to join the Court, but the depth of insight that all the newscasters just cannot stop pointing out tells the whole story. For sure, none of that bears repeating and yet it is being repeated. By the way, since I am not boring you with those so well-known innovative theories of law she has already introduced, let me tell you something you may not have heard about Judge (Look Up Her Number): never before has there been a nominee that is both a woman and an African American. WOW!!
You know what really makes me proud to be an American? It’s that I get to call out, “Bullshit!” when the community of opinion makers try to sell us an empty paper bag as something that is full of something worth more than shit. In essence, in a nation that celebrates its melting pot narrative and cultural diversity there is a noticeable contraction of every issue into a binary choice. And such is the case with President Biden’s present nominee for the Supreme Court. A woman named Ketanji Brown Jackson, who has served as a judge and certainly has an admirable personal history. Unfortunately, those are not sufficient qualifications to become a Supreme Court Justice. And what’s worse, the opinion makers are not saying anything to help me decide if I should support her or not. Using the common opinion-maker binary classification on the left, there are only two pieces of information about Ms. Jackson, and on the right, we have a series of unsubstantiated accusations and implied associations.
The left only tells us that Ms. Jackson is the first Black Woman nominated to the Supreme Court and that she has ruled in a very similar fashion as Justice Breyer, the man she would replace on the court. Odd, I thought President Biden was choosing a Black Woman to represent the views and values of Black Women? Instead, he nominates someone that will reflect the views of an older Jewish guy?
On the right, we hear she is an example of “woke” policy, wants to enforce Critical Race Theory upon every living being, and is pro-child pornography thus soft on crime. The reality is, her sentencing on child pornography is consistent with the majority of other judges’ sentencing. Also, Critical Race Theory is a description of how systemic racism operates within a particular political, social and cultural construct. It informs, it does not prescribe. (MMTers, sound familiar?) And of course, calling her nomination as a byproduct of “woke” culture displays an intentional misunderstanding of what Woke means. Very simply “woke” is a critical awareness of constructs like Critical Race Theory and other systemic issues while also cognizant of the fact that no single person of any “identity” can truly represent even a plurality of that identity’s experience and needs.
In the end, I really have no idea whether I support Judge Jackson for the Supreme Court. The case being made against her is incredibly weak, but I also fail to notice any outstanding reason to support her. We really need more diversity in our opinion-makers if we want our institutions to truly represent the American mosaic of cultures and ideas – a single Supreme Court Justice will fix nothing.
7 thoughts on “Woke Diversity Makes Me Proud”
Pingback: Woke Diversity Makes Me Proud – Critical News Autoblog
You hit the nail on the head with this one! Diversity has become a buzzword and means nothing if the person in question is towing the neoliberal line anyway.
Whaddaya mean? Our new Supreme Court Justice has already fixed something—Ted Cruz’s wagon! Judge Jackson responded to Ted’s illustrated Glenn-Beck style innuendos with a calm grace and (albeit-unwarranted) respect, revealing an admirable generosity of spirit which Cruz did little or nothing to deserve. I can’t wait to read her first case opinion and then compare it to that of Associate Justice B.M. Kavanaugh. By the way, what does B.M. stand for? Something you might find in a burning paper bag on Clarence Thomas’s porch?
“Very simply “woke” is a critical awareness of constructs like Critical Race Theory and other systemic issues…”
Very simply, it isn’t. Every day brings new dispatches from the woke onslaught. Every day I am reminded of Goethe’s dictum – There is nothing more fearsome than ignorance in action.
” …while also cognizant of the fact that no single person of any “identity” can truly represent even a plurality of that identity’s experience and needs.”
I’m not sure what that means. If it suggests that people are individuals first, and that ‘group membership’ is a secondary and often trifling matter, and that the woke mob appreciate that fact, you are doubly mistaken.
On the other hand, in the spirit of Chairman Mao, ‘diversity’ means whatever they wish it to mean, and they are assembling the apparatus to ensure your acquiescence.
Wilma, Thanks for commenting. But I do feel compelled to respond to your criticisms. First of all, you do understand that this article is mostly satirical, especially at the start and later on I switch to a more serious tone, but still with a satirical slant. It was that latter part that you criticized. I have to ask how long have you been aware of “woke” persons and their philosophy. I have been affiliated with the “woke folk” for 7 years. While I no longer consider myself woke in the current terms being used by many that were part of the woke movement. There is a large area of overlap of my personal beliefs with them. Neither the present day self-described woke or myself and most of my fellow travelers here at Real Progressives would disagree of my very brief definition of woke. The only persons that would concur with your even more vague definition are those that lump typical “liberal” objectives with being woke. That includes people such as Bill Maher and Tucker Carlson; who both use the term woke due to their hatred of Progressives. I presume that regardless of your political affiliation your objective politically is to bury Progressives and Progressive ideas. Actual woke people, 100% of them recognize that choosing a person solely on their identity will not and has not brought about Progressive change. Again, being woke is recognizing there are systemic issues that must be tackled.
Which directly addresses your confusion about my simple statement that I am surprised you don’t understand. Has placing Clarence Thomas on the Supreme Court means that he alone represents all Black nen when he votes on a case? I think you would find that among many Black men there is far from a universal agreement that he does so. It has little to do with anything deeper than no 9 individuals can fairly represent even a plurality of whatever identities they supposedly represent. It is mathematically impossible, so why pretend?
Feel free to continue this discussion, hopefully you have at least a reason to look up what I said. Remember, the focal point of the sarcasm was mostly aimed at the so-called Liberal media, with a couple of shots across the bow of Conservative media as well.
Thanks for your reply to my reply, Brad. If there was a satirical slant to the sentence I plucked from your article, you are correct – I missed it. I have re-read the piece, and I’m afraid I missed it again. Ooops. Apart from that you seem keen to ascribe to me beliefs and intentions that are entirely alien, and certainly not suggested by my brief contribution. If there is anything remotely progressive about a descent into identity politics it certainly hasn’t manifested itself during the current bout, and addressing systemic problems, of which there are many more than the woke care to mention, through the medium of group guilt (with its implicit demand for revenge) has never been a winner. It never occurred to me for a second that one person, of whatever ilk, could or should be expected to fully (or only) represent all those of the same ilk, or be selected for office on that basis. Why would it? Why would it occur to anyone except a zealot? If woke persons are now coming to this realisation, it is a form of evolution. Other exciting discoveries may follow.
Kind regards, Wilma
Wilma, I am not sure how you self identify, so if my guesses were wrong, I apologize. Since you cannot pick up on the satire, then you must presume that I agree with identity politics, so just reread it and recognize that I am making fun of (especially) the MSNBC’s and CNN’s of the world. As I said, I have been connected to the woke movement, and while I have many disagreements with them, identity politics is not one of their weaknesses, that is wholly invented over the past year by Progressive hating Centrists and the Sinclair’s and Fox Network’s of the world. Again, do not fall the MSM lies, anyone that cheered like I characterized Justice Jackson’s supporters because she is a woman – who is also black… Or is she a black who is also a woman? Please help me out there.
One last note of irony. I thought if this satirical article was going to get some pushback, I thought it would be from people that believed I was denigrating Justice Jackson.
I would love to hear your description of a woke person. (maybe I should delve into that in a forthcoming article)