SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States)

Gern Blansten

HughFreakingDillon said:

it's odd to me how people are completely ignoring the first part of Biden's announcement. all he mentions are qualifications. and then "oh by the way....". 

They never get told that part....news is not something they seek out. It's all memes on FB

Ledbetterman10

Gern Blansten said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

it's odd to me how people are completely ignoring the first part of Biden's announcement. all he mentions are qualifications. and then "oh by the way....". 

They never get told that part....news is not something they seek out. It's all memes on FB

No I saw Biden's full tweet. You posted it yesterday. He threw out very generic "qualifications" like character and integrity, which anyone would say about anybody that they're nominating for anything, so that's fine. But he could just leave it at that, and then just pick a black woman. That would make it at least appear like he went through possible nominees of all races, creeds, and genders, and the person that he decided had the most character and integrity was the black woman he ends up choosing. It'd probably be a better "welcome to the spotlight" moment for the nominee too, being picked for her character and integrity, rather than looking like an affirmative action hire, which is probably beneath her.

Gern Blansten

Ledbetterman10 said:

Gern Blansten said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

it's odd to me how people are completely ignoring the first part of Biden's announcement. all he mentions are qualifications. and then "oh by the way....". 

They never get told that part....news is not something they seek out. It's all memes on FB

No I saw Biden's full tweet. You posted it yesterday. He threw out very generic "qualifications" like character and integrity, which anyone would say about anybody that they're nominating for anything, so that's fine. But he could just leave it at that, and then just pick a black woman. That would make it at least appear like he went through possible nominees of all races, creeds, and genders, and the person that he decided had the most character and integrity was the black woman he ends up choosing. It'd probably be a better "welcome to the spotlight" moment for the nominee too, being picked for her character and integrity, rather than looking like an affirmative action hire, which is probably beneath her.

ok I wasn't referring to you directly....just people in general.  It's the new Fox outrage

Ledbetterman10

Gern Blansten said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

Gern Blansten said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

it's odd to me how people are completely ignoring the first part of Biden's announcement. all he mentions are qualifications. and then "oh by the way....". 

They never get told that part....news is not something they seek out. It's all memes on FB

No I saw Biden's full tweet. You posted it yesterday. He threw out very generic "qualifications" like character and integrity, which anyone would say about anybody that they're nominating for anything, so that's fine. But he could just leave it at that, and then just pick a black woman. That would make it at least appear like he went through possible nominees of all races, creeds, and genders, and the person that he decided had the most character and integrity was the black woman he ends up choosing. It'd probably be a better "welcome to the spotlight" moment for the nominee too, being picked for her character and integrity, rather than looking like an affirmative action hire, which is probably beneath her.

ok I wasn't referring to you directly....just people in general.  It's the new Fox outrage

But do you think it's "outrage" similar to what I'm arguing here; just go ahead and pick a black woman without announcing it ahead of time? Or do you think it's outrage because of it being a black woman? I'm guessing the latter based on you putting "read it and weep" as a caption with Biden's tweet, but I could be wrong. 

HughFreakingDillon

Ledbetterman10 said:

Gern Blansten said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

it's odd to me how people are completely ignoring the first part of Biden's announcement. all he mentions are qualifications. and then "oh by the way....". 

They never get told that part....news is not something they seek out. It's all memes on FB

No I saw Biden's full tweet. You posted it yesterday. He threw out very generic "qualifications" like character and integrity, which anyone would say about anybody that they're nominating for anything, so that's fine. But he could just leave it at that, and then just pick a black woman. That would make it at least appear like he went through possible nominees of all races, creeds, and genders, and the person that he decided had the most character and integrity was the black woman he ends up choosing. It'd probably be a better "welcome to the spotlight" moment for the nominee too, being picked for her character and integrity, rather than looking like an affirmative action hire, which is probably beneath her.

it also shows a strong commitment to diversity in the highest of positions and to the African American community specifically. that's a big deal to a lot of people. 

I do understand what you're saying here, but I'd honestly like to hear from someone from that community how they feel about it. Do they feel  pandered to? Or is this a big moment?

Halifax2TheMax

Why does it matter, or more specifically, bother people that President Biden announced on the campaign trail and then followed up with reaffirming nominating a black woman to SCOTUS? Have there been others nominated prior? Is there not a long and horrid history of how black people have been denied opportunities and treated in this country? Is there not a well qualified black woman ready to serve? Based upon the past, you (general you) might believe that not to be the case. Would y’all be upset if he ran on and reaffirmed his intent to nominate a white male?

We all know race doesn’t matter. In anything. Some folks like to think “all things being equal.” And they’re not nor have they been for a very, very, very long time.

Gern Blansten

Ledbetterman10 said:

Gern Blansten said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

Gern Blansten said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

it's odd to me how people are completely ignoring the first part of Biden's announcement. all he mentions are qualifications. and then "oh by the way....". 

They never get told that part....news is not something they seek out. It's all memes on FB

No I saw Biden's full tweet. You posted it yesterday. He threw out very generic "qualifications" like character and integrity, which anyone would say about anybody that they're nominating for anything, so that's fine. But he could just leave it at that, and then just pick a black woman. That would make it at least appear like he went through possible nominees of all races, creeds, and genders, and the person that he decided had the most character and integrity was the black woman he ends up choosing. It'd probably be a better "welcome to the spotlight" moment for the nominee too, being picked for her character and integrity, rather than looking like an affirmative action hire, which is probably beneath her.

ok I wasn't referring to you directly....just people in general.  It's the new Fox outrage

But do you think it's "outrage" similar to what I'm arguing here; just go ahead and pick a black woman without announcing it ahead of time? Or do you think it's outrage because of it being a black woman? I'm guessing the latter based on you putting "read it and weep" as a caption with Biden's tweet, but I could be wrong. 

