Wed. May 11th, 2022

In 2020, at least 70% of National Football League (NFL) players were black. This was not the result of an intentional hiring practice but of a performance-related one. Top performers, when it comes to speed, strength and agility on the gridiron, are overwhelmingly black. This is also a factor within the Women’s National Basketball Association where 68.5% of players are African-American.

Black NFL players over-represent, by tenfold, our African-American male population. Thus, if a coach announced his goal was to field a much more diverse team – more accurately mirroring America’s racial makeup of a white majority – he would necessarily have to limit selection to a pool of only white candidates.

Such a decision would almost surely generate irate fans ultimately bearing witness to their team’s deteriorating performance. The reality is that NFL success clearly turns on performance and not on diversity. Thus, only the top performers, regardless of race, are selected to play – and black athletes overwhelmingly fit the high-performance bill.

Interestingly, one NFL playing position under-represented by black players for many years was quarterback. Social justice warriors jumped all over this. Not until 2017 did all 32 active NFL teams start at least one black quarterback and by 2020, 10 of 32 starting quarterbacks were black. However, no one today criticizes the inequities of a player selection process overwhelmingly benefiting blacks over whites, specifically because it is based on performance.

Everyone associated with an NFL team – owner, coach, players and fans – all want a winner. What is important is playing a 17-game season, qualifying for postseason play, going on to win the Super Bowl and proving you are the best of the best.

But, what if the NFL made the irrational decision that postseason single elimination games would no longer determine Super Bowl finalists? What if it decided the final two teams to compete had to be geographically diverse, representing different regions of the country, as selected by NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell?

For the team benefiting from this selection process and then going on to win the Super Bowl, the haunting question will always be whether it really represented the best the NFL had to offer. Clearly such a process would be unfair to players, regardless of race, who had worked hard to win games but were not selected by Goodell to represent the league in the final contest.

During his 2020 presidential campaign, Joe Biden promised, if elected and a position opened up on the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS), he would nominate a black female. With the retirement of Justice Stephen Breyer, Biden, in a rare act, made good on his promise, nominating D.C. Circuit Court Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to replace him.

While Biden significantly reduced the pool of qualified jurists by making gender and race pre-qualifications, he dismissed dozens of other candidates equally or possibly even better qualified. This denied us from the outset a guarantee that the best of the best were being considered, especially due to an inherent flaw in Biden’s nominee selection process.

To help identify his nominee, Biden engaged Minyon Moore – an outside adviser actively involved in Kamala Harris’ selection as the vice presidential nominee. Moore is both a Critical Race Theory (CRT) promoter and a Black Lives Matter (BLM) board member. Given the title “Nomination Adviser for Engagement” responsible to “mobilize a nationwide engagement effort focused on confirmation,” Moore unfairly put the search spotlight only on those having similar views.

Any SCOTUS nominee embracing BLM has questionable credentials as BLM is a Marxist ideology conflicting with the liberty-focused ideology espoused in the U.S. Constitution, which SCOTUS is obligated to uphold. Additionally, BLM’s belief that only black, rather than all, lives matter is at odds with the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) the U.S. signed, recognizing the equality of all human life. Thus, any U.S. government embrace of BLM runs afoul of the UDHR as well.

However, Secretary of State Antony Blinken outlandishly authorized U.S. embassies around the world to display the BLM flag on the first anniversary of the death of George Floyd, who was killed while resisting police arrest. Blinken’s rationalization was, “For the United States to be a credible force for human rights around the world, we have to face the realities of racism and hatred here at home.” Sadly, his statement fails to face the realities of anti-white racism and hatred inherent within BLM’s ideology. The issue of U.S. government support for a racist BLM is bound, eventually, to come before the SCOTUS.

As for embracing CRT, a SCOTUS nominee is adhering to the belief that in life, white privilege is responsible for every aspect of black hardship. Thus, race issues coming before such a nominee would never receive fair adjudication.

Nor can we ignore that Judge Jackson was on a shortlist of candidates provided by a left-wing judicial activist organization financed by dark money – Arabella Advisors. This group spent over $1 billion putting Biden and Democratic senators into office and now looks to be rewarded for doing so.

Finally, eagerness to select specific gender/race requirements for a SCOTUS nominee overlooks Judge Jackson’s competency in correctly interpreting the law. Despite impressive education credentials, her decision record is discouraging – many reversed by fellow liberal judges. As such, she is not promoted as a faithful steward of the Constitution.

If Goodell were to select an NFL player of the year annually, one thing he would not do is limit selection to a single racial group as all players deserve consideration. The same is true of Biden’s SCOTUS selection. He wrongly eliminated a very deserving group of candidates simply to score a SCOTUS first. Fixing the selection game as he did will always leave people wondering if Jackson really represents the best of the best the judiciary had to offer. Described as “the most radical judge ever nominated” for a SCOTUS seat, her numerous reversed decisions to date already tell us she is not.

Content created by the WND News Center is available for re-publication without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@wndnewscenter.org.

SUPPORT TRUTHFUL JOURNALISM. MAKE A DONATION TO THE NONPROFIT WND NEWS CENTER. THANK YOU!

The post SCOTUS selection through the eyes of the NFL appeared first on WND.