The word 'vag' is clearly a truncated version of 'vagina'. The word isn't an issue, judging by the reports, but rather what the inference is - that the woman in question (I admit, I never heard of her in my life until Dion's thread!) held her esteemed position not through personal achievement or ability, but via some kind of PC box-checking exercise. Then the suggestion that the same alleged positive bias could be used for the replacement appointment, i.e. another female or ethnic minority, or both, depending on whether Trump or his possible successor got to nominate the said judge.
The post did get a few reports, they were carefully examined and then passed to Bryan due to the extensive history involved here. Was the post itself ban-worthy? IMO, in isolation, no. The ban was done under a totting-up decision - think points on your driving license. There comes a point where a straw breaks the camel's back, or in this case Bryans.