Marc Abear: Choice between equality and equity dramatically affects our freedom

To The Daily Sun,

President Joe Biden announced he will only consider a Black woman to replace Stephen Breyer on the Supreme Court. On its face the decision is racist. There is no way to rationalize racism. The announcement has generated widespread disapproval, as it should.

This is an attempt to use the nomination to achieve “equity” instead of “equality.” It feels wrong. It is wrong. In a justice system operating according to the principle of “equity,” people are not treated as individuals. Rather, they are treated as unequal groups. They are subject to the whimsy of judges who choose to restrain or promote groups. There is no justice when equality is lost because there is no fairness, no yardstick of equal treatment.

With Biden’s announcement the very idea of the "rule of law" is being challenged. This is an attack never before seen in America. Biden’s nomination to replace Justice Breyer shows Americans how the choice between equality and equity dramatically affects our freedom.

About three quarters of Americans disagree with President Biden’s decision to nominate based on race. A majority of Democrats say he should consider all possible nominees. But, Biden’s making good on a campaign promise. When his presidential bid was in trouble James Clyburn urged him to make this campaign promise. He did so during the candidates’ Charleston debate. Clyburn endorsed him; Biden won the South Carolina primary and the rest is history.

Biden’s approach to the Breyer replacement has this quid pro quo origin. It also reflects an intensely political Leftist view of the judiciary. Biden said he would appoint a Black woman “to make sure we, in fact, get everyone represented” on the Supreme Court.

What do you believe? Should the courts look like the country they serve? When Americans go to court, they should trust those who render judgment. Do we want a judge to render their decisions based on the law as written? Or do we want them to render their decisions based on the ability to understand each litigant’s lived experience and applying the law equitably? What about the victim’s lived experience?

The current oath of office requires federal judges to administer justice “without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich” and discharge their judicial duties “impartially.” The Constitution guarantees the “equal protection of the laws,” and the same principle is literally chiseled in stone on the Supreme Court building: Equal Justice Under Law.

There’s a big difference between equality and equity. Equality means treating people as equal individuals. Equity means treating people as members of unequal groups. Equitable treatment means we all, victim and perpetrator alike, end up in the same place. Think about that.

In an equitable judicial system this means judges use whatever criteria or standards they wish to identify who we are and what the same place is. Judges choose the result they want. Then they find a way to make it happen, whether the law allows them to do so or not. What’s fair about that?

Marc Abear

Meredith