You must vote DEMOCRAT🐴 🔵 for ONE single reason; The GOP make WHITE ONLY COURTS 👨🏼⚖️ for 40+ YEARS
- Thread starter ☑︎#VoteDemocrat
- Start date
washingtonpost.com
Opinion | Time to call out the GOP’s new Jim Crow tactics
Jennifer Rubin
5-6 minutes
The Wayne County Board of Canvassers, which oversees elections in Detroit, provoked outrage Tuesday night after its members deadlocked over whether to certify its county’s results for the presidential election. Eventually, Republicans on the board caved to certify the results, asking Michigan’s secretary of state to conduct an audit of the election.
Before the reversal, the Trump campaign’s legal adviser celebrated the potential disenfranchisement of hundreds of thousands of African American voters:
This follows the clownish display by President Trump’s lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani in a federal court in Pennsylvania. There, he railed against disproportionately Black cities, seeking to cast doubt on potentially millions of votes. The Associated Press reports, “Democrats in control in major cities in those states — Giuliani name-checked Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Atlanta, Las Vegas, Phoenix, Milwaukee and Detroit — prevented Republican observers from watching election workers process mail-in ballots so the workers could falsify enough ballots to ensure Trump lost, Giuliani claimed, without evidence to back it up.” (In fact, there is replete evidence this did not happen.)
Let’s be brutally honest: We have not seen a coordinated effort of this magnitude and geographic breadth to disenfranchise African American voters since the Jim Crow era. Trump — who has embraced white supremacist symbolism (e.g., the Confederate flag, military bases named for Confederate generals), defended an accused White vigilante murderer, deployed anti-immigrant fearmongering, cheered on Proud Boys and tried to scare White suburbanites with the prospect of racially integrated neighbors — is now leading a campaign that seeks to exclude African American votes. This should remove any doubt that the Trumpist Republican Party, like many right-wing populist parties in Europe, is at its core a racist enterprise.
We are urged not to assume bad motives of our opponents. Any suggestion that we hold accountable the purveyors of lies and racist memes is met with howls of protest. The idea that it would be better for the country and for the center-right to level the Republican Party with a wrecking ball provokes a spasm of rage. But let’s get real.
The MAGA march on D.C. showed Trump supporters are not a monolith, but their dedication to the president is singular. (Joy Sharon Yi, Kate Woodsome/The Washington Post)
The majority of Republican members of Congress, Trump enablers in right-wing media, the Republican National Committee and local Republican leaders of the type in Wayne County have engaged in a coordinated push to preserve the power of a shrinking White electorate, which is essential to their grip on political power. This is far less discreet than the “Southern strategy”; this is the politics of white supremacy. One need not wear a hood or use racial slurs to qualify as a proponent of this racist mentality, which rests on the assumptions that Whites are entitled to hold the reins of power and that the decline of America is tied to the rise of majority-minority states. Under this ideology, any action (e.g. lying, voter suppression, inciting violence) is justified in the existential fight to preserve their place in American society.
But let’s not forget the thousands of good and decent Republicans in state and local government — and some such as Christopher Krebs, former head of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, whom Trump fired for debunking false claims of fraud in the election — who reject the ongoing assault on our multiracial democracy. A handful of Republican senators have recognized President-elect Joe Biden as the legitimate winner. Others, such as Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, personify honor and devotion to the Constitution. They need our support and praise, but they are being outmanned and shouted down by the Trumpian horde and right-wing media.
Millions of Republican voters do not agree with white supremacy, but they delude themselves when they ignore this rotting core of their party. One cannot simply brush off Confederate symbolism, race baiting and incitement of White militia as “just Trump talking” any more than one can pretend the post-election shenanigans are anything but an effort to disenfranchise Black voters so that White votes control the outcome. There is no “But Gorsuch” or “But tax cuts” or “But religious liberty” that justifies this behavior — akin to Whites of the 1950s saying they were not for segregation, just “states’ rights.”
Many pundits are pleading for the nearly 80 million people who voted for Biden to try to understand those who did not, but it is time to implore the less than 74 million who voted for Trump to take off their rose-colored glasses, confront what is at the core of the Trump movement and reject White grievance and Black disenfranchisement. Unless they do, there will be no healing, no reconciliation and no multiracial democracy.
