The numbers were marginally better for Hispanic lawyers. Four of them argued for a total of 1 hour, 45 minutes."Three women, a Hispanic and an African-American" is a funny turn of phrase to describe a set of 4, not 5, persons.
Women were better represented, accounting for just over 17 percent of the arguments before the justices.
In an era when three women, a Hispanic and an African-American sit on the court and white men constitute a bare majority of the nine justices, the court is more diverse than the lawyers who argue before it.
Anyway, this is so not surprising. Court appointments are made by Presidents in a swirl of political theater. There's a sizable set of individuals capable of doing good work as Supreme Court Justices. How could a President resist making the final pick in a manner that boosts himself politically (and/or makes it hard for his political opponents in the Senate to say "no")?
But when your case is on the line in the Supreme Court, why would you indulge in political gestures (other than to cause the Justices to gravitate toward your position)?
Posts
29 comments:
But when your case is on the line in the Supreme Court, why would you indulge in political gestures (other than to cause the Justices to gravitate toward your position)?
Clearly, what's needed here is a law banning white men from arguing in front of the Supreme Court.
You know, for fairness.
Hmm, why could this be? Oh, here's a clue:
"The only minority group that could be said to be overrepresented was lawyers of Asian heritage."
"Three women, a Hispanic and an African-American" walk into a Supreme Court and say "Let the decision stand", and the White House says "If that decision is still standing, it needs another drink!"
...and somewhere the Don Drapers of the world really pull the levers of power....
Take politics out of any equation and reality sets in.
Exqueeze me but is this an argument for clients using affirmative action when choosing counsel to represent?
GFL!
Hey, Ron!
That's okay, blacks and hispanics make up for it by being over represented as defendants. So its all good.
How about Jews and Catholics?
Anyway, this is so not surprising. Court appointments are made by Presidents in a swirl of political theater.
And who gets to argue a case, assuming the side wants to prevail, is done strictly on merit and ability. If so, those percentages are what one would expect, in line with all Charles Murray and Steve Sailer data.
Litigation always includes a bit of gamesmanship in terms of lawyers, witnesses, and facts. Each side wants to win.
There's a sizable set of individuals capable of doing good work as Supreme Court Justices.
Of course, such people have absolutely no chance of being appointed to the court.
Or are you saying that the people currently on the court are capable of doing good work, but they simply choose not to?
Ruling over us by a Court of Philosopher Kings is right down the Hispanic's wisdom alley.
An Empire done right needs to appear legitimate by letting us play at democracy games.
Perhaps the clients want the best talent available and don't care about skin color or gender?
I hate stories like this. I'm a woman, and I don't care what percentage of women are working at different levels of different jobs.
Want to make me care about opportunities for women? Show me specific women. Show me brilliant, well-qualified women who are being held back somehow.
Talking about identity groups generally tells me nothing.
But whose counting?
Ma'am, you're skating dangerously close to the edge of thoughtcrime there. I'm surprised crimestop didn't kick in before you wrote that last sentence.
Come on ,folks! It's all about the color of their skin not the content of their arguments.
How about Jews and Catholics?
How bout Protestants?
Protestants are not represented by a Justice on the Court! Since most Americans are Protestant, I am offended and demand something!
Ironically, the Supreme court justices are more important than the lawyers in some ways of thinking. They are the ultimate arbiters of the constitution.
What do I want? I want the best, not "Good enough." Perhaps the argument is "But, Diversity is important for different perspectives," in which case I would say it is racist or sexist to say that.
It's another one of those MC/PC contradictions. The MC/PC crowd IS racist, by the definition of racism.
...the court is more diverse than the lawyers who argue before it
And thereby showing how Affirmative Action is a variation of a cargo cult.
(other than to cause the Justices to gravitate toward your position)?
I thought the idea was to get away from that... to have ethnicity and skin color speak for something.
I know you are just asking a question professor but... I'll just end my comment right here.
Hi Ron.
Any Assyrians?
For what it's worth, from Wiki:
"During her 13-year tenure on the D.C. Circuit, [Ruth Bader] Ginsburg made 57 hires for law clerk, intern, and secretary positions. At her Supreme Court confirmation hearing, it was revealed that none of those hired had been African-Americans..."
0 for 57. But it's good to learn from the article that Jews are no longer considered a minority.
Protestants are not represented by a Justice on the Court!
This is part of it, but another part is that (I think) that they are graduates of top tier law schools. No Wisconsin grads there. And, even the two Standford grads are now gone. We are talking Harvard, Yale, and not sure what else. Mostly those two. Some diversity.
What this shows is the left's fixation with the appearance of diversity, with little, if any, concern about the reality of diversity. They complain that there aren't enough women, people of color, etc. arguing before the Supreme Court? That is because it is based on merit - the stakes are so high in a lot of cases, that they cannot afford affirmative action attorneys. Realistically, the Supreme Court should probably reflect the practicing SCOTUS bar (and not those who get their tickets punched to get preferential access to watching the Court live on important cases). But, instead, we now have a Black seat, probably a Hispanic seat, a couple of Womyn's seats, etc. You would think that we would want the Best and the Brightest on the Supreme Court, but if that were the case, it would be filled with people like John Roberts and Ted Cruz, and probably even Judge Bork, but probably not the Wise (Affirmative Action) Latina.
Constructs like "wise Latina" and a Court the "looks like America", are themselves deeply un-American and un-wise.
It probably isn't taught anymore, but it was once known that America "worked" and thrived because it was "a melting pot".
That is a great metaphor because it reflects that an individual ingredient willing looses its individuality identity to become part of the greater, undifferentiated whole.
In other words, assimilation is our goal and foundation, not preserving cultural diversity.
And this is necessary because, as humans, we have hard-wired tribalism instincts. These can only be successfully mitigated by things like identification of a 'greater' tribe that we are ALL a part of, and by all peoples assimilating into a common culture.
The reason the Black/White problem in America has become so especially intractable is that the strikingly obvious physical characteristic differences are so in our faces, that to overcome automatic tribalism reactions, extra special assimilation needs to be willing undertaken by one of the two, the clear minority in raw numbers being the one to adapt.
Instead, under constant pressure from the Left, Blacks have been encouraged to develop and maintain a completely separate culture, covering language, music, behavior, politics, etc. Anything resembling assimilation has been labeled with the pejoratives "acting White", "uncle tom", "house ni**er" and the like.
So is it any wonder we have such problems? We CANNOT un-program tribalism instincts. So we either must accept constant "war" against The Other, or work toward social constructs of assimilation and a common culture.
And Identity Politics - darling of the Left - will remain the single greatest impediment to the melting pot and the tide that raises all boats.
Yet more proof that blacks, gays, an women do worse jobs than straight white males...at almost everything.
But sexism! Racism! Homophobia! We can't praise white straight male accomplishment! Must be holding us back with Old Boys Club! Burn the Witch! Attack testosterone! Attack civilized behavior!
Enjoy the decline, denialists!
The idea that "diverse" is purely a matter of skin color and genitalia is asenine. What about things like religion, where they were educated, what part of the country they're from, et cetera?
Diverse? The Supreme Court is diverse? All but one justice graduated from one of two law schools. I'll buy that the Supreme Court is diverse when we seem the 9 of them from 9 different law schools, and see those geographically and ideologically distributed as well.
Post a Comment