Recently, President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris held an event to celebrate the confirmation of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to the U.S. Supreme Court. However, it appears that the extent of their achievement is attracting optics rather than meritocracy. Their focus seems to be on filling the judiciary with an assimilated army of diverse judges as opposed to ensuring a fair and balanced justice system. This approach has drawn ire from numerous critics who believe that such an approach undermines the core function of the judiciary.
In an interesting turn of events, the Democrat-held Senate rushed to confirm the final two of Biden’s nominations before the end of its session. These appointments now see Biden’s grand tally of lifetime appointments to the federal bench surpass the sum made during the first Trump administration. While they tout this achievement as a testament to diversity, critics argue that it marks a worrying precedent that compromises judicial independence and fairness.
It is noteworthy that the confirmations of Benjamin J. Cheeks for the Southern District of California, and Serena Raquel Murillo for the Central District of California were met with split votes along party lines. The result was a narrow victory indicative of a divided floor and mistrust towards Biden’s approach to the federal judiciary. This tension in the Senate chamber reveals the controversy behind Biden and Harris’ tactics in manipulating the judiciary.
As we begin the new year, Senate control will shift to the Republicans, and it’s highly doubtful Biden will be able to squeeze any more of his nominations in before Trump’s inauguration on January 20. It raises the question, is Biden’s rush to appoint all these judges indicative of a larger scheme? With these hasty decisions, one wonders how much thought has gone into the vetting and selection process, and what implications these hurried appointments might have on the justice system.
Biden’s slew of appointments consists mainly of district courts judges, with 187 newly seated. Meanwhile, 45 of his appointments were designated to federal appeals courts, and one, Ketanji Brown Jackson, was confirmed to a position on the U.S. Supreme Court. Furthermore, two individuals were appointed to the Court of International Trade. It seems as though the promise to ‘build a bench that looks like America’ may serve as only smoke and mirrors. The focus ought to be on judicial quality and acumen, rather than racial or gender diversity.
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer echoed Biden’s rhetoric, labeling the accomplishment as ‘historic’. The boasting about sheer numbers and diversity, however, can’t mask the overt politicization of the judiciary. ‘One out of every four active judges on the bench has been appointed by this majority’, Schumer stated, emphasizing the Democrat’s aggressive tactic of packing the court with their own appointees.
While diversity is certainly important, critics argue that it has never been the primary factor when considering appointments to the federal bench. The concern is that Biden is placing more emphasis on racial and gender diversity over judicial qualifications and experience. With Biden’s record-setting appointments of women and individuals identifying as Black, Native American, Latino, Latina, Asian American, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander, one might question whether merit has been sacrificed on the altar of identity politics.
Indeed, only eight Black women had ever served at the federal level of the judiciary before Biden took over. Now, Biden’s term has seen 15 Black judges appointed to the federal appeals courts, including 13 women. While some might celebrate this as progress, others caution that it might be a well-orchestrated political ploy. After all, should diversity of race and gender supersede competence and experience?
Biden also appointed the first lifetime judges of color to four districts that had only ever been represented by white judges, including districts in Louisiana, New York, Rhode Island, and Virginia. While these moves are presented as correcting historic racial imbalances, they could be seen as form of race-based tokenism that undermines the credibility of the judiciary. Can justice be truly blind when judges are chosen based on skin color and not merit?
Twelve openly LGBTQ judges, three of them women, were also confirmed under Biden’s reign, not to mention the first four Muslim judges ever appointed to the federal bench and two judges currently living with disabilities. However, in choosing to make diversity the cornerstone of his judiciary agenda, Biden seems to overlook the core responsibility of ensuring the competence and integrity of the federal judiciary.
Interestingly, nearly 100 of Biden’s appointments have previously worked as civil rights lawyers or public defenders. But can a background in activism ensure a balanced and objective approach in dispensing justice? Highlighting their records as activists rather than jurists does little to allay concerns about potential bias.
When compared to President Trump’s picks, Biden’s nominated judges seemed to lack diversity, but experts argue that a diverse judiciary should be about more than just race or gender. They need to bring a wealth of legal experience and varying perspectives to the bench. According to some data, Trump was more likely than previous Republican presidents to nominate women but his appointments were criticized as lacking racial diversity.
However, critics argue that the focus should not just be on increasing minority representation in the judiciary but also on ensuring that the best qualified individuals are appointed regardless of their ethnic or gender identity. They express concern over the Senate’s advice-and-consent role in evaluating federal nominees. Adeel Mangi, the first Muslim American nominated for the appeals court level, highlighted that the process seemed tainted with Islamophobic questions, raising doubts about its fairness.
While Biden and his Democrat allies label their move as a commitment towards diversity, others see it as an attempt to pack the court with ideological allies under the guise of diversity. These blocked nominations comprised candidates of diverse backgrounds, who were not given a fair chance, further reinforcing the perception of bias.
Ultimately, a judiciary that is chosen based on political maneuvering rather than individual merit presents a significant risk to the principles of justice and fair play. Biden and Harris’ insistence on identity over individual merit could very well undermine the principles that form the bedrock of our justice system.