Read more:
Opinion | Time to call out the GOP’s new Jim Crow tactics
Jennifer Rubin
5-6 minutes
The Wayne County Board of Canvassers, which oversees elections in Detroit, provoked outrage Tuesday night after its members deadlocked over whether to certify its county’s results for the presidential election. Eventually, Republicans on the board caved to certify the results, asking Michigan’s secretary of state to conduct an audit of the election.
Before the reversal, the Trump campaign’s legal adviser celebrated the potential disenfranchisement of hundreds of thousands of African American voters:
This follows the clownish display by President Trump’s lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani in a federal court in Pennsylvania. There, he railed against disproportionately Black cities, seeking to cast doubt on potentially millions of votes. The Associated Press reports, “Democrats in control in major cities in those states — Giuliani name-checked Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Atlanta, Las Vegas, Phoenix, Milwaukee and Detroit — prevented Republican observers from watching election workers process mail-in ballots so the workers could falsify enough ballots to ensure Trump lost, Giuliani claimed, without evidence to back it up.” (In fact, there is replete evidence this did not happen.)
Let’s be brutally honest: We have not seen a coordinated effort of this magnitude and geographic breadth to disenfranchise African American voters since the Jim Crow era. Trump — who has embraced white supremacist symbolism (e.g., the Confederate flag, military bases named for Confederate generals), defended an accused White vigilante murderer, deployed anti-immigrant fearmongering, cheered on Proud Boys and tried to scare White suburbanites with the prospect of racially integrated neighbors — is now leading a campaign that seeks to exclude African American votes. This should remove any doubt that the Trumpist Republican Party, like many right-wing populist parties in Europe, is at its core a racist enterprise.
We are urged not to assume bad motives of our opponents. Any suggestion that we hold accountable the purveyors of lies and racist memes is met with howls of protest. The idea that it would be better for the country and for the center-right to level the Republican Party with a wrecking ball provokes a spasm of rage. But let’s get real.
The MAGA march on D.C. showed Trump supporters are not a monolith, but their dedication to the president is singular. (Joy Sharon Yi, Kate Woodsome/The Washington Post)
The majority of Republican members of Congress, Trump enablers in right-wing media, the Republican National Committee and local Republican leaders of the type in Wayne County have engaged in a coordinated push to preserve the power of a shrinking White electorate, which is essential to their grip on political power. This is far less discreet than the “Southern strategy”; this is the politics of white supremacy. One need not wear a hood or use racial slurs to qualify as a proponent of this racist mentality, which rests on the assumptions that Whites are entitled to hold the reins of power and that the decline of America is tied to the rise of majority-minority states. Under this ideology, any action (e.g. lying, voter suppression, inciting violence) is justified in the existential fight to preserve their place in American society.
But let’s not forget the thousands of good and decent Republicans in state and local government — and some such as Christopher Krebs, former head of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, whom Trump fired for debunking false claims of fraud in the election — who reject the ongoing assault on our multiracial democracy. A handful of Republican senators have recognized President-elect Joe Biden as the legitimate winner. Others, such as Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, personify honor and devotion to the Constitution. They need our support and praise, but they are being outmanned and shouted down by the Trumpian horde and right-wing media.
Millions of Republican voters do not agree with white supremacy, but they delude themselves when they ignore this rotting core of their party. One cannot simply brush off Confederate symbolism, race baiting and incitement of White militia as “just Trump talking” any more than one can pretend the post-election shenanigans are anything but an effort to disenfranchise Black voters so that White votes control the outcome. There is no “But Gorsuch” or “But tax cuts” or “But religious liberty” that justifies this behavior — akin to Whites of the 1950s saying they were not for segregation, just “states’ rights.”
Many pundits are pleading for the nearly 80 million people who voted for Biden to try to understand those who did not, but it is time to implore the less than 74 million who voted for Trump to take off their rose-colored glasses, confront what is at the core of the Trump movement and reject White grievance and Black disenfranchisement. Unless they do, there will be no healing, no reconciliation and no multiracial democracy.
Read more:
HuffPost is now a part of Verizon Media
Trump’s Presidency Is Over. His Judges Will Be Here For Decades.
Thanks to Mitch McConnell, Trump has put more than 230 people into lifetime federal court seats. Most are white, male, right-wing ideologues.
