4 ms·
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 t
by 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 agoWhat 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.