Chuck Schumer opposes Trump judicial nominee because he’s … white

Via the Daily Caller, you know a Democrat’s screwed up badly when Lindsey Graham has an unkind word to say about him.

“I’ve known Chuck Schumer for years. He is not a racist, but this was an absolutely shameful reason to vote against a very qualified nominee like Marvin Quattlebaum.

“This is political correctness run amok. Voting against a highly qualified nominee because of the color of his skin does nothing to bring our country and nation together. Frankly it is a massive step backward.

“I judge nominees on the content of their character, not the color of their skin. Chuck Schumer should do the same.”

Schumer’s miffed, he claims, because two different Obama nominees for the same vacancy — both black — were blocked by Republicans from confirmation. Sounds racist! But wait:

Obama’s first nominee for the seat, Alison Renee Lee, was opposed by both senators from South Carolina, one of them the only black Republican in the Senate. Why? Because she had lowered bail for a burglary suspect who then went out and killed someone. That’s the “significant bond issue” to which Gowdy’s referring. The next nominee for the seat was Donald Beatty, chief justice of the South Carolina Supreme Court. He was nominated in late February 2016, when Mitch McConnell was aggressively slow-walking Obama judicial nominees on grounds that the outcome of the impending presidential election should decide who gets to make the appointment. Beatty got caught in the same snare as Merrick Garland.

Either way, not racist. And apparently many of Schumer’s Democratic colleagues agreed. Marvin Quattlebaum, Trump’s new nominee for the seat, was confirmed this morning by a healthy margin:

Why’d Schumer make such a stink, then? Like Gowdy says, he voted recently to confirm another white nominee from South Carolina. Did he see the poll this morning showing most Americans think Trump is a racist and decide to make hay of it? Is he worried about minority midterm turnout and thought this might be a useful fight to pick? There’s nothing unusual about a Democrat demanding greater “diversity” in a given industry or profession, but it is unusual to have him dispensing with code words and stating forthrightly what that means, i.e. withholding jobs from qualified white candidates in certain circumstances *because* they’re white. Between this and the murmuring lately about a ban on all semiautomatic guns, not just “assault weapons,” I’m excited for this bold new era of Democratic truth-telling about their terrible beliefs.

[embedded content]

This post originally appeared on Hot Air


Leave a Reply