Tags

, , , , , , , ,

Regular readers know I often cite Heather Mac Donald, particularly on issues of crime and race.  This is her partial City Journal Bio:  

Heather Mac Donald is the Thomas W. Smith Fellow at the Manhattan Institute, a contributing editor of City Journal, and a New York Times bestselling author. She is a recipient of the 2005 Bradley Prize. Mac Donald’s work at City Journal has covered a range of topics, including higher education, immigration, policing, homelessness and homeless advocacy, criminal-justice reform, and race relations.

Mac Donald is also an attorney, which considering the focus of this series, is of some small significance.  In Supreme Court: It’s The American Thing To Do, I wrote in part:

Is it possible Joe Biden will nominate a black, female candidate who just happens to be the single most qualified jurist in America?  A jurist who will not lie when they swear to uphold and defend the Constitution?  No.  Next question?  But why not?  Because he’s Joe Biden and what’s left of his brain is primarily focused on TRUNALIMUNUMAPRZURE! and ice cream, and because ‘most qualified’ is fourth, at best, on his list of qualifications.  What’s third? Absolute fealty to D/S/C policy over the Constitution, which means they can’t be the most qualified candidate, or even pretty much sane.  And of course, because it won’t be Joe Biden making the decision anyway, though he will badly read the teleprompter speech announcing ‘his’ decision.

Since I posted that article, Temporary President Biden has announced not only is he going to nominate a black, female candidate for the Supreme Court, that candidate is going to be the single most qualified and legally brilliant human being ever to tread the Earth.  I also noted:

Because we live in a universe with immutable physical laws, many things are not possible, and it’s equally not possible Joe Biden is going to nominate the most qualified, loyal to the Constitution and America, candidate–of any gender or color.  Limiting it to a tiny portion–black, female lawyers/judges, though one need not be a lawyer to be a Supreme Court justice–of the population tends to drop the odds a bit.

Just how much does choosing only from black, female lawyers/judges drop the odds?  Mac Donald explains, as I knew she would:

An estimated 2 percent of the nation’s lawyers are black females. The introduction of any extraneous criterion for a job search lowers the average caliber of the potential applicant pool, by putting top contenders who do not possess the irrelevant trait out of reach. Contrary to the nostrums of diversity advocates, the role of a judge is not to “look like” this or that identity-based group; it is to apply the law as accurately and transparently as possible. President Ronald Reagan ignored that fact by limiting his 1981 Supreme Court selection to a female.

Quite so, although women are roughly 50% of the population, according to the most recent census, they comprise about 38% of all lawyers, about 400,000 in total.  As Mac Donald notes, black women amount to about 2% of all our nation’s lawyers, and obviously, far fewer must be judges.  According to American Progress.org, only 3.4% of sitting federal judges were black women.  One might expect that number to be somewhat larger circa 2022, but still, the proportion surely remains small.

Biden’s race and gender restrictions are even more draconian, rendering 98 percent of all possible candidates beyond consideration because they lack ‘qualifications’ that have nothing to do with judging.

Maybe, nevertheless, by some statistical anomaly, Biden’s severely constricted pool of candidates contains a disproportionate share of competitively qualified potential Supreme Court justices. From everything we know about average legal skills, however, the odds are against it, individual exceptions notwithstanding.

After the first year of law school, 51 percent of black law students rank in the bottom tenth of their class, compared with 5 percent of white students, according to a study of hundreds of thousands of student records from 90 percent of all accredited law schools and comprising 80 percent of all law students. Two-thirds of black students score in the bottom fifth of their class.

Why might this amazing disparity be so?  Read on:

The author of that study, UCLA law professor Richard Sander, attributes that unequal performance distribution to mismatch: every remotely selective law school admits black students with academic qualifications on average vastly below their white peers. Mean black and white scores on the 2013–2014 LSAT were separated by 1.06 standard deviations, the Brookings Institution has found. In 2004, only 29 blacks, or 0.3 percent of all LSAT test takers, scored 170 or above on the LSAT, the average score for the most competitive schools, reports The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education. Whites were more than ten times as likely as blacks to score 170 or above. Yet those schools all admitted what they deem a ‘critical mass’ of black students by race-norming their admissions standards.

