- Blacks are be significantly overrepresented.
- Catholics and Jews are also significantly overrepresented.
- Protestants are vastly underrepresented. So are women and Asians.
- Counting illegal immigrants, Hispanics are underrepresented.
- Whites, men, and the elderly are overrepresented.
The following is a news analysis, first published on April 17.
If one expects the US Supreme Court to "look like America": there are too many justices under age 65, too many college graduates, too few poor people, too many men, and too few foreign born, disabled, and Asian.
Typically, when advocates talk about making the Court look more like America, or be more diverse, they are referring to skin color and sex, with religion sometimes factored in.
Yet even with increased diversity on these fronts, it can be argued that the court remains fairly homogenous in terms of the justices' education, station in life, income range and more.
There would have to be hundreds of positions on the court to begin to proportionately represent various facets of the US population.
Further, there is no indication as to what kind of "diversity" impacts, or whether it benefits, decision making on the high court.
Thus, it is left to advocates and, perhaps, those with the strongest representation or loudest voices to determine the supposed diversity that really matters, versus the diversity that takes a backseat.
When looking at typical demographic features of the US population, the Supreme Court will not look much like America in key areas when the newest justice, Ketanji Jackson, takes her place.
Blacks will be significantly overrepresented. Catholics and Jews are also significantly overrepresented; Protestants are vastly underrepresented on the Court.
Counting illegal immigrants, Hispanics are underrepresented.
Whites are overrepresented, but if just one seat changes, whites will be underrepresented when compared to the US population.
If one expects the court to look like America, there are too many justices under age 65, too many college graduates, too few poor people, too many men, and too few foreign born, disabled, and Asian.
White (non-Hispanic):
US Population: 60%
Supreme Court: 67% (55% if one white is replaced by non-white)
Catholic
US Adults: 22%
Supreme Court: 67%
Jewish
US Population: 2%
Supreme Court: 11%
Non-Catholic Christian
US Population: 45%
Supreme Court: 22%
Hispanic (including illegal immigrants)
US Population: 18.5%
Supreme Court: 11%
65 and over
US Population: 17%
Supreme Court: 44%
Black
US Population: 13%
Supreme Court: 22%
Female
US Population: 51%
Supreme Court: 44%
Foreign Born
US Population: 14%
Supreme Court: 0
With Disability Under Age 65
US Population: 9%
Supreme Court: Possibly 0%
Asian
US Population: 6%
Supreme Court: 0%
Bachelor's Degree or Higher
US Population: 33%
Supreme Court: 100%
In Poverty
US Population: 11%
Supreme Court: 0%
"Representation" is a irrelevant metric for SCOTUS.
That's like saying MLB umpires must be representative of the players' demographic.
All they have to do is be able to call balls and strikes. (Which is something John Roberts apparently forgot he promised.)
I do not pay much attention to religion and I am not sure who are Roman Catholics or Jews. However, unless an individual votes consistently against abortion, I would not consider them a Catholic.
The crybaby whining Democrats, always the victim, love to claim we have a 6-3 Conservative majority on the Supreme Court. As I see it, we have 2 Conservatives, Alito & Thomas. Roberts went Left when he voted for 0bamacare because it was considered a tax.* Trump's 3 appointees turned out to be Swamp creatures. I wrote them off when they did not support the Texas lawsuit and joined the majority in ruling that he who cheats best, Wins.
* Which makes it Unconstitutional. All tax bills must originate in the House of Representatives, bamaster care originated in the Senate.
More and more, it appears that our problems will ONLY be solved by either the Article 5, "Convention of the States" option, or, failing that, the 2A option.
Be careful what you wish for. A Convention of the States can just as easily be overtaken by the Left as the Democrat Party has. There are legions of political and administrative parasites of the Left just waiting for a chance to modify !=A and eliminate 2-A as there are folks on the right and right-center who want to put their preferences in the Constitution. The Bill of Rights and subsequent amendments could end up a massive power takeover of any such Convention. You might go in looking to prohibit abortion and beef up immigration security or cleaning up executive power, term limit politicians and end up losing the first, second fourth or fifth amendments.
Note: this analysis changes interestingly when the 1st pruning just looks at ATTORNEYS (which seems unavoidable).
The cry for diversity is an open-ended argument, unrestrained by any kind of logic, which makes it an irrational demand. As Thomas Sowell points out in his book, Economic Facts and Fallacies, there is no rational reason to assume groups are homogenous in anything. So diversity is supposed to do what exactly? What is its supposed advantage? Why exactly is the criteria of diversity more important than other criteria--say that that of expertise or experience? You ask a few questions, and the idea of diversity becomes a vacuous ghost of an idea, completely unsubstantial, and devoid of any logic or merit.
Mr. Schryer makes a completely valid point. No matter how you slice and dice the backgrounds, they are all lawyers. And eight of the nine went to either Harvard or Yale.
What are we supposed to get out of this article? Is this advocating for some change to the selection process to bring in other possible candidates? Because given the quantizing effects of only having nine justices to represent every possible demographic group, the only solution would be to expand the court. Is that being advocated for here?