Jennifer Bendery
Donald Trump’s presidency is ending in a few weeks. But the more than 230 people he put into lifetime federal judgeships will be shaping the nation’s law for decades.
Trump will leave office having confirmed at least three Supreme Court justices, 54 appeals court judges, 174 district court judges and three judges for the U.S. Court of International Trade. The Senate could still confirm more of his court picks before he’s gone. All of these judges are Article III judges, meaning they have their jobs for life.
How does his record compare to other recent presidents?
In terms of sheer numbers, Trump confirmed more lifetime federal judges than presidents Barack Obama (175), George W. Bush (206) and Bill Clinton (204) did in their first terms.
He couldn’t have done it without Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). Not only did the GOP leader make it his top priority to confirm Trump’s court picks ― he was even pushing them through as emergency COVID-19 relief legislation was stalling out ― but he actively delayed or blocked Obama’s judicial nominees for years, in an effort to keep court seats vacant for a future Republican president to fill. Trump did just that.
“What McConnell has wanted is courts that will be here for decades after voters have rejected Republicans, if that’s what happens. Courts that would themselves be extremely activist in blowing up the welfare state and the ability of the federal government to do much of anything,” said Norm Ornstein, a resident scholar at American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank. “How successful they’ll be, I’m not sure. But for the most part, this Supreme Court has given Trump whatever he wanted with regard to use of executive power.”
Trump is also leaving office having filled almost every vacancy on an appeals court. It’s a remarkable feat; no other president has confirmed as many appeals court judges in a single term. Put another way: Nearly one in every three appeals court judges is now a Trump pick.
“What we’ve seen is not just Trump appointing a lot of judges, which everybody talks about, but his bulldozer-like occupation with filling courts of appeals,” said Russell Wheeler, a visiting fellow in the Brookings Institution’s Governance Studies Program and president of the nonpartisan think tank The Governance Institute. “They’re filling vacancies on district courts now because they don’t have any appeals court seats left to fill.”
This was the plan all along. Trump’s White House spent years focused on confirming judges to the nation’s 13 appeals courts. These courts, which are just one step below the Supreme Court, don’t get the kind of flashy news coverage the highest court gets. But they are incredibly powerful, and they are where most federal law is settled on major issues like capital punishment, abortion, same-sex marriage and immigration.
For some perspective, appeals courts resolve roughly 50,000 cases a year. The Supreme Court resolves about 100.
Jim Bourg / Reuters
President Donald Trump put three people onto the Supreme Court in four years. That’s a lot. It wouldn’t have happened without Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) blowing up Senate rules and traditions.
It doesn’t mean President-elect Joe Biden won’t have any appeals court seats to fill. A number of Democrat-appointed appeals court judges have likely been waiting for Biden to become president before announcing their retirement, said Carl Tobias, a University of Richmond law professor and expert on judicial nominations.
“It’s not as bleak as it might look,” said Tobias. “And it’s worth noting that even though Trump filled so many appellate court vacancies, two-thirds of those replaced Republicans. So it’s not as dramatic as if more Democratic appointees were replaced.”
Still, he said, many of Trump’s judges are incredibly young, in their 30s and 40s, which means “you’re going to have some of these people around forever.”
Trump’s judges are also incredibly homogenous, particularly his picks for appeals courts. Think dozens of clones of Vice President Mike Pence: white, male, right-wing ideologues. Not a single one of his 54 appeals court judges is Black.
Ten of his nominees to lifetime federal court seats were rated not qualified by the American Bar Association. His most recent, now-U.S. district judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, earned the abysmal rating because of her lack of experience. At 33, she doesn’t meet the ABA’s requirement that a nominee to a lifetime federal judgeship have at least 12 years of experience practicing law. Mizelle has been practicing law only since 2012, and has never tried a case ― civil or criminal ― as lead attorney or co-counsel.
Of course, Trump didn’t pick these nominees himself. They were largely fed to him by The Federalist Society, a conservative legal organization that has been hugely invested in putting its members onto appeals courts and the Supreme Court. All three of Trump’s Supreme Court picks are Federalist Society members. Virtually all of his appeals court picks are members. A number of his district court picks are also members. And their resumes often include clerkships with other powerful judges who are ― wait for it ― members of the Federalist Society.
