President Biden's first term in office

[PointOfViewGun]

I don't know and I don't care. How the current ration of male/female judges has anything to do with the heavy discrimination against men that Bidet's administration exhibits?

Anyway, up until fairly recently, men outnumbered women in law schools, so of course there would be more men in federal benches than women: they have a higher pool to pick the most qualified candidate from.
Except that from 2021 and on, Biden decided that a veeeery important qualification for a federal judge, is to not have a dick.

EDIT:
I checked. Women lawyers (per 2020 report) are 37.4% I guess that 10 years ago they were probably about 1/3.
State judges in 2021 are about 1/3 women. Federal judges are about 1/3 women. So... about 1/3 of women are lawyers for at least a few years, 1/3 are judges in lower courts and that was, up to March 2021, correctly represented in the amount of seats they held in the Federal courts.
And then, came Bidet and started heavily discriminating against men. In a fair system, about 35%-40% of new hires would be women as that is their representation in the lower courts.

So, you care, since you checked. Good. Because you should, since you're passing judgment about male to female ratio of judges. You need to know how many of the current judges are male or female. So that you know how Biden's picks effect this. A fair representation of women in court wouldn't be 1/3rd but 1/1.

[alhoon]

So, you care, since you checked. Good. Because you should, since you're passing judgment about male to female ratio of judges. You need to know how many of the current judges are male or female. So that you know how Biden's picks effect this. A fair representation of women in court wouldn't be 1/3rd but 1/1.

In the long term, yes, 1/1 would be ideal. BUT when 1/3 lower-level judges are women, and 4/5 of these are promoted, it is heavy discrimination against men that are passed on while better in their job, because they have male genitals.

[Basilius]

The irony in blaming the Dems for inflation is that they indeed caused it, but for good reason. Their stimulus recovery programs produced a high-demand economy that COVID choked supply-lines couldn't meet. Low inflation and low demand would have been a worse economic outcome for the US and subsequently the world, but Biden critics do not understand this.

A further irony is that Biden's biggest mistakes have been continuations of Trumpist policies, including tariffs, refugee cruelty, and leaving Afghanistan. Each of these things would have been celebrated by Republicans if Trump did them, but as Democrats are not as leader-driven as Republicans are, both parities criticize Biden for them.

How much blame to assign Biden on legislative missteps, like BBB and electoral reform, is hard to parse given the progressive left's prerogatives, conservative dem interference, and Republican obstructionism. I think Biden could have done more if he was more incremental. But in general the President is not primarily responsible for legislation.

Biden's greatest achievements in his first year include returning US Foreign Policy back to sanity, appointing competent officials, his child anti-poverty schemes, the infrastructure bill, and his broad handling of the epidemic. His weaknesses are in refuting populism (hard for anyone to do right now), lack of self-advocacy, and in meeting his legislative aspirations.

His problems notwithstanding, a return to Republican control of Congress this year and a Trumper executive in 2024 is folly, but both are likely probabilities.

[alhoon]

I haven't seen that many competent officials by Bidet, Basilus. He has Kamala Harris as Vice President. To think, in the beginning, I liked and supported her. I honestly thought she would have made a good president when she was running and a competent vice president. I can be wrong too, I guess...

OK, to be 100% honest, I am disappointed in her but I would STILL prefer her from Biden. If she was running again, I would prefer her from the rest of the Democrat circus or from Trump.
Thanks to her being a woman and 2-minority, she is free to put up candidates based on their worth, not the color of their skin or their genitals. I.e. she would not be as pressured to put a transexual in a high cabinet position or fill a certain minority quota in the cabinet.
And as hell she would push harder for voting rights. I am stunned that what should be the most prominent thing in Democrat and Republican agenda tanked. I can understand the Retardicans closing ranks against it, but there should have been 3-4 break-away senators to join the democrats on that. And the democrats should have been united to pass it.

Don't get me wrong: I believe Biden is passionate about voting rights. Minority rights and fighting for them was his thing since the 80s. He did make his mistakes but his intentions were clear. He does believe in that part, he doesn't just cite the book for the votes.
BUT... A bulldog with a whip as the Potus, that wouldn't mind kneecapping people in the balls to get what she wants, would get those votes easier than a kind old man that tries to speak reason.

