23/35 complete gender equality on the federal bench would require us to confirm only 23 women a year. … Think: in a country where they make up just 30 percent of the population, non-Hispanic white men make up nearly 70 percent of this administration’s confirmed judicial

1
0
1
Likes
  • ZodiacChi11er
Replies
  • 24/35 appointees. That’s not what America looks like. That’s not even what the legal profession looks like. … This administration and a bare majority of the Senate, walking arm-and-arm, are not stumbling unaware towards a homogeneous judiciary. Think of the slurs against

    1
    0
    1
  • 25/35 Judge Curiel. Think of the nominations to the bench of those who call diversity “code for relaxed standards,” who call transgender children part of “Satan’s plan,” who defend the KKK in online message boards, who led voter suppression efforts for segregationists like

    1
    0
    1
  • 26/35 Jesse Helms. Think of the pattern of judicial nominees refusing to admit, like generations of nominees before them have, that Brown v. Board was correctly decided. The consequences of this “homogeneous judiciary,” Reeves noted, will be devastating to justice.

    1
    0
    1
  • 27/35 Defending the judiciary means more than demanding that more women and people of color be appointed to the bench. With no Muslims on the bench, will our judiciary understand the many facets of religious freedom? How can it defend economic opportunity with so few judges who

    1
    0
    1
  • 28/35 know the taste of a free lunch program or the weight of poverty? How can our judiciary understand the depths of mass incarceration when so few judges have stood with the accused or know them as neighbors, as Sunday School students, as loved ones? Filled only with the

    1
    0
    1
  • 29/35 experiences of prosecutors & state court judges, of Big Law partners & corporate counsel, of a single religion or sexual orientation, our courts will fail to find the many truths justice must see. We need a judiciary as diverse as our country—as diverse as “We the People.”

    1
    0
    1
  • 30/35 Reeves then turned to the Supreme Court. “We have as many justices who have graduated from Georgetown Prep,” he pointed out, “as we have justices who have lived as a non-white person. When our Supreme Court captures such a narrow set of perspectives, what truths will it

    1
    0
    1
  • 31/35 overlook?” Moreover, too many justices have failed to defend the judiciary against Trump’s bigotry. “It is not enough for judges,” Reeves said, “seeing race-based attacks on their brethren, to say they are merely ‘disheartened,’ ” as Justice Neil Gorsuch did, “or to simply

    1
    0
    1
  • 32/35 affirm their nonpartisan status,” as Chief Justice John Roberts has. “We must do more to defend our bench.” But courts “must do more than denounce and diversify.” Judges must demand “resources they need to find truth. We must expand the reach and power of our courts,

    1
    0
    1
  • 33/35 offering justice to all who claim the promise of America.” Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has lately moved in the opposite direction. And Trump’s new crop of judges shows no interest in “offering justice to all.” Due to the cynicism and cowardice of senators and judges

    1
    0
    1
  • 34/35 who kowtow to Trump, this “third great assault on the judiciary” shows no sign of ceasing. But Reeves refuses to stand by and watch the erosion of civil rights in quiet dismay. He has issued a call to arms for all who support a strong, independent, and diverse judiciary:

    1
    0
    1
  • 35/35 fight for what you believe in before Trump and his allies “close the courthouse doors to those who most need justice.” 

    0
    0
    2