Right. Or else you created a de facto incentive to “lock” the bench at its present composition regardless of qualifications.
This is a dumb idea and it should not become a law.
But it’s making an interesting point. If all the judges being appointed were white, would there be a public outcry? But make a suggestion that some judges not be white and suddenly there’s outrage.
Moreover, there does seem to be some agreement that SCotUS seats should be permanently assigned by ideology e.g. only a “Scalia type” can replace Scalia.
I’d prolly agree that replacing Thurgood Marshall with Clarence Thomas kept a “Black” seat on the SCotUS . . . in name only.
I though justice had no color?
Emphasis added. You be your sweet bippy there would be! Are you seriously saying you think there wouldn’t be?
We’re not as far away from that as you might think. Ronald Reagan appointed 358 judges; seven were black. George H.W. Bush appointed 187 judges; eleven were black. George W. Bush appointed 322 judges; twenty-four were black. This was essentially a non-story.
So how much “cover” will Donald Trump need? If he appoints ten black judges in the next four years, will that be enough to make it a non-story as well? Can he go as low as eight? Five?
You’re missing the point. The outrage isn’t that “some unspecified number of judges” should be black, but that there is a quota. Set a quota, and you’re going to get outrage. That should not be surprising.
It’s probably a typo. The law was supposed to refer to “off-color judges,” i.e. judges that told dirty jokes and made inappropriate remarks from the bench.
This is only an issue if a President passes over qualified black (or any other class of) judges that share his ideological slant.
(emphasis mine) So it’s not an issue if a bigoted President selects bigoted judges?
What does that even mean?
Lib Presidents will nominate Lib judges and Con Presidents will nominate Con judges. If any of the Presidents Little Nemo passed over any qualified Con blacks for judgeships, please point them out.
Easy fix. Make it so that judges of the color pink can only be replaced with judges of the color pink.
I think you’re missing my point. A President could appoint three hundred white judges and ten black judges and some people would be asking “Why did he appoint so many black judges?” But nobody would be asking “Why did he appoint so many white judges?”
There’s a default assumption that white people are the standard and black people are different. A white judge is just a judge but a black judge is a black judge.
That only follows if its the reason why he appointed those judges, and ignores any other factors relating to selection. The mathematics of population distribution mean that almost any selected, or self-selected, group will end up being quite distinct from the population as a whole, unless you go out of your way to specifically select in that manner regardless of other considerations.
Edit: And I don’t think it’s especially slanderous or even newsworthy to note that Democrats and Republican presidents are going to select on very different ideological criteria.
Betsy DeVos was just confirmed as Secretary of Education. So let’s not claim that qualification is an issue.
And if conservatism is an ideology that only includes white people, that’s a sign there’s a much bigger question that needs to be asked.
So you’re saying the appointment of black judges is proportionate to the percentage of black people in the general population?
Federal judges absolutely must be qualified.
I’ll ask again, do you know of even a single black conservative lawyer who was passed over for a judgeship?
I’m not missing your point. I’m saying it’s nonsense. Never heard of #OscarsSoWhite?
Two seconds on Google: Trump’s cabinet is mostly white and male. What will that mean for policy?
Yeah, about that: From the Federal Judicial Center
Your reply has nothing to do with my post. I didn’t say they had to be qualified by statute. Name the last federal judge approved by the Senate who wasn’t rated at least qualified by the Bar.