I mean, yes, there's a degree to which anything any world leader ever does will be criticised by somebody. But I think you're buying into bit of a white-persecution complex here.

Barack Obama nominated a white woman, a Hispanic woman, and a white man (who was controversially not considered for the court). Trump nominated two white men and a white woman. Neither Obama nor Trump, as far as I remember, faced any significant pushback for their choices (well, except for that whole Kavanagh being a rapist thing 😅). I think we're a long way away from a world where a president is meaningfully attacked for nominating a white person to the Supreme Court.

The problem, of Biden's own making, is that he publicly pre-announced his intention to eliminate 93% of the population before he started to look for a nominee. So it makes his eventual nominee look like a "diversity hire," it makes it impossible to nominate any other combination of immutable traits, even if they'd be the perfect nominee, and to everybody with a brain, highlights the fact that he sees people of colour as political pawns at best.

I think the last point you make is really interesting, and it'd where almost all of the disagreement lies; what does it mean to be the best person for the job? In a country where black people where openly and legally disadvantaged until less than 60 years ago, how do you decide when to say, "Okay, you've had enough time to catch up, all those old attitudes have faded away, we should ignore that history in all decisions going forward."

I spend a lot of time thinking about this question. But any way I turn it, I can't see a way to claim that that point has been reached. I'm stuck somewhere between those who insist that it happened the moment the ink was dry on the Civil Rights act, and those who seem determined it will never be reached, at least until we use Wakandan technology to travel back in time and prevent the Atlantic slave trade from ever happening.