Senator Ted Cruz has stated that President Joe Biden’s pledge to solely consider a black female to replace retiring Justice Stephen Breyer constitutes racial discrimination and may be unlawful.
Cruz claimed in an interview with Fox News Sunday that he considers Biden was wrong to discriminate by suggesting he would only accept a black woman to replace Breyer.
“What the president said is that only African American women are eligible for this slot, that 94 percent of Americans are ineligible,” he said.
“The way Biden ought to do it is to say, ‘I’m going to look for the best justice,’ interview a lot of people, and if he happens to nominate a justice who was an African American woman, then great,” he said.
“If Fox News put a posting, we’re looking for a new host for Fox News Sunday and we will only hire an African American woman or a Hispanic man or a Native American woman, that would be illegal,” he added.
Cruz is far from the only legal expert who feels Biden’s announcement is unconstitutional and illegal. Alan Dershowitz, senior professor of law at Harvard Law School, indicated late last month that what the president was doing was almost definitely illegal.
“I think it may be unconstitutional.” “It would be unlawful if he declared he was going to nominate the first… Muslim to the court,” Dershowitz told Fox News anchor Maria Bartiromo.
“As the Constitution, Article 6, specifically provides that no religious test should ever be required. I think the 14th and 19th Amendments also extend that to no racial or gender tests,” he added.
Another constitutional expert, George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley, stated in a column published on his official website on Sunday that the Supreme Court has previously rejected the exact race-based criteria Biden has pledged to use to select Breyer’s replacement, claiming that such anticompetitive restrictions have already been found unconstitutional as well as illegal in schools or businesses.
“While there may be legitimate points of distinction with a Court appointment, there is little discussion of why we should use a threshold exclusionary rule for admission to the highest court that the Court would not allow in any admission to a school or business,” he wrote.