Federal judges who are members of the The Federalist Society have something else in common, too: They tend to have records of being hostile to abortion rights, LGBTQ rights, voting rights and the Affordable Care Act.
You’re going to have some of these people around forever. Carl Tobias, University of Richmond law professor
Subscribe to the Politics email.
From Washington to the campaign trail, get the latest politics news.
Biden is signaling he wants a more progressive and diverse federal bench, and has already promised to nominate a Black woman to the Supreme Court. His advisers say he’ll have a list of potential nominees ready by Inauguration Day, including a short list for the Supreme Court, where the eldest justice, Clinton appointee Stephen Breyer, is 82 years old.
“His approach to nominations across the board is ensuring folks in these positions reflect America, in terms of diversity and ideology,” said a spokesperson for Biden’s transition team, who spoke only generally about his thinking on judicial and executive picks.
“With other nominations and appointments, Biden has set a tone of expecting to work with the Senate on highly qualified nominees at a moment when the country is in a moment of crisis,” said the spokesperson. “He has an expectation of a good faith engagement when he puts forward qualified, seasoned candidates.”
But so much of Biden’s agenda, on judges and otherwise, hangs in the balance ahead of Georgia’s Senate runoff elections in January. The outcome of these elections will decide which party controls the Senate for the next two years.
Even if just one of Georgia’s two Republican senators, David Perdue and Kelly Loeffler, holds onto his or her seat, which is likely, McConnell will remain majority leader. That means Biden has to prepare for the kind of unwavering obstruction that Obama faced in getting his judicial picks confirmed.
“I don’t think McConnell is likely to confirm many of Biden’s nominees at all,” said Wheeler. “Some people have said that maybe Joe and Mitch would get together, these old buddies, these members of the Senate club are going to work things out. I don’t think that’s going to happen.”
McConnell has tossed out so many Senate rules and norms to benefit himself and his party, added Wheeler, that it wouldn’t surprise him if Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas retired in January and McConnell prevented Biden from filling that seat for his entire four years in office.
“It is grim,” he said of his assessment. “But I’ve been studying this stuff going back to the Johnson administration. The Senate just had a different idea, that a president gets to nominate judges. Now it’s become dog-eat-dog and we’ll worry tomorrow if our dog got eaten up too much.”
Tom Williams via Getty Images
Eric Murphy is a Federalist Society member who was confirmed to his lifetime seat on a U.S. appeals court in 2019 at the age of 39. As a lawyer, he repeatedly led efforts to make it harder for people to vote.
Ornstein agreed that Biden will have a rough road ahead, but not just because of McConnell. The fact that virtually all Senate Republicans routinely voted with McConnell to block Obama’s court picks means they don’t seem to care, either, about the idea that a president is entitled to a vote on his nominees.
“I can talk all night about McConnell or Trump, but the stain here on the confirmation process ― on just the whole concept of what the judiciary is supposed to be ― is prevalent across the entire Republican Senate body,” said Ornstein. “Every single one of them.”
If Republicans do hold the Senate, Biden may try to be more measured with the types of judicial nominees he puts forward in hopes of getting them through. They probably wouldn’t be as progressive, for example, as some in his party might want.
He’ll likely have to work with GOP senators to pick nominees they can all support for court vacancies in their home states.
He also may wind up cutting deals that allow for a package of Republican and Democratic nominees to go through together.
“Biden will be forced to horse trade like Clinton had to; he had to put Republicans on the bench to get his Democrats through,” said Brian Fitzpatrick, a law professor at Vanderbilt University and formerly the special counsel for Supreme Court nominations to Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas). “I suspect McConnell will drive an even harder bargain and Biden will probably have to put even more Republicans on than Clinton did.”
Regardless of which party controls the Senate, Biden will take office on Jan. 20, 2021, with roughly 43 district court vacancies and two appeals court vacancies to fill. And as a former longtime chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and a former vice president, Biden has it going for him that he knows the Senate confirmation process better than almost anyone.
“I’m optimistic about Biden. He gets it. He’s got good people around him who are going to do this work,” said Tobias. “I think it will come down to a function of how much Biden is willing to compromise. He and McConnell could reach some kind of understanding.”
“It might not be pretty,” he added, “but it might fill up the courts.”
