Essay On Supreme Court Diversity

No one has any idea of what the new supreme court will be like every time they are chosen. Even the presidents and officials who appoint them can only presume what kind of future the new supreme court holds. A good example would be Sonia Sotomayor, the first latino justice chosen by president Barack Obama who chose her because he felt that she had a bright future, but in reality she didn’t really stand out much. She is often compared to the first African American and first female justice, who did in fact break racial and gender barriers but weren’t generally seen as intellectual leaders. A trend in the recent decades displays that presidents typically nominate candidates with high academics, judicial resumes, a history of controversial speeches,

Ten years prior we had Brown v. The Board of Education, which a few of the same Justices serving on Katzenbach v. McClung were on, that stated that “separate educational facilities is inherently unequal”. Then, with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 we saw the outlawing of segregation and discrimination in public places. This was put to the test by two small southern businesses that claimed Congress had no right to interfere with their local establishments, but the Supreme Court did right by upholding the constitution, and it seemed to be a no brainer as seen by the unanimous decision by the court. It was tense time and shameful part of our history, but without decisions made by these men we might not be where we are today. Racism and discrimination still exist all over the globe to this day. We have come a long way though, and if it wasn’t for people continuing to do the right thing whether they are a majority or minority then we wouldn’t have the freedoms that we have today. The Supreme Court got it right with this decision, not just by upholding the Constitution, but for our Country and Humanity in

The substantial amount of accomplishments in education and experiences in law, stands out amongst other candidates and makes her beyond qualified as a nominee. Furthermore, her life’s work can aid in her position as a Justice of the Supreme Court, where she can implement her teachings and life’s work into court

Despite the efforts of lawyers and judges to eliminate racial discrimination in the courts, does racial bias play a part in today’s jury selection? Positive steps have been taken in past court cases to ensure fair and unbiased juries. Unfortunately, a popular strategy among lawyers is to incorporate racial bias without directing attention to their actions. They are taught to look for the unseen and to notice the unnoticed. The Supreme Court in its precedent setting decision on the case of Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986), is the first step to limiting racial discrimination in the court room. The process of selecting jurors begins with prospective jurors being brought into the courtroom, then

Rosenburg, Friedman, Altman, Rossum and Tarr all illustrate societies past history and race within the court system. Race has always played a big factor in American history since the very beginning of the colonial time period. The United States has had a long history of oppressing minorities such as the enslavement of Africans, harassment of those who immigrated to the states, and

Justice Elena Kagan is currently the Supreme Court Justice. Kegan was nominated by President Obama on May 10, 2010 and than she assumed the role on August 7,2010.   According to The website Supreme Court Review "As a Supreme Court justice, Kagan has been compared to Justice Scalia because of her quick wit, strong writing and aggressive questioning at oral arguments. Justice Kagan, however, has a unique style and is praised for being the justice most in touch with new technology and popular culture.

Sommers, S. (2009, January 1). On the Obstacles to Jury Diversity. In www.thejuryepert.com. Retrieved November 29, 2014, from

Details: The Supreme Court has repeatedly asserted that a defendant is not entitled to a jury composed in whole or in part of persons of his own race. Although these rulings establish that states are not obligated to use racially mixed juries, they do not prohibit states from doing so. In fact, a number of policymakers and legal scholars have proposed reforms that use racial criteria to promote racial diversity on American jury. Some have suggested that the names of majority race jurors be removed from the jury list (thus ensuring a larger proportion of racial minorities); others have suggested that a

The current Supreme Court membership is comprised of nine Supreme Court Justices. One of which is the Chief Justice and the other eight are the Associate Justices. The Justices are Chief Justice John Roberts, Jr., and Associate Justices: John Paul Stevens, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, David H. Souter, Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer and Samuel Anthony Alito, Jr.

But America can change this hierarchy that remains in our justice system if America can become educated and provoke a change in the US society. The diversifications in not only our courtrooms but our juries as well is becoming a bigger issue in America. “Allowing an inquiry about racial bias is just as important, the defense will argue, as allowing an inquiry in jury tampering or weather outside information was brought into jury deliberations” (Nina Totenberg). If we keep tampering with the outcomes of or juries we can never form a more equal society. Americans are standing up for what is right and will continue to fight until we

In 1789, the final draft of the constitution of the United States came into effect. In article three it calls for "[t]he judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." In the article it neither says the duties, powers, or any organization of the supreme court. If left this up to congress and to the justices of the court itself for these details.

Over the years, judicial diversity has been an issue of concern for Wales and England. Reform initiatives and debates for judicial diversity are critical features of various common law jurisdictions. The country faces gender and ethnicity diversity as the major dimension of inclusiveness in the judicial system. Critics have raised general

There are three women on the Supreme Court, one of whom is Latina, and there is one black justice serving on the Supreme Court (Brown, 2016). This is a major issue. The United States, the “melting pot”, has an extreme lack of diversity in their court system. This is an issue that affects several aspects of society. Decisions made by judges will affect the lives of men, women, and their families. The decisions made by judges can also create law. Unlike political officials, the people do not always have the power to vote judges into their positions. Instead, the people hope that their peers with the power to affect the system choose a candidate that will fight for them. Often times, this does not happen.

The social composition of the judiciary does matter, the importance played on ensuring a diverse judiciary. Ensuring that a judiciary is diverse by way of equality act 2010 – Protects people from discrimination in the workplace and wider society. And Human Rights Act

The lack of diversity in the judiciary is deeply entrenched in legal culture. A profession that is intrinsically white, male, and middle class is an intimidating environment for those who fall outside this categorisation. The problem with having a single dominant group is not so much the lack of gender, ethnicity and social minorities in the judiciary but rather the lack of understanding of the various life experiences and perspectives of the diverse community the judiciary serves. An understanding that can only be acquired first hand from personal experience. While it is generally accepted that increasing diversity in judiciary will improve the overall quality of judgments there is not really any real sense of urgency to address this issue. A more diverse judiciary is seen as more of a desire than a necessity. This complacency can be partially attributed to an assumption that eventually the judiciary will balance itself but this has proven to be unsuccessful.