[PointOfViewGun]

In the long term, yes, 1/1 would be ideal. BUT when 1/3 lower-level judges are women, and 4/5 of these are promoted, it is heavy discrimination against men that are passed on while better in their job, because they have male genitals.

Lower judge population, which Biden has no control over, being only 1/3rd women doesn't mean it's OK to have 1/3rd of higher-level judges women, a group that Biden has some say over.

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

So, you care, since you checked. Good. Because you should, since you're passing judgment about male to female ratio of judges. You need to know how many of the current judges are male or female. So that you know how Biden's picks effect this. A fair representation of women in court wouldn't be 1/3rd but 1/1.

Exactly. And since at least 2017 there are more female students than male, so there percentage should be more than 1/3 in lower and higher judge positions. And i guess the US have some thousands judges, not 100. So those 80 judges doesn't matter really.




Edit: In fact since 1992 women are 50 % of law students:

Since 1992, women's representation in law school classes has approached 50%.^[14] However, the percentage of female federal judges is fairly lower. As of 2016, only 36% of judges on the federal courts of appeals were women, that is 60 out of 167 active judges. Women represented only 15% of judges on the Third Circuit, only 20% of judges on the Eight Circuit and only 25% of judges on the Tenth Circuit. As for women of color, there is even a smaller number. Only 12 women (7% of judges) of color were on the U.S. courts of appeals.^[15]
In addition to other task forces, the Ninth Circuit's report found that many women believe that a major hindrance to attaining a judicial position is the lack of women "power players" in the connected "old boys' clubs" that often influence judicial appointments. Women judges and women lawyers attribute male-domination of the judiciary in large part to the exclusion of women from the networks that influence judicial appointments. Women lawyers attribute the small number of women appointed to bench and bar committees to the exclusion of women from formal and informal selection processes. A large proportion of women lawyers believe that men have a better chance than women to be promoted to law firm partnerships and to equivalent positions in public law organizations. (See Sandra Day O'Connor, The Effects of Gender in the Federal Courts: The Final Report of the Ninth Circuit Gender Bias Task Force: The Quality of Justice, 67 S. Cal. L. Rev. 745, 786-87 (1994).)

Women in the United States judiciary - Wikipedia

So no discrimination of balls bearers. The Old Boys Club will protect them.

*taking Uncle Gordon the bottle of Ouzo away from the table, putting a cup of strong black coffee on the table*

[Kissaki]

In the long term, yes, 1/1 would be ideal. BUT when 1/3 lower-level judges are women, and 4/5 of these are promoted, it is heavy discrimination against men that are passed on while better in their job, because they have male genitals.

Presidential appointments aren't based solely on ability, but their political positions and reputations - they are a signal to the public as much as anything. A president who wishes to signal progressive politics may well be expected to favour minorities in his picks. You may call this discrimination, but I see nothing wrong with this. The president's picks are not a fair or democratic process, nor are they meant to be. And certainly these past few decades, it has been typical for the President's picks to be considered problematic by the opposition.

[alhoon]

Lower judge population, which Biden has no control over, being only 1/3rd women doesn't mean it's OK to have 1/3rd of higher-level judges women, a group that Biden has some say over.

There is also no reason to promote people based on their gender over other people that are more qualified.

Exactly. And since at least 2017 there are more female students than male, so there percentage should be more than 1/3 in lower and higher judge positions. And i guess the US have some thousands judges, not 100. So those 80 judges doesn't matter really.

Not so, Morticia. The judges that Biden could promote are few. Check my post for the sources and the numbers.

You can blame governors and local jurisdictions for the low amount of women behind benches if you want and that has some basis* but Biden's pool of candidates is judges.

He had to fill 41 positions from a pool that was for good or for ill, 70% men and 30% women. And then, he promoted 80% women.
This is discrimination over balls bearers and I would like you to consider what you would be saying if a Republican Governor was appointing 80% of judges as men.

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

Being only average skilled, but having balls and the right connections to the conservative "Old men's club" is nothing what is making someone more qualified.

