3 ms·

so...we're going to hope they have diverse opinions based on their pigment, sex, and political affiliation? Why is profiling in this case acceptable. Besides, d

so...we're going to hope they have diverse opinions based on their pigment, sex, and political affiliation? Why is profiling in this case acceptable. Besides, didn't the court rule that these actions taken by government were unconstitutional? Would you have preferred a different outcome?

ck2 13y ago
The court has only rejected or modified a handful of requests out of tens of thousands. Something is clearly wrong.
lukeschlather 13y ago
The composition of the court based on pigment, sex, and political affiliation makes it pretty clear that profiling was used to select the court members. The point isn't that they would have diverse opinions otherwise, the point is they were obviously selected to have homogeneous opinions. As if that wasn't bad enough it's obvious that they were selected using ethnic profiling, if not sexism.
- zhemao 13y ago
  How on earth could you conclude that? It's a group of 14 people. It isn't terribly unlikely that they weren't chosen solely on race and gender. Not to mention that they're all federal judges, and the federal judiciary isn't well known for its diversity.
  - pessimizer 13y ago
    >the federal judiciary isn't well known for its diversity. Are you arguing that there's not profiling, or at what level the profiling begins?
    - zhemao 13y ago
      What exactly do you mean by profiling? Do you mean deliberately choosing a group of people so that they all fit a certain set of demographic criteria? If so, then I am arguing that there is not necessarily profiling going on. Just because a group is skewed demographically doesn't mean there is active profiling going on. There could be unconscious biases or other effects at play. I don't disagree that they were probably chosen to have homogeneous opinions. I do disagree that there is clear evidence of ethnic or gender profiling. I think they just said "we need experienced judges who can be trusted to keep things secret and have strongly favorable views towards law enforcement and intelligence services." It happens that most such people are old, White, Republican men.

ck2 13y ago

The court has only rejected or modified a handful of requests out of tens of thousands. Something is clearly wrong.

lukeschlather 13y ago

The composition of the court based on pigment, sex, and political affiliation makes it pretty clear that profiling was used to select the court members. The point isn't that they would have diverse opinions otherwise, the point is they were obviously selected to have homogeneous opinions. As if that wasn't bad enough it's obvious that they were selected using ethnic profiling, if not sexism.

zhemao 13y ago
How on earth could you conclude that? It's a group of 14 people. It isn't terribly unlikely that they weren't chosen solely on race and gender. Not to mention that they're all federal judges, and the federal judiciary isn't well known for its diversity.
- pessimizer 13y ago
  >the federal judiciary isn't well known for its diversity. Are you arguing that there's not profiling, or at what level the profiling begins?
  - zhemao 13y ago
    What exactly do you mean by profiling? Do you mean deliberately choosing a group of people so that they all fit a certain set of demographic criteria? If so, then I am arguing that there is not necessarily profiling going on. Just because a group is skewed demographically doesn't mean there is active profiling going on. There could be unconscious biases or other effects at play. I don't disagree that they were probably chosen to have homogeneous opinions. I do disagree that there is clear evidence of ethnic or gender profiling. I think they just said "we need experienced judges who can be trusted to keep things secret and have strongly favorable views towards law enforcement and intelligence services." It happens that most such people are old, White, Republican men.