Cabinet officials and Supreme Court Justices (and Oscar nominees) are news. Federal court appointments usually aren’t.
Look at Bush and his appointment of Clarence Thomas. It obviously got a lot of attention. It was one of the two appointments he made to the Supreme Court. But he also appointed 185 other judges and those appointments didn’t any significant press coverage. And only ten of those appointments were black.
By appointing a black judge to the Supreme Court, Bush managed to avoid public notice of the disproportionately low percentage of black judicial appointments he was making overall. And that’s not a fluke; you often find cases where institutions that generally underrepresent black people will designate a handful of black people in prominent positions. It’s a way of giving the illusion of diversity while avoiding the reality of it.
The hell it has nothing to do with your post-it is a direct response to this: “Federal judges absolutely must be qualified.” You didn’t mention past history in that statement. I’m sorry I didn’t address what you claim you meant to say.
that this kind of law got proposed, and isn’t either a joke or fake news (like from Gateway Pundit, MintNews, etc) is why I’m no longer a liberal. There’s racial equality, and then there’s racial Marxism.
Besides for that this idea doesn’t seem popular even with liberals, I wouldn’t think your positions on issues should be influenced by what other people with the same official ideology believe, one way or the other.
If all the judges were white and were appointed because they are white, then there should be outrage.
There is a difference between ending up with all white judges and mandating all judges need to be white*.
It also ignores the qualified pool. How many people are qualified to be a judge (note, I know there is no official qualification needed, but most of the time the people nominated have at least some experience in the field) that fit the requirements?
I did some checking and found thissite. It lists the percentage of judges that are minorities by state and nationwide.
Interestingly, South Carolina (9%), Mississippi(16%), Georgia(11%), Alabama(6%) and Arkansas (10%) , the deep south states, have pretty high percentages.
Nationwide the breakdown is:
Circuit 14% (202)
County 38% (539)
District 23% (329)
Statewide 6% (80)
Subcircuits/Subdistricts 8% (108)
Interestingly, according to that link, Rhode Island has 0 out of 27.
The demographics for lawyers is:
Asian Pacific American 2%
American Indian <1%
Hawaiian/Pacific Islander <1%
Total minority= ~ 8%
One thing I’ve always found somewhat odd is that on average people (both white and black) tend to wildly overestimate the percentage of the population that they assume to be black. (The same is true of gay.) I can’t imagine this doesn’t color people’s perceptions of whether or not there is discrimination of this sort.
Like many others have pointed out, “person of color” isnt a strong legal term. It rankles me when people seem to assume that any person of color will feel represented by another person of color. Let’s say this law passes and we see a surge of Latino judges. There would be many judges of color, but Asians, Indians, and Blacks would still be underrepresented. Would we then see a follow up law that switches “person of color” with “person of color that isn’t brown”?