He had to fill 41 positions from a pool that was for good or for ill, 70% men and 30% women. And then, he promoted 80% women.
This is discrimination over balls bearers and I would like you to consider what you would be saying if a Republican Governor was appointing 80% of judges as men.

80 % of 41 positions filled with qualified women making 33 positions. The Federal Courts have hundreds of judges. It is only a drop in the ocean, a symbolic act against the "Old Men Club".

Although since 1992 50 % of law students are women, only 30 % of the federal judges are female now.

How long shall we wait till we reach parity? 2500 AD?

[PointOfViewGun]

There is also no reason to promote people based on their gender over other people that are more qualified.

That's quite an assumption to make. How do you know all those candidates were less qualified? Why is it such a problem to promote qualified female judges?

[Infidel144]

.Although since 1992 50 % of law students are women, only 30 % of the federal judges are female now.

How long shall we wait till we reach parity 2500 AD?

How many of the women law students make an attempt at becoming federal judges? I.e. what field of law have judges generally specialized in, compared to women and men generally?

[alhoon]

Being only average skilled, but having balls and the right connections to the conservative "Old men's club" is nothing what is making someone more qualified.

No, it's not making someone more qualified. But this case is the opposite.

Although since 1992 50 % of law students are women, only 30 % of the federal judges are female now.

So, is it right to discriminate against men because in the past there was discrimination against women?

How long shall we wait till we reach parity? 2500 AD?

The goal of promotions should not be to achieve parity, but to promote the best candidate. Gender should have no bearing on it, one way or the other.
It is as wrong of Bidet to promote people based on their genitals as it was for those governors in the 90s.

That's quite an assumption to make. How do you know all those candidates were less qualified?

Statistics.
You have ~20000 judges. 14000 of them are men, 6000 are women.
You have 41 positions.
Out of the 14000 men you promote 8. Out of the 6000 women you promote 33.

For every 1750 men, you promote 1.
For every 181 women, you promote 1.

Do you see the huge disparity there? Men have to be 10 times better than their peers compared to women to be promoted.

Why is it such a problem to promote qualified female judges?

Why is it a such a problem to promote qualified male judges?

[Abdülmecid I]

One page and a half of posts about women, genetics, testosterone and society moved to a separate thread in the Academy. Please keep the discussion here about President Biden and his mouthwatering ice-creams.

[Lord Thesaurian]

Newly released Jan 6 footage showing events less than an hour after the initial breach. People move freely in and out among police.

[Kissaki]

Newly released Jan 6 footage showing events less than an hour after the initial breach. People move freely in and out among police.

You mean freely in and out in front of the police. I can't help noticing that the police are forming a line through which no one passes. A small number of doorways is far easier to protect than many.

[Coughdrop addict]

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-w...ection-results

An arch conservative member of Arizona’s state House of Representatives has proposed a mammoth overhaul of the state’s voting procedures that would allow legislators to overturn the results of a primary or general election after months of unfounded allegations and partisan audits.

Republicans know they cannot win free and fair elections anymore. Even gerrymandering, voter suppression, and Putin's help can no longer guarantee a victory. So now they plan to in effect do away with elections entirely and install themselves as our kings, completely unanswerable to the will of the people.

[alhoon]

Newly released Jan 6 footage showing events less than an hour after the initial breach. People move freely in and out among police.

I only see the police, defeated, in the back.

[Coughdrop addict]

So apparently some MAGAs have gotten it into their heads that Biden plans to pick Harris for the SC. Which will mean he needs a new VP.

Who will of course be...

HILLARY CLINTON!!!

(Dun Dun Dun!)

Then Biden will resign, meaning she will be the President!!!

Anyone who tells them this is stupid and ridiculous is of course a Deep State shill.

[alhoon]

So apparently some MAGAs have gotten it into their heads that Biden plans to pick Harris for the SC. Which will mean he needs a new VP.

Who will of course be...

HILLARY CLINTON!!!

(Dun Dun Dun!)

Then Biden will resign, meaning she will be the President!!!

Anyone who tells them this is stupid and ridiculous is of course a Deep State shill.

-_-
They didn't tell you the truth.
Hillