Yes. They are uniformly devoid of being non-white.

I have said this over a dozen times now - nobody is disputing this fact. YOU are assuming a "shared formative experience" - I am not. She is not, in the speech. You're arguing a strawman, and have been for like 5 pages now.

I'm not sure I'm following what you mean.

The research I've seen suggests a bias toward female judges. The reason may have some to do with not being in the GOB network, but (again, according to what I've seen) has more to do with a perception that females are more likely than males to combine application of the law with compassion. Hmmmm.

In the first part, that when giving addresses that you've been invited to give, you usually consider a topic your audience is likely to be receptive to.

In the second part, I haven't read the research so I have no idea, but what you've said wouldn't surprise me. I'm not sure who is anti-compassion when combined with application of the law; some of us are perhaps afraid of compassion used as a standard on its own or a substitute for application of the law.

Put simply, stereotypical mother-figure vs. stereotypical father-figure.

Despite any media-speak to the contrary, there's no realistic possibility that this would happen at the level of courts we're talking about (i.e. federal appellate and the Supreme Court).

Yeah, it seems pretty unlikely on a multi-justice court, even assuming you could get a justice interested in doing it appointed to the court in question, which also seems ridiculously unlikely.

I find it difficult in this instance to look at a comparative statement and not look at the what's implied about the side that comes up lacking.

Don't let it trouble you. Be content that you don't find it racist and call it a day. ETA: I don't mean stop criticizing whatever you want to, but sometimes you actually seem to be getting frustrated and I doubt it's worth it to be repeating 12 times something that I'm not getting, perhaps mainly because I don't want to.

Now some people are wondering why she has so little in assets.

Wake me up when she's confirmed.

What does it say about me that I actually like her more for this?

It's not really that I'm frustrated per se - certainly not with you specifically or as a person. It's more that I feel like you're arguing against points I'm not making, and that you've decided that the "null hypothesis" is something vastly different than I would ever consider - but it's all good, it's not really a debate to convince each other, and it seems to be in good spirits.

It's kind of a funny thread because we're all in agreement, I think, that of the choices Obama was likely to make, she's a pretty good one.

Does anyone else find it odd that so many are so hot and bothered about "diversity" on the bench, while in the same breath demand a person who went to either Harvard or Yale, has had essentially the same career since entering college as every other justice on the bench and is a Judge on one of two or three Circuits?

I don't know if this article prompted your question, but the NY Times talked about this a couple of days ago: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/09/us....html?_r=1&hpw .

I don't really have a problem with the Court being limited essentially to Ivy League grads; they're the people who most likely got the high level appellate court/Supreme Court clerkships, they're more likely to have argued before the Court, and they're more likely to get the circuit judge appointments. Do I think there's a time when we may see a Justice from somewhere like the University of Michigan Law or University of Texas Law? I think that will happen at some point. However, I have no problem with it being limited to people from the top 8-12 law schools (and I say that as someone who's at a decent school and has an ultimate dream goal to be a judge on an intermediate state appellate court).

As for the limitation on where the judges are drawn from, and being limited to a couple of circuits; I see that as more of an issue, but I see the reasons for it. If you've got a place like the 9th Circuit, which is known for throwing precedent out the window and staking itself to rather extreme legal claims, then I'm not sure they're the best people to put on the Court. There's something to say for being a creative legal mind, but there are boundaries to that. I'm a big fan of the 7th Circuit (Easterbrook, Wood, Posner, among others), and I'd like to see a judge from that court end up on SCOTUS at some point.

But, at the end of the day, the legal profession is one that can typecast you, so to speak, throughout your career. If you went to a certain school, you're more likely to get a good clerkship, get a job at a big firm or a high level government position (Office of Legal Counsel, for example), and more likely to end up as a rainmaker partner or a judge. There are exceptions of course, especially for well-connected regional schools (i.e. if you went to Suffolk Law in Boston, you have a leg up on many law students from outside of Boston), but I think, for the most part, that's just the way the profession is set up.

I read that article, and posted as an item on my Facebook page. I don't have a problem with it either, and I don't see it changing for a while and when it does, it will still be judges from schools like Michigan, UT, and Berkeley.

Did you read the NYT article about Scalia? He basically explained why he doesn't hire clerks who didn't go to a handful of law schools.

I saw the article about Scalia when it was linked on abovethelaw. It's not really a surprise; if you look at his clerks over the past 20 years, he does only limit to a handful of schools. Then again, that's the way most of the justices are in their picks. Only Clarence Thomas and Alito have gone outside the top 10-12, and even there it's exceptions to the rule.

Heck, even when you look at the people who were chosen from the top schools, they have ridiculous academic records (very top of class, law review experience, including being published, heavy duty moot court experience, and for some, a couple of years at top law firms). It gets limited even more when you look at the judges who are the top "feeders" to the SCOTUS justices.