Do you have information you want to share with HuffPost? Here’s how.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...c589a6-5cc2-11eb-b8bd-ee36b1cd18bf_story.html
The Biden administration must go into overdrive to reclaim our courts
Opinion by Derrick Johnson and Leslie Proll
Jan. 24, 2021 at 2:41 p.m. UTC
Derrick Johnson is president and chief executive of the NAACP. Leslie Proll is its senior adviser for judicial nominations.
Four years of court-packing by President Donald Trump and then-Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) filled our federal judiciary with extremist judges opposed to civil rights. Fortunately, President Biden can begin reforming the courts immediately.
Fueled by the Black vote, the Democratic wins for Georgia’s two seats in the Senate — which confirms federal judicial nominees — give Biden this opportunity. He has inherited two vacancies on the appellate courts and 47 on district courts, with more vacancies expected. Numerous judges appointed by presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama are eligible to take senior status, which would create vacancies, and several have already announced their intent to do so. By nominating a bold and diverse slate of judges, the new president can start to reclaim the courts, seat by seat. The fierce urgency of now should be a guiding principle when it comes to restoring fairness and true representation on our federal courts.
AD
It is difficult to overstate the harm four years of Trump’s judicial appointments caused. Many of the 234 federal judges Trump installed in lifetime jobs are dangerous ideologues who were confirmed despite long records of hostility to civil rights. Although it is true that Trump appointees held the line on overturning the 2020 presidential election, many of his appellate judges, for example, have issued extremist decisions decidedly to the right of the conservativism reflected in appointments by past Republican presidents. These decisions, which will have impact for decades, represent a clear and present danger to the progress of civil rights.
We need to resurrect the path of the civil rights lawyer to the federal bench. Such civil rights legal giants as Thurgood Marshall, Constance Baker Motley, Robert Carter, Nathaniel Jones and U.W. Clemon were appointed to judgeships between the administrations of John F. Kennedy and Jimmy Carter. But recent Democratic administrations have eschewed that practice, leaving our courts with very few judges who practiced civil rights law. We need such lawyers and other progressives back on the bench, to bring some balance to courts around the country.
Trump’s judges were also the least racially diverse in modern history. Eighty-four percent of his appointees are White. The lack of truly representative appointments to appellate courts — which have the final word on most cases, given the Supreme Court’s small docket — is especially damaging. Trump appointed zero African Americans, zero Native Americans, and only one Latino appellate judge — although he did appoint seven Asian Americans to appellate courts.
AD
This dramatic retreat in judicial diversity undermines the integrity and legitimacy of the federal judiciary. Judges from different racial, ethnic and other backgrounds enrich judicial decision-making and promote trust and confidence within communities impacted by their rulings.
Trump’s alarmingly low number of racially diverse appointments has capped — and worsened — a long-term disparity. Far too many federal district courts have never had a judge of color. These include not just the overwhelmingly White districts of Vermont and Idaho, but the more diverse Western District of Louisiana, Southern District of Georgia and Western District of Virginia.
Other courts have been resegregated because judges of color have retired during the Trump years and have not been replaced with similar picks. This retreat in judicial diversity has even hit Biden’s home state: After losing a Black judge, the federal district court in Delaware is an all-White bench.
AD
Today, we once again have an all-White appellate court, thanks to Trump: the Seventh Circuit, which covers Illinois, Wisconsin and Indiana. It lost its only judge of color at the beginning of Trump’s term, and Trump appointed only White judges. Other appellate courts have lost essential representation. For example, Trump failed to include even one Latino nominee among his appointments to the Fifth Circuit, which covers Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi, after the only Latino judge retired.
Representation of Black women on appellate courts has fared worst of all. Remarkably, only eight Black women have ever served on such courts. When Trump’s term began, there were seven Black female appellate judges, and three have since retired. Since Trump has appointed no Black judges — male or female — to the appellate bench, only four Black women currently sit on these influential courts; three are eligible for senior status.
The election of Biden promises a more inclusive judiciary. We applaud his commitment to nominating a Black woman to the Supreme Court. This would be historic and long overdue. But we can’t ignore the imperative to increase representation on the lower courts, too. Each court should reflect the rich diversity of those it serves. Trump not only halted but also reversed any progress toward that goal. The new administration will have to go into overdrive just to catch up. There is no time to waste.