The GOP rallies their base by dog whistles. The whole narrative of "he should choose the best person not the ethnic type that benefits him (even though this was a campaign promise) is a loud whistle.

JB16057

Gern Blansten said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

Gern Blansten said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

Gern Blansten said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

it's odd to me how people are completely ignoring the first part of Biden's announcement. all he mentions are qualifications. and then "oh by the way....". 

They never get told that part....news is not something they seek out. It's all memes on FB

No I saw Biden's full tweet. You posted it yesterday. He threw out very generic "qualifications" like character and integrity, which anyone would say about anybody that they're nominating for anything, so that's fine. But he could just leave it at that, and then just pick a black woman. That would make it at least appear like he went through possible nominees of all races, creeds, and genders, and the person that he decided had the most character and integrity was the black woman he ends up choosing. It'd probably be a better "welcome to the spotlight" moment for the nominee too, being picked for her character and integrity, rather than looking like an affirmative action hire, which is probably beneath her.

ok I wasn't referring to you directly....just people in general.  It's the new Fox outrage

But do you think it's "outrage" similar to what I'm arguing here; just go ahead and pick a black woman without announcing it ahead of time? Or do you think it's outrage because of it being a black woman? I'm guessing the latter based on you putting "read it and weep" as a caption with Biden's tweet, but I could be wrong. 

The GOP rallies their base by dog whistles. The whole narrative of "he should choose the best person not the ethnic type that benefits him (even though this was a campaign promise) is a loud whistle.

If Biden had pledged to put a white person on the SCOTUS, would you have an issue with that?

You are wrong. He didn't promise to put an "ethnic person" on the SCOTUS. He only gave 1 ethnic group a chance. That isn't racial equality. 

Of course African Americans need representation and are underrepresented but there are other ethnic groups who are not represented at all.

Are you against racial equality?

HughFreakingDillon

it's fucking funny how the right scrambles to find something wrong with this. that this is somehow racist because Biden can't nominate every single minority to the top bench. or it's (big surprise) somehow hypocritical because it would be bad to announce nominating a white man. 

read the freaking room. 

he's committing to putting someone qualified on the bench (as opposed to a beer swilling rapist). 

he's committing to putting someone of colour on the bench (as opposed to a white beer swilling rapist). 

he's committing to putting a woman of colour on the bench (as opposed to a white male beer swilling rapist). 

can he do all minorities at once? nope. but it's still progress. it's slow moving, but it's still better than stagnation or, even worse, regression. 

mickeyrat

JB16057 said:8

Gern Blansten said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

Gern Blansten said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

Gern Blansten said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

it's odd to me how people are completely ignoring the first part of Biden's announcement. all he mentions are qualifications. and then "oh by the way....". 

They never get told that part....news is not something they seek out. It's all memes on FB

No I saw Biden's full tweet. You posted it yesterday. He threw out very generic "qualifications" like character and integrity, which anyone would say about anybody that they're nominating for anything, so that's fine. But he could just leave it at that, and then just pick a black woman. That would make it at least appear like he went through possible nominees of all races, creeds, and genders, and the person that he decided had the most character and integrity was the black woman he ends up choosing. It'd probably be a better "welcome to the spotlight" moment for the nominee too, being picked for her character and integrity, rather than looking like an affirmative action hire, which is probably beneath her.

ok I wasn't referring to you directly....just people in general.  It's the new Fox outrage

But do you think it's "outrage" similar to what I'm arguing here; just go ahead and pick a black woman without announcing it ahead of time? Or do you think it's outrage because of it being a black woman? I'm guessing the latter based on you putting "read it and weep" as a caption with Biden's tweet, but I could be wrong. 

The GOP rallies their base by dog whistles. The whole narrative of "he should choose the best person not the ethnic type that benefits him (even though this was a campaign promise) is a loud whistle.

If Biden had pledged to put a white person on the SCOTUS, would you have an issue with that?

You are wrong. He didn't promise to put an "ethnic person" on the SCOTUS. He only gave 1 ethnic group a chance. That isn't racial equality. 

Of course African Americans need representation and are underrepresented but there are other ethnic groups who are not represented at all.

Are you against racial equality?

women make up better than 50% of the US population. there will be 4 on the court when his nominee is confirmed.

see getting closer to equality

benjs

mickeyrat said:

JB16057 said:8

Gern Blansten said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

Gern Blansten said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

Gern Blansten said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

it's odd to me how people are completely ignoring the first part of Biden's announcement. all he mentions are qualifications. and then "oh by the way....". 

They never get told that part....news is not something they seek out. It's all memes on FB

No I saw Biden's full tweet. You posted it yesterday. He threw out very generic "qualifications" like character and integrity, which anyone would say about anybody that they're nominating for anything, so that's fine. But he could just leave it at that, and then just pick a black woman. That would make it at least appear like he went through possible nominees of all races, creeds, and genders, and the person that he decided had the most character and integrity was the black woman he ends up choosing. It'd probably be a better "welcome to the spotlight" moment for the nominee too, being picked for her character and integrity, rather than looking like an affirmative action hire, which is probably beneath her.

ok I wasn't referring to you directly....just people in general.  It's the new Fox outrage

But do you think it's "outrage" similar to what I'm arguing here; just go ahead and pick a black woman without announcing it ahead of time? Or do you think it's outrage because of it being a black woman? I'm guessing the latter based on you putting "read it and weep" as a caption with Biden's tweet, but I could be wrong. 

The GOP rallies their base by dog whistles. The whole narrative of "he should choose the best person not the ethnic type that benefits him (even though this was a campaign promise) is a loud whistle.

If Biden had pledged to put a white person on the SCOTUS, would you have an issue with that?

You are wrong. He didn't promise to put an "ethnic person" on the SCOTUS. He only gave 1 ethnic group a chance. That isn't racial equality. 

