The Nasty Double Standards That Make This SCOTUS Nomination So Toxic

There are so many interesting firsts to be found on the shortlist of prospective Black women being vetted for the vacancy at the Supreme Court. As we noted last week, in part thanks to President Joe Biden’s promise to nominate a Black woman, the drumbeat of “not smart” had fired up within hours of shortlists being circulated. This summation quickly turned into conjecture about how “some observers” believe Kruger is intellectually superior—a whole new debate thoroughly removed from the substance of either woman’s work. to score judicial opinions out of 100 on factors, like whether the writing is “crisp and punchy.” Conservatives like Ed Whelan then seized on parts of Guberman’s analysis to cherry-pick language suggesting that Jackson is a terrible and tedious writer, relying on a program that he himself conceded no one should “treat as gospel.” We’re missing the opportunity to learn about real women and real work in a quest to score cheap political points. By contrast, conservative judges auditioning for SCOTUS go all out proving their Federalist Society bona fides: Gorsuch used his judicial opinions on the appeals court to advertise himself as an enemy of the administrative state and diehard proponent of religious freedom; Kavanaugh flaunted his support for the unitary executive and hostility to reproductive rights to earn a spot on President Donald Trump’s shortlist; Amy Coney Barrett brandished her Second Amendment maximalism.