AD
The Biden administration must go into overdrive to reclaim our courts
Opinion by Derrick Johnson and Leslie Proll
Jan. 24, 2021 at 2:41 p.m. UTC
Derrick Johnson is president and chief executive of the NAACP. Leslie Proll is its senior adviser for judicial nominations.
Four years of court-packing by President Donald Trump and then-Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) filled our federal judiciary with extremist judges opposed to civil rights. Fortunately, President Biden can begin reforming the courts immediately.
Fueled by the Black vote, the Democratic wins for Georgia’s two seats in the Senate — which confirms federal judicial nominees — give Biden this opportunity. He has inherited two vacancies on the appellate courts and 47 on district courts, with more vacancies expected. Numerous judges appointed by presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama are eligible to take senior status, which would create vacancies, and several have already announced their intent to do so. By nominating a bold and diverse slate of judges, the new president can start to reclaim the courts, seat by seat. The fierce urgency of now should be a guiding principle when it comes to restoring fairness and true representation on our federal courts.
AD
It is difficult to overstate the harm four years of Trump’s judicial appointments caused. Many of the 234 federal judges Trump installed in lifetime jobs are dangerous ideologues who were confirmed despite long records of hostility to civil rights. Although it is true that Trump appointees held the line on overturning the 2020 presidential election, many of his appellate judges, for example, have issued extremist decisions decidedly to the right of the conservativism reflected in appointments by past Republican presidents. These decisions, which will have impact for decades, represent a clear and present danger to the progress of civil rights.
We need to resurrect the path of the civil rights lawyer to the federal bench. Such civil rights legal giants as Thurgood Marshall, Constance Baker Motley, Robert Carter, Nathaniel Jones and U.W. Clemon were appointed to judgeships between the administrations of John F. Kennedy and Jimmy Carter. But recent Democratic administrations have eschewed that practice, leaving our courts with very few judges who practiced civil rights law. We need such lawyers and other progressives back on the bench, to bring some balance to courts around the country.
Trump’s judges were also the least racially diverse in modern history. Eighty-four percent of his appointees are White. The lack of truly representative appointments to appellate courts — which have the final word on most cases, given the Supreme Court’s small docket — is especially damaging. Trump appointed zero African Americans, zero Native Americans, and only one Latino appellate judge — although he did appoint seven Asian Americans to appellate courts.
AD
This dramatic retreat in judicial diversity undermines the integrity and legitimacy of the federal judiciary. Judges from different racial, ethnic and other backgrounds enrich judicial decision-making and promote trust and confidence within communities impacted by their rulings.
Trump’s alarmingly low number of racially diverse appointments has capped — and worsened — a long-term disparity. Far too many federal district courts have never had a judge of color. These include not just the overwhelmingly White districts of Vermont and Idaho, but the more diverse Western District of Louisiana, Southern District of Georgia and Western District of Virginia.
Other courts have been resegregated because judges of color have retired during the Trump years and have not been replaced with similar picks. This retreat in judicial diversity has even hit Biden’s home state: After losing a Black judge, the federal district court in Delaware is an all-White bench.
AD
Today, we once again have an all-White appellate court, thanks to Trump: the Seventh Circuit, which covers Illinois, Wisconsin and Indiana. It lost its only judge of color at the beginning of Trump’s term, and Trump appointed only White judges. Other appellate courts have lost essential representation. For example, Trump failed to include even one Latino nominee among his appointments to the Fifth Circuit, which covers Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi, after the only Latino judge retired.
Representation of Black women on appellate courts has fared worst of all. Remarkably, only eight Black women have ever served on such courts. When Trump’s term began, there were seven Black female appellate judges, and three have since retired. Since Trump has appointed no Black judges — male or female — to the appellate bench, only four Black women currently sit on these influential courts; three are eligible for senior status.
The election of Biden promises a more inclusive judiciary. We applaud his commitment to nominating a Black woman to the Supreme Court. This would be historic and long overdue. But we can’t ignore the imperative to increase representation on the lower courts, too. Each court should reflect the rich diversity of those it serves. Trump not only halted but also reversed any progress toward that goal. The new administration will have to go into overdrive just to catch up. There is no time to waste.
AD