Of course African Americans need representation and are underrepresented but there are other ethnic groups who are not represented at all.

Are you against racial equality?

women make up better than 50% of the US population. there will be 4 on the court when his nominee is confirmed.

see getting closer to equality

That's a great point - I foolishly only mentioned the critical needs for protection the African-American community have, but they might be even more urgent for females' legal representation on the Supreme Court.

mcgruff10

mickeyrat said:

JB16057 said:8

Gern Blansten said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

Gern Blansten said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

Gern Blansten said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

it's odd to me how people are completely ignoring the first part of Biden's announcement. all he mentions are qualifications. and then "oh by the way....". 

They never get told that part....news is not something they seek out. It's all memes on FB

No I saw Biden's full tweet. You posted it yesterday. He threw out very generic "qualifications" like character and integrity, which anyone would say about anybody that they're nominating for anything, so that's fine. But he could just leave it at that, and then just pick a black woman. That would make it at least appear like he went through possible nominees of all races, creeds, and genders, and the person that he decided had the most character and integrity was the black woman he ends up choosing. It'd probably be a better "welcome to the spotlight" moment for the nominee too, being picked for her character and integrity, rather than looking like an affirmative action hire, which is probably beneath her.

ok I wasn't referring to you directly....just people in general.  It's the new Fox outrage

But do you think it's "outrage" similar to what I'm arguing here; just go ahead and pick a black woman without announcing it ahead of time? Or do you think it's outrage because of it being a black woman? I'm guessing the latter based on you putting "read it and weep" as a caption with Biden's tweet, but I could be wrong. 

The GOP rallies their base by dog whistles. The whole narrative of "he should choose the best person not the ethnic type that benefits him (even though this was a campaign promise) is a loud whistle.

If Biden had pledged to put a white person on the SCOTUS, would you have an issue with that?

You are wrong. He didn't promise to put an "ethnic person" on the SCOTUS. He only gave 1 ethnic group a chance. That isn't racial equality. 

Of course African Americans need representation and are underrepresented but there are other ethnic groups who are not represented at all.

Are you against racial equality?

women make up better than 50% of the US population. there will be 4 on the court when his nominee is confirmed.

see getting closer to equality

Solid point.   

benjs

JB16057 said:

Gern Blansten said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

Gern Blansten said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

Gern Blansten said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

it's odd to me how people are completely ignoring the first part of Biden's announcement. all he mentions are qualifications. and then "oh by the way....". 

They never get told that part....news is not something they seek out. It's all memes on FB

No I saw Biden's full tweet. You posted it yesterday. He threw out very generic "qualifications" like character and integrity, which anyone would say about anybody that they're nominating for anything, so that's fine. But he could just leave it at that, and then just pick a black woman. That would make it at least appear like he went through possible nominees of all races, creeds, and genders, and the person that he decided had the most character and integrity was the black woman he ends up choosing. It'd probably be a better "welcome to the spotlight" moment for the nominee too, being picked for her character and integrity, rather than looking like an affirmative action hire, which is probably beneath her.

ok I wasn't referring to you directly....just people in general.  It's the new Fox outrage

But do you think it's "outrage" similar to what I'm arguing here; just go ahead and pick a black woman without announcing it ahead of time? Or do you think it's outrage because of it being a black woman? I'm guessing the latter based on you putting "read it and weep" as a caption with Biden's tweet, but I could be wrong. 

The GOP rallies their base by dog whistles. The whole narrative of "he should choose the best person not the ethnic type that benefits him (even though this was a campaign promise) is a loud whistle.

If Biden had pledged to put a white person on the SCOTUS, would you have an issue with that?

You are wrong. He didn't promise to put an "ethnic person" on the SCOTUS. He only gave 1 ethnic group a chance. That isn't racial equality. 

Of course African Americans need representation and are underrepresented but there are other ethnic groups who are not represented at all.

Are you against racial equality?

What an obnoxious baiting question - it speaks to your level of disingenuousness. 

JB16057

OK. I'll read the room. "Racial equality is not important."

Now on gender, I can understand and agree with that.

Halifax2TheMax

Some interesting data here. Whites make up 60.4% of the population but 63.4% of law school attendees in 2019. Seems like they're overrepresented. Why is that?

2019 Law School Diversity Report: JD Enrollment by Race & Ethnicity (enjuris.com)

And more interesting data here.

Examining the Demographic Compositions of U.S. Circuit and District Courts - Center for American Progress

In looking specifically at the U.S. Courts of Appeals, the following findings emerged:

• Race and ethnicity: Among active judges, whites represent at least 80 percent of the bench on nearly half of all circuit courts.8 There is not a single circuit court whose majority comprises people of color.

In examining the U.S. District Courts, the authors found:

• Race and ethnicity: Among active judges, 39 of the 91 Article III district courts entirely comprise white judges. Active judges of color comprise at least half of the bench on only 13 district courts—14 percent. Just one district court—the District Court of Puerto Rico—entirely comprises judges of color.

Although people of color comprise roughly 40 percent of the U.S. general population, they make up just 17 percent of sitting circuit court judges and 23 percent of active judges. On no circuit court do judges of color comprise more than 36 percent of the bench. The 7th Circuit has no judges of color at all. Moreover, despite comprising 12.5 percent of the U.S population, African Americans make up just 7.5 percent of all sitting circuit court judges and approximately 10 percent of all active judges. African American judges are entirely absent from two circuit courts.13

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit

The 1st Circuit Court’s jurisdiction covers the following states and territories: Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Puerto Rico.20

In looking at the combined populations of these four states and Puerto Rico, one finds that people of color and women comprise approximately 42 percent and 51.5 percent of the general population, respectively. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, African Americans and Asians each make up slightly more than 4 percent of the 1st Circuit’s general population, while Hispanics represent about 32 percent.21

In comparison, the 1st Circuit Court comprises judges who are overwhelmingly white and male. For example, whites comprise 82 percent of sitting judges and 67 percent of active judges on that circuit court. There is only one African American judge and one Hispanic judge on the court—each comprising 9 percent of sitting judges and 17 percent of active judges. There are no Asian American or American Indian judges on the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, nor are there any judges belonging to more than one race or ethnicity.

And despite making up a majority of the general population, there are only two female judges on the court, comprising just 18 percent of all sitting judges and 33 percent of active judges on that court.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit

The 4th Circuit’s jurisdiction covers the following states: Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia.26

In looking at the combined populations of these five states, one finds that people of color and women comprise approximately 38 percent and 51 percent of the general population, respectively. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, African Americans make up approximately 22 percent of the 4th Circuit’s general population, with Asians and Hispanics representing 4 percent and 9 percent, respectively.27

Compared with this, the demographic makeup of the 4th Circuit Court is remarkedly nondiverse. For example, whites comprise 83 percent of sitting judges and 80 percent of active judges on the 4th Circuit. The court includes only two African American judges—comprising 11 percent of sitting judges and 13 percent of active judges—and just one Hispanic judge. There are no Asian American or American Indian judges on the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, nor are there any judges belonging to more than one race or ethnicity.

And despite making up a majority of the general population, there are just five female judges on the court, comprising 28 percent of all sitting judges and 33 percent of active judges on the bench. Moreover, there are no women of color serving on the 4th Circuit bench, and none of the court’s judges self-identify as LGBTQ.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit

The 5th Circuit’s jurisdiction covers the following states: Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas.28

The jurisdiction covered by the 5th Circuit is unique in that people of color comprise a majority of the jurisdiction’s general population. In looking at the combined populations of these three states, one finds that people of color and women comprise approximately 55 percent and 50.5 percent of the general population, respectively. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, African Americans make up roughly 17 percent of the 5th Circuit’s general population, with Asians and Hispanics representing about 4.3 percent and 32 percent, respectively.29

Compared with its the general population, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals is the least racially and ethnically diverse circuit court in the country. For instance, despite making up just 45 percent of the general population, white judges comprise 85 percent of all sitting judges and 81 percent of all active judges on the 5th Circuit Court. Just two circuit judges are African Americans, comprising 8 percent and 12.5 percent of sitting and active judges on that court, respectively. Furthermore, the 5th Circuit has just one Asian American judge and one sitting Hispanic judge. There are no active Hispanic judges on the court, even though Hispanics represent nearly one-third of the 5th Circuit’s general population. There are no American Indian judges serving on the 5th Circuit, nor are there any judges belonging to more than one race or ethnicity.

And despite making up a majority of the general population, female judges comprise only 23 percent of sitting judges and 25 percent of active judges on the 5th Circuit Court. Moreover, there are no women of color serving on the 5th Circuit bench, and none of the court’s judges self-identify as LGBTQ.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit

The 10th Circuit’s jurisdiction covers the following states: Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah, and Wyoming.38

In looking at the combined populations of these six states, one finds that people of color and women comprise approximately 33 percent and 50 percent of the general population, respectively. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, African Americans make up slightly more than 4 percent of the 10th Circuit’s general population, with Asians and Hispanics representing 3 percent and 19 percent, respectively.39

In comparison, the 10th Circuit Court itself comprises judges who are overwhelmingly white: Whites comprise 91 percent of sitting judges and 83 percent of active judges on the court. People of color comprise just 9 percent of the 10th Circuit’s sitting judges and 17 percent of its active judges. The 10th Circuit Court includes only one African American judge and one Hispanic judge, each comprising about 4.5 percent of the court’s sitting judges and 8 percent of its active judges. There are no Asian American or American Indian judges on the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, nor are there any judges belonging to more than one race or ethnicity.

And despite making up a majority of the general population, female judges comprise only about 23 percent of the circuit court’s sitting judges and one-third of its active judges. Moreover, there are no women of color on the 10th Circuit bench, and none of the court’s judges self-identify as LGBTQ.

Continues and includes all the circuit courts.

Examining the Demographic Compositions of U.S. Circuit and District Courts - Center for American Progress

Gern Blansten

JB16057 said:

Gern Blansten said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

Gern Blansten said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

Gern Blansten said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

it's odd to me how people are completely ignoring the first part of Biden's announcement. all he mentions are qualifications. and then "oh by the way....". 

They never get told that part....news is not something they seek out. It's all memes on FB

No I saw Biden's full tweet. You posted it yesterday. He threw out very generic "qualifications" like character and integrity, which anyone would say about anybody that they're nominating for anything, so that's fine. But he could just leave it at that, and then just pick a black woman. That would make it at least appear like he went through possible nominees of all races, creeds, and genders, and the person that he decided had the most character and integrity was the black woman he ends up choosing. It'd probably be a better "welcome to the spotlight" moment for the nominee too, being picked for her character and integrity, rather than looking like an affirmative action hire, which is probably beneath her.

ok I wasn't referring to you directly....just people in general.  It's the new Fox outrage

But do you think it's "outrage" similar to what I'm arguing here; just go ahead and pick a black woman without announcing it ahead of time? Or do you think it's outrage because of it being a black woman? I'm guessing the latter based on you putting "read it and weep" as a caption with Biden's tweet, but I could be wrong. 

The GOP rallies their base by dog whistles. The whole narrative of "he should choose the best person not the ethnic type that benefits him (even though this was a campaign promise) is a loud whistle.

If Biden had pledged to put a white person on the SCOTUS, would you have an issue with that?

You are wrong. He didn't promise to put an "ethnic person" on the SCOTUS. He only gave 1 ethnic group a chance. That isn't racial equality. 

Of course African Americans need representation and are underrepresented but there are other ethnic groups who are not represented at all.

