GOP Senator Pans Biden Court Pick as “Beneficiary” of “Racial Discrimination”

Sen. Roger Wicker predicts no Republican votes for Biden’s not-yet-named nominee.

Sen. Roger Wicker on a Congressional visit to Kyiv, Ukraine.Pavlo Bagmut/Ukrinform/ZUMA

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

The Onion headline writes itself: White Man From South Thinks Black Woman Getting Unfair Advantage. In this instance, it’s Mississippi Republican Sen. Roger Wicker, who told a local radio host that the first Black woman named to the Supreme Court will be a “beneficiary” of affirmative action in getting the job. “This new justice will probably not get a single Republican vote,” Wicker said, according to the Mississippi Free Press.

President Biden’s pledge to nominate a Black woman to the highest court is ironic, according to Wicker, because the Court will soon take up two cases about affirmative action in college admissions. “Supreme Court is at the very time hearing cases about this sort of affirmative racial discrimination,” Wicker said yesterday on SuperTalk Mississippi Radio, “while adding someone who is the beneficiary of this sort of quota.” 

Wicker did not remark on the great advantages that have helped him ascend to the Senate. Wicker was born in segregated Mississippi, where his father, a county prosecutor, would go on to be a state senator and judge. Wicker followed in his footsteps as a legacy admission to the University of Mississippi law school, and got his first taste of national politics as a 16-year-old page for virulent segregationist Rep. Jamie Whitten (D-Miss.). Wicker just might have benefited from, as he put it, “affirmative racial discrimination.” Today, we call that white privilege. Just 11 of 100 sitting senators are people of color—the most diverse Senate ever. White privilege surely has something to do with that.

Wicker’s comments illustrate the racial hierarchy he benefited from. In replacing Justice Stephen Breyer, a white man, with a Black woman, he bemoaned the transition “from a nice, stately liberal to someone who’s probably more in the style of Sonia Sotomayor.” The white man is considered stately, but the Latina woman he usually agrees with is apparently not. And as the Free Press‘ Ashton Pittman points out, Wicker didn’t complain of affirmative action when Trump said he’d replace the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg with a woman, following in the steps of Ronald Reagan, who promised to nominate the Court’s first woman, eventually appointing Justice Sandra Day O’Connor.

It’s only the bad kind of affirmative action when certain people get it.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate