portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article reporting united states

anti-racism | economic justice

2 Religious Groups Representing Together 24% Of the Population Control The Supreme Court

It's time to end the lifetime appointments of Supreme Court justices. It is time for direct election of justices, a different one to be elected every year for a term of 9 or 18 years.
BATON ROUGE AND SUPREME COURT INEQUITY

2 Religious Groups Representing Together 24% Of the Population Control The Supreme Court

It's time to end the lifetime appointments of Supreme Court justices.

It is wrong that the majority black population
of Baton Rouge Louisiana has a majority white police force,
as it is wrong that 55% of the Supreme Court is
Catholic when Catholics are 22% of the population.
(Before Scalia's death 2/3 of the Supreme Court was Catholic.)
It is wrong that 2% of the population who are
Jewish Americans control 33% of the Court. If the executioner
Merrick Garland (being pushed by Obama, Biden, Clinton and others)
is appointed, 2% of the population who are Jewish Americans
would control nearly 45% of the court, while many religious groups
and ethnic groups, Native Americans for example, Hindus, Buddhists,
etc. have never been represented at all. In addition, Garland's
history as an executioner is in conflict with the Democratic
Party platform which opposes judicial murder.

2 religious groups representing together 24% of the population control the entire court.

It is also time to end the lifetime appointment of judges. This nonacracy is
at times a pentocracy, a rule of 5, who trump the will of the majority.
The Court has rubberstamped illegal immoral wars, execution, the worst
forms of capitalism. It is time for 1 election every year to elect 1 of the 9
justices for a term of 9 or 8 years.

 http://innocenceproject.org
 http://deathpenaltyinfo.org
 http://amnestyusa.org
 http://ccadp.org
 http://tcadp.org
 http://otse.org

homepage: homepage: http://amnestyusa.org


A few comments about statistics (misuse thereof) 31.Jul.2016 04:31

Mike Novack

1) You cannot apply statistics to small numbers. Simply not valid to draw conclusions. There are only nine justices, so the SMALLEST possible representation on the Court is 11%. And it can only go up or down by jumps of 11%.

2) Justices are NOT drawn from the general population. For example, how many justices can you name in the entire history of the Court who did NOT have a degree in law? So you would FIRST need to break lawyers up into religious and ethnic groups for your starting percentages.

Yes of course, getting to a law degree is not uniformly distributed in our population.

3) The most glaring "unfairness" in the sense you are discussing this would be the unequal gender distribution of the Court throughout its history. Nay, even throughout my own lifetime. It's only in recent decades that there have been ANY women on the Court and they make up half the population. How come you didn't notice THAT. Do you realize what that makes your post appear like?

But You Can Apply Common Sense To Small Numbers. 31.Jul.2016 08:21

blues

These "justices" were not selected at random. You might suppose our "elected leaders" would have been a bit concerned about the optics, no? The reason is very clear.

Our "elected leaders", are not really elected at all. Nor are they calling the shots. And certainly the "supreme" court makes no real decisions of its own. They are all just puppets, and we are not pulling the strings. Maybe In-Q-Tel is pulling the strings.

(never mind 'ethnicity') Roberts and Alito = proof SCOTUS is loaded. 31.Jul.2016 08:54

_

I don't give a flying ***k about "religious groups" purportedly represented by the ethnic-religious backgrounds of specific individual SCOTUS justices, per se.

I do care that two of the lifetime-appointed justices on the court are multinational corporate ******** who (among other things) provided American voters with Citizens United.


and yes as the original post points out, lifetime appointments for SCOTUS justices need to somehow be revised.

Actually, you can't 31.Jul.2016 15:32

Mike Novack

"But You Can Apply Common Sense To Small Numbers."

Not wanting to go into math, Blues, but no you can't. This is one of those situations where "common sense" is VERY misleading. Thinking you can think in terms of statistics when the numbers are small would lead to very wrong conclusions. Examples?

1) The most dangerous place in terms of the risk of dying in an auto accident is some small town somewhere (sooner or later a fatal accident, maybe more than one victim, will happen in a town with a population of only a couple hundred)

2) If there is a very rare supposedly non-contagious disease, only 1 in a million people per year getting it, and there are three cases in a low population county of say population 50,000, there must be a reason causing that (you have to look at the area which contains at least five cases. What is the population of THAT much bigger circle? --- for the "why five" I won't try to explain.

Too look at the original question, you could not possibly try to match percent of population with representation on the Supreme Court for segments of the population below 10%. Think. The SMALLEST possible representation on the Court is 11%. In other words, either 0%, 11%, 22%, ....., 89%, 100% So as soon as there is ANY Justice appointed from a small minority group (a few percent of the population) it would appear "gross over representation". Go back to that small town auto accident example.

Nor would selection to the Court be non-random. As I pointed out, they are all appointed form a small subset of the population who are lawyers (or at least have a law degree). But THAT is aleady not evenly distributed in the population. Any non-randomness like that can make what is actually the expected result VERY diferent form "common sense".

Yes. Actually, You Can 01.Aug.2016 11:09

blues

Either You did not bother to read my comment carefully enough, Mike, or you are just trying to reason illogically. Statistics has nothing to do with this. Supreme court judges are not selected by handing every lawyer a lottery ticket and then selecting the one with the winning number. They are nominated by the president, and confirmed by the senate. That is not random at all. I said:

"These "justices" were not selected at random. You might suppose our "elected leaders" would have been a bit concerned about the optics, no?"

I went on to point out that these politicians can deliberately thumb their noses at the citizens because their "elections" are thoroughly corrupt.

And these sociopathic sadists can do this because of the lack of machine-free hand counted paper ballots, and strategic hedge simple score voting (SHSSV). Which method overcomes the spoiler effect that enforces a two-party monopoly, and the blind hurdle dilemma that makes them helpless to predict the electoral influence of their choices. All other election methods require, in practice, machine elections, or enforce the spoiler effect, or enforce the blind hurdle dilemma. See:
 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2016/07/432847.shtml

So since we have the vote-for-one method, plus the machines, the sadistic politicians can go on tormenting all of us.