Are you against racial equality?

uh yeah....lots of people would have had an issue with that.

He did make a promise to put an African American woman on the court. Absolutely did.

JB16057

Halifax2TheMax said:

Some interesting data here. Whites make up 60.4% of the population but 63.4% of law school attendees in 2019. Seems like they're overrepresented. Why is that?

2019 Law School Diversity Report: JD Enrollment by Race & Ethnicity (enjuris.com)

And more interesting data here.

Examining the Demographic Compositions of U.S. Circuit and District Courts - Center for American Progress

In looking specifically at the U.S. Courts of Appeals, the following findings emerged:

• Race and ethnicity: Among active judges, whites represent at least 80 percent of the bench on nearly half of all circuit courts.8 There is not a single circuit court whose majority comprises people of color.

In examining the U.S. District Courts, the authors found:

• Race and ethnicity: Among active judges, 39 of the 91 Article III district courts entirely comprise white judges. Active judges of color comprise at least half of the bench on only 13 district courts—14 percent. Just one district court—the District Court of Puerto Rico—entirely comprises judges of color.

Although people of color comprise roughly 40 percent of the U.S. general population, they make up just 17 percent of sitting circuit court judges and 23 percent of active judges. On no circuit court do judges of color comprise more than 36 percent of the bench. The 7th Circuit has no judges of color at all. Moreover, despite comprising 12.5 percent of the U.S population, African Americans make up just 7.5 percent of all sitting circuit court judges and approximately 10 percent of all active judges. African American judges are entirely absent from two circuit courts.13

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit

The 1st Circuit Court’s jurisdiction covers the following states and territories: Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Puerto Rico.20

In looking at the combined populations of these four states and Puerto Rico, one finds that people of color and women comprise approximately 42 percent and 51.5 percent of the general population, respectively. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, African Americans and Asians each make up slightly more than 4 percent of the 1st Circuit’s general population, while Hispanics represent about 32 percent.21

In comparison, the 1st Circuit Court comprises judges who are overwhelmingly white and male. For example, whites comprise 82 percent of sitting judges and 67 percent of active judges on that circuit court. There is only one African American judge and one Hispanic judge on the court—each comprising 9 percent of sitting judges and 17 percent of active judges. There are no Asian American or American Indian judges on the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, nor are there any judges belonging to more than one race or ethnicity.

And despite making up a majority of the general population, there are only two female judges on the court, comprising just 18 percent of all sitting judges and 33 percent of active judges on that court.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit

The 4th Circuit’s jurisdiction covers the following states: Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia.26

In looking at the combined populations of these five states, one finds that people of color and women comprise approximately 38 percent and 51 percent of the general population, respectively. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, African Americans make up approximately 22 percent of the 4th Circuit’s general population, with Asians and Hispanics representing 4 percent and 9 percent, respectively.27

Compared with this, the demographic makeup of the 4th Circuit Court is remarkedly nondiverse. For example, whites comprise 83 percent of sitting judges and 80 percent of active judges on the 4th Circuit. The court includes only two African American judges—comprising 11 percent of sitting judges and 13 percent of active judges—and just one Hispanic judge. There are no Asian American or American Indian judges on the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, nor are there any judges belonging to more than one race or ethnicity.

And despite making up a majority of the general population, there are just five female judges on the court, comprising 28 percent of all sitting judges and 33 percent of active judges on the bench. Moreover, there are no women of color serving on the 4th Circuit bench, and none of the court’s judges self-identify as LGBTQ.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit

The 5th Circuit’s jurisdiction covers the following states: Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas.28

The jurisdiction covered by the 5th Circuit is unique in that people of color comprise a majority of the jurisdiction’s general population. In looking at the combined populations of these three states, one finds that people of color and women comprise approximately 55 percent and 50.5 percent of the general population, respectively. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, African Americans make up roughly 17 percent of the 5th Circuit’s general population, with Asians and Hispanics representing about 4.3 percent and 32 percent, respectively.29

Compared with its the general population, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals is the least racially and ethnically diverse circuit court in the country. For instance, despite making up just 45 percent of the general population, white judges comprise 85 percent of all sitting judges and 81 percent of all active judges on the 5th Circuit Court. Just two circuit judges are African Americans, comprising 8 percent and 12.5 percent of sitting and active judges on that court, respectively. Furthermore, the 5th Circuit has just one Asian American judge and one sitting Hispanic judge. There are no active Hispanic judges on the court, even though Hispanics represent nearly one-third of the 5th Circuit’s general population. There are no American Indian judges serving on the 5th Circuit, nor are there any judges belonging to more than one race or ethnicity.

And despite making up a majority of the general population, female judges comprise only 23 percent of sitting judges and 25 percent of active judges on the 5th Circuit Court. Moreover, there are no women of color serving on the 5th Circuit bench, and none of the court’s judges self-identify as LGBTQ.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit

The 10th Circuit’s jurisdiction covers the following states: Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah, and Wyoming.38

In looking at the combined populations of these six states, one finds that people of color and women comprise approximately 33 percent and 50 percent of the general population, respectively. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, African Americans make up slightly more than 4 percent of the 10th Circuit’s general population, with Asians and Hispanics representing 3 percent and 19 percent, respectively.39

In comparison, the 10th Circuit Court itself comprises judges who are overwhelmingly white: Whites comprise 91 percent of sitting judges and 83 percent of active judges on the court. People of color comprise just 9 percent of the 10th Circuit’s sitting judges and 17 percent of its active judges. The 10th Circuit Court includes only one African American judge and one Hispanic judge, each comprising about 4.5 percent of the court’s sitting judges and 8 percent of its active judges. There are no Asian American or American Indian judges on the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, nor are there any judges belonging to more than one race or ethnicity.

And despite making up a majority of the general population, female judges comprise only about 23 percent of the circuit court’s sitting judges and one-third of its active judges. Moreover, there are no women of color on the 10th Circuit bench, and none of the court’s judges self-identify as LGBTQ.

Continues and includes all the circuit courts.

Examining the Demographic Compositions of U.S. Circuit and District Courts - Center for American Progress

White people and men are over represented. That is slowly being corrected. True racial equality would mean giving all races a chance to be represented instead of promising it to his most loyal voters based on race and sex.

JB16057

benjs said:

JB16057 said:

Gern Blansten said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

Gern Blansten said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

Gern Blansten said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

it's odd to me how people are completely ignoring the first part of Biden's announcement. all he mentions are qualifications. and then "oh by the way....". 

They never get told that part....news is not something they seek out. It's all memes on FB

No I saw Biden's full tweet. You posted it yesterday. He threw out very generic "qualifications" like character and integrity, which anyone would say about anybody that they're nominating for anything, so that's fine. But he could just leave it at that, and then just pick a black woman. That would make it at least appear like he went through possible nominees of all races, creeds, and genders, and the person that he decided had the most character and integrity was the black woman he ends up choosing. It'd probably be a better "welcome to the spotlight" moment for the nominee too, being picked for her character and integrity, rather than looking like an affirmative action hire, which is probably beneath her.

ok I wasn't referring to you directly....just people in general.  It's the new Fox outrage

But do you think it's "outrage" similar to what I'm arguing here; just go ahead and pick a black woman without announcing it ahead of time? Or do you think it's outrage because of it being a black woman? I'm guessing the latter based on you putting "read it and weep" as a caption with Biden's tweet, but I could be wrong. 

The GOP rallies their base by dog whistles. The whole narrative of "he should choose the best person not the ethnic type that benefits him (even though this was a campaign promise) is a loud whistle.

If Biden had pledged to put a white person on the SCOTUS, would you have an issue with that?

You are wrong. He didn't promise to put an "ethnic person" on the SCOTUS. He only gave 1 ethnic group a chance. That isn't racial equality. 

Of course African Americans need representation and are underrepresented but there are other ethnic groups who are not represented at all.

Are you against racial equality?

What an obnoxious baiting question - it speaks to your level of disingenuousness. 

I know the answer to the first one so that isn't baiting anyone. The last question I can argue because no one here has an issue that he promised 1 underrepresented race a place on the SCOTUS and completely left out all the other races that have no representation.

How is that true racial equality when there some ethnic groups have no representation at all?

Halifax2TheMax

JB16057 said:

benjs said:

JB16057 said:

Gern Blansten said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

Gern Blansten said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

Gern Blansten said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

it's odd to me how people are completely ignoring the first part of Biden's announcement. all he mentions are qualifications. and then "oh by the way....". 

They never get told that part....news is not something they seek out. It's all memes on FB

No I saw Biden's full tweet. You posted it yesterday. He threw out very generic "qualifications" like character and integrity, which anyone would say about anybody that they're nominating for anything, so that's fine. But he could just leave it at that, and then just pick a black woman. That would make it at least appear like he went through possible nominees of all races, creeds, and genders, and the person that he decided had the most character and integrity was the black woman he ends up choosing. It'd probably be a better "welcome to the spotlight" moment for the nominee too, being picked for her character and integrity, rather than looking like an affirmative action hire, which is probably beneath her.

ok I wasn't referring to you directly....just people in general.  It's the new Fox outrage

But do you think it's "outrage" similar to what I'm arguing here; just go ahead and pick a black woman without announcing it ahead of time? Or do you think it's outrage because of it being a black woman? I'm guessing the latter based on you putting "read it and weep" as a caption with Biden's tweet, but I could be wrong. 

The GOP rallies their base by dog whistles. The whole narrative of "he should choose the best person not the ethnic type that benefits him (even though this was a campaign promise) is a loud whistle.

If Biden had pledged to put a white person on the SCOTUS, would you have an issue with that?

You are wrong. He didn't promise to put an "ethnic person" on the SCOTUS. He only gave 1 ethnic group a chance. That isn't racial equality. 

Of course African Americans need representation and are underrepresented but there are other ethnic groups who are not represented at all.

Are you against racial equality?

What an obnoxious baiting question - it speaks to your level of disingenuousness. 

I know the answer to the first one so that isn't baiting anyone. The last question I can argue because no one here has an issue that he promised 1 underrepresented race a place on the SCOTUS and completely left out all the other races that have no representation.

How is that true racial equality when there some ethnic groups have no representation at all?

Did President Biden state that he was going to nominate a Black woman to SCOTUS in the interest of “racial equality?”

gimmesometruth27

"god please let it be another young, conservative, bible thumping, white guy."

sounds like an unpopular position. as it should be.

Halifax2TheMax

The section of President Biden's announcement at the White House with Justice Breyer by his side. He never said a word about "racial equality." What a made up, baloney construct. Have you called your senator and demanded that an Asian be named instead? In the interest of "racial equality?" Seeing how President Biden seems to have missed the boat on this one?

Choosing someone to sit on the Supreme Court, I believe, is one of the most serious constitutional responsibilities a President has.  Our process is going to be rigorous.  I will select a nominee worthy of Justice Breyer’s legacy of excellence and decency. 

While I’ve been studying candidates’ backgrounds and writings, I’ve made no decisions except one: The person I will nominate will be someone with extraordinary qualifications, character, experience, and integrity, and that person will be the first Black woman ever nominated to the United States Supreme Court. 

It’s long overdue, in my view.  I made that commitment during the campaign for President, and I will keep that commitment. 

I will fully do what I said I’d do: I will fulfill my duty to select a justice not only with the Senate’s consent, but with its advice.

You’ve heard me say in other nomination processes that the Constitution says seek the “advice and consent,” but the advice as well of the Senate.  I’m going to invite senators from both parties to offer their ideas and points of view. 

I’ll also consult with leading scholars and lawyers.  And I am fortunate to have advising me in this selection process Vice President Kamala Harris.  She’s an exceptional lawyer, a former Attorney General of the State of California, a former member of the Senate Judiciary Committee.  

I will listen carefully to all the advice I’m given, and I will study the records and former cases carefully.  I’ll meet with the potential nominees.  And it is my intention — my intention to announce my decision before the end of February. 

I have made no choice at this point.  Once I select a nominee, I’ll ask the Senate to move promptly on my choice.

In the end, I will nominate a historic candidate, someone who is worthy of Justice Breyer’s legacy and someone who, like Justice Breyer, will provide incredible service on the United States Supreme Court. 

Justice Breyer, on behalf of all the American people, I want to thank you and your family — and your family for your tremendous service to our nation.

And I’m going to yield the floor to you, Mr. Justice.

I appreciate it.

Continues..........

Remarks by President Biden on the Retirement of Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer | The White House

JB16057

gimmesometruth27 said:

"god please let it be another young, conservative, bible thumping, white guy."

sounds like an unpopular position. as it should be.

Yes, I totally agree. I don't even have an issue if he had said, "I will not be nominating a person that is white." I agree that there needs to be racial diversity on the SCOTUS but it isn't true racial equality to pledge it to 1 ethnic group that is represented when other ethnic groups are not.

JB16057

Halifax2TheMax said:

JB16057 said:

benjs said:

JB16057 said:

Gern Blansten said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

Gern Blansten said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

Gern Blansten said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

it's odd to me how people are completely ignoring the first part of Biden's announcement. all he mentions are qualifications. and then "oh by the way....". 

They never get told that part....news is not something they seek out. It's all memes on FB

No I saw Biden's full tweet. You posted it yesterday. He threw out very generic "qualifications" like character and integrity, which anyone would say about anybody that they're nominating for anything, so that's fine. But he could just leave it at that, and then just pick a black woman. That would make it at least appear like he went through possible nominees of all races, creeds, and genders, and the person that he decided had the most character and integrity was the black woman he ends up choosing. It'd probably be a better "welcome to the spotlight" moment for the nominee too, being picked for her character and integrity, rather than looking like an affirmative action hire, which is probably beneath her.

ok I wasn't referring to you directly....just people in general.  It's the new Fox outrage

But do you think it's "outrage" similar to what I'm arguing here; just go ahead and pick a black woman without announcing it ahead of time? Or do you think it's outrage because of it being a black woman? I'm guessing the latter based on you putting "read it and weep" as a caption with Biden's tweet, but I could be wrong. 

The GOP rallies their base by dog whistles. The whole narrative of "he should choose the best person not the ethnic type that benefits him (even though this was a campaign promise) is a loud whistle.

If Biden had pledged to put a white person on the SCOTUS, would you have an issue with that?

You are wrong. He didn't promise to put an "ethnic person" on the SCOTUS. He only gave 1 ethnic group a chance. That isn't racial equality. 

Of course African Americans need representation and are underrepresented but there are other ethnic groups who are not represented at all.

Are you against racial equality?

What an obnoxious baiting question - it speaks to your level of disingenuousness. 

I know the answer to the first one so that isn't baiting anyone. The last question I can argue because no one here has an issue that he promised 1 underrepresented race a place on the SCOTUS and completely left out all the other races that have no representation.

How is that true racial equality when there some ethnic groups have no representation at all?

Did President Biden state that he was going to nominate a Black woman to SCOTUS in the interest of “racial equality?”

Racial equity (or racial justice) is the systematic fair treatment of all people, result- ing in fair opportunities and outcomes for everyone.

Some key words in here are "all" and "everyone".

Halifax2TheMax

JB16057 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

JB16057 said:

benjs said:

JB16057 said:

Gern Blansten said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

Gern Blansten said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

Gern Blansten said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

it's odd to me how people are completely ignoring the first part of Biden's announcement. all he mentions are qualifications. and then "oh by the way....". 

They never get told that part....news is not something they seek out. It's all memes on FB

No I saw Biden's full tweet. You posted it yesterday. He threw out very generic "qualifications" like character and integrity, which anyone would say about anybody that they're nominating for anything, so that's fine. But he could just leave it at that, and then just pick a black woman. That would make it at least appear like he went through possible nominees of all races, creeds, and genders, and the person that he decided had the most character and integrity was the black woman he ends up choosing. It'd probably be a better "welcome to the spotlight" moment for the nominee too, being picked for her character and integrity, rather than looking like an affirmative action hire, which is probably beneath her.

ok I wasn't referring to you directly....just people in general.  It's the new Fox outrage

But do you think it's "outrage" similar to what I'm arguing here; just go ahead and pick a black woman without announcing it ahead of time? Or do you think it's outrage because of it being a black woman? I'm guessing the latter based on you putting "read it and weep" as a caption with Biden's tweet, but I could be wrong. 

The GOP rallies their base by dog whistles. The whole narrative of "he should choose the best person not the ethnic type that benefits him (even though this was a campaign promise) is a loud whistle.

If Biden had pledged to put a white person on the SCOTUS, would you have an issue with that?

You are wrong. He didn't promise to put an "ethnic person" on the SCOTUS. He only gave 1 ethnic group a chance. That isn't racial equality. 

Of course African Americans need representation and are underrepresented but there are other ethnic groups who are not represented at all.

Are you against racial equality?

What an obnoxious baiting question - it speaks to your level of disingenuousness. 

I know the answer to the first one so that isn't baiting anyone. The last question I can argue because no one here has an issue that he promised 1 underrepresented race a place on the SCOTUS and completely left out all the other races that have no representation.

How is that true racial equality when there some ethnic groups have no representation at all?

Did President Biden state that he was going to nominate a Black woman to SCOTUS in the interest of “racial equality?”

Racial equity (or racial justice) is the systematic fair treatment of all people, result- ing in fair opportunities and outcomes for everyone.

Some key words in here are "all" and "everyone".

But President Biden never “promised” that or pledged to do it when making his SCOTUS appointment preference. Guess you’d be in favor of expanding the court so he could though, right? Sure you’d be, sure.

Halifax2TheMax

And I thought the phrase was, “equality of opportunity, not equal outcomes?”

gimmesometruth27

JB16057 said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

"god please let it be another young, conservative, bible thumping, white guy."

sounds like an unpopular position. as it should be.

Yes, I totally agree. I don't even have an issue if he had said, "I will not be nominating a person that is white." I agree that there needs to be racial diversity on the SCOTUS but it isn't true racial equality to pledge it to 1 ethnic group that is represented when other ethnic groups are not.

we cannot have that with 9 justices. 

and even if we did have one justice from every ethnicity, even that one person would not represent everyone in that ethnicity. 

what about all of the uncle ruckuses of the world? 

wait i guess clarence thomas could represent uncle ruckus, but not many of the rest of the african american community.

JB16057

Halifax2TheMax said:

JB16057 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

JB16057 said:

benjs said:

JB16057 said:

Gern Blansten said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

Gern Blansten said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

Gern Blansten said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

it's odd to me how people are completely ignoring the first part of Biden's announcement. all he mentions are qualifications. and then "oh by the way....". 

They never get told that part....news is not something they seek out. It's all memes on FB

No I saw Biden's full tweet. You posted it yesterday. He threw out very generic "qualifications" like character and integrity, which anyone would say about anybody that they're nominating for anything, so that's fine. But he could just leave it at that, and then just pick a black woman. That would make it at least appear like he went through possible nominees of all races, creeds, and genders, and the person that he decided had the most character and integrity was the black woman he ends up choosing. It'd probably be a better "welcome to the spotlight" moment for the nominee too, being picked for her character and integrity, rather than looking like an affirmative action hire, which is probably beneath her.

ok I wasn't referring to you directly....just people in general.  It's the new Fox outrage

But do you think it's "outrage" similar to what I'm arguing here; just go ahead and pick a black woman without announcing it ahead of time? Or do you think it's outrage because of it being a black woman? I'm guessing the latter based on you putting "read it and weep" as a caption with Biden's tweet, but I could be wrong. 

The GOP rallies their base by dog whistles. The whole narrative of "he should choose the best person not the ethnic type that benefits him (even though this was a campaign promise) is a loud whistle.

If Biden had pledged to put a white person on the SCOTUS, would you have an issue with that?

You are wrong. He didn't promise to put an "ethnic person" on the SCOTUS. He only gave 1 ethnic group a chance. That isn't racial equality. 

Of course African Americans need representation and are underrepresented but there are other ethnic groups who are not represented at all.

Are you against racial equality?

What an obnoxious baiting question - it speaks to your level of disingenuousness. 

I know the answer to the first one so that isn't baiting anyone. The last question I can argue because no one here has an issue that he promised 1 underrepresented race a place on the SCOTUS and completely left out all the other races that have no representation.

How is that true racial equality when there some ethnic groups have no representation at all?

Did President Biden state that he was going to nominate a Black woman to SCOTUS in the interest of “racial equality?”

Racial equity (or racial justice) is the systematic fair treatment of all people, result- ing in fair opportunities and outcomes for everyone.

Some key words in here are "all" and "everyone".

But President Biden never “promised” that or pledged to do it when making his SCOTUS appointment preference. Guess you’d be in favor of expanding the court so he could though, right? Sure you’d be, sure.

You're right. He didn't promise that. Racial equity doesn't matter to democrats I guess.

JB16057

gimmesometruth27 said:

JB16057 said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

"god please let it be another young, conservative, bible thumping, white guy."

sounds like an unpopular position. as it should be.

Yes, I totally agree. I don't even have an issue if he had said, "I will not be nominating a person that is white." I agree that there needs to be racial diversity on the SCOTUS but it isn't true racial equality to pledge it to 1 ethnic group that is represented when other ethnic groups are not.

we cannot have that with 9 justices. 

and even if we did have one justice from every ethnicity, even that one person would not represent everyone in that ethnicity. 

what about all of the uncle ruckuses of the world? 

wait i guess clarence thomas could represent uncle ruckus, but not many of the rest of the african american community.

Yeah but the sky is blue!

See, I too can argue points that you aren't trying to make like what you are doing to me. You are trying to deflect from the fact that this administration promised racial equity but didn't bother giving under represented ethnic groups a chance at a seat on the SCOTUS. That is not racial equity.

Halifax2TheMax

JB16057 said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

JB16057 said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

"god please let it be another young, conservative, bible thumping, white guy."

sounds like an unpopular position. as it should be.

Yes, I totally agree. I don't even have an issue if he had said, "I will not be nominating a person that is white." I agree that there needs to be racial diversity on the SCOTUS but it isn't true racial equality to pledge it to 1 ethnic group that is represented when other ethnic groups are not.

we cannot have that with 9 justices. 

and even if we did have one justice from every ethnicity, even that one person would not represent everyone in that ethnicity. 

what about all of the uncle ruckuses of the world? 

wait i guess clarence thomas could represent uncle ruckus, but not many of the rest of the african american community.

Yeah but the sky is blue!

See, I too can argue points that you aren't trying to make like what you are doing to me. You are trying to deflect from the fact that this administration promised racial equity but didn't bother giving under represented ethnic groups a chance at a seat on the SCOTUS. That is not racial equity.

Please link us to an Administration or candidate or POTUS Biden statement promising “racial equity.” In the absence of such, your argument is garbage.

Halifax2TheMax

As opposed to say POOTWH who promised to MAGA. Even ran on it. Twice. “Fact.”