In other words, law schools are admitting students who, were they white or Asian, would be turned down in an instant.  It would only be surprising were this not the case.  As I’m sure SMM readers know, colleges these days admit pretty much every student–white or otherwise–with a solvent checking account, which is why they virtually all have remedial high schools on campus.  They require such students to take remedial English, math and other classes at full tuition, but grant no college credit for those classes, adding a year or more to a bachelor’s degree.  A very large number of these “students” never earn a degree, but they do incur enormous college debt they’ll have no ability to repay.

Law school is far more expensive, and far more exclusive, but to fill classrooms with sufficient “diversity,” even those schools—post-graduate level education—fudge the numbers to admit people they know are not remotely qualified, except in race, gender and sexual orientation.

The resulting skills gap puts preference beneficiaries at a competitive disadvantage in the classroom; they struggle to keep up with instruction pitched to students with more advanced academic skills. The consequences linger: blacks are twice as likely to drop out of law school as whites; only 45 percent of black law grads pass a bar exam on their first try compared with 80 percent of whites. Blacks are six times as likely to fail the exam after multiple attempts.

As I noted, law schools are admitting people who surely, in at least some cases, are barely able to read, and have no real academic skills.  They know how many are going to drop out, and they “help” members of an eternally oppressed race by putting them in a situation where they are virtually certain to fail, and unless given a full ride scholarship, will incur enormous debt they can’t possibly pay off, dumping it on taxpayers when they inevitably default on their loans.  This isn’t help; it’s cruelty.  By all means, take the link and read Mac Donald’s complete article.  But who should be on the Supreme Court?  I suggested that in my first article on this subject:

It’s not about nominating and confirming Republicans or D/S/Cs. It’s about justices who won’t lie in taking their oaths and those who will.  It’s about either fidelity to the Constitution, or to woke political purity.  But don’t trust me, trust Joe Biden, who in 2003 and 2005, filibustered–I guess the filibuster wasn’t a threat to democracy then–Janice Rogers Brown’s nomination for the federal bench.  Of course, she’s one of those “fidelity to the Constitution” types so no wonder Joe had to filibuster her.

Tragically, too much to hope…

Final Thoughts:  When I speak about a judge not lying when taking their oath, I refer to swearing to uphold and defend the Constitution rather than stealth swearing to uphold D/S/C orthodoxy.

It’s mildly surprising Biden’s racial and gender criteria are very unpopular:

A new ABC News poll shows that a full 76% of Americans, including 72% of “nonwhite” Americans and 54% of Democrats, reject this self-imposed requirement.

That’s ABC, gentle readers. We can safely assume it’s even more unpopular than they’re reporting.  It’s also interesting a legacy media outlet like ABC is reporting anything negative about Biden.  D/S/Cs know they’re in trouble when Slate turns on them.

We can be certain whoever Mr. Biden—actually, his handlers—choose will be lying.  They will be D/S/C activists, not professional, dispassionate judges whose sole source for deciding cases will be the Constitution and the law.  We can be certain they’ll join with Associate Justices Kagan and Sotomayor in furthering social justice/woke policy, so in that at least, the composition of the court will not change.

What remains is whether it’s remotely possible the person Biden/Handlers pick is even remotely qualified for the job.  Will they have the intellect, the personal habits, the legal mind necessary for our nation’s highest court?  But they’re already judges!  They must be smart!  Anyone with any experience in America’s justice system knows better than that.  Imagine how much worse the entire judge pool might be with diversity judicial appointments, people appointed primarily because they were black, or thinning the herd even more, black and female.  What’s next?  The first black/hispanic, sort of female/trans two-spirt of colorish Supreme Court Justice?  Or was Roman Hruska, speaking in 1971, clairvoyant?

We’ll know in the near future.  But now we know, even better than in the first article, the odds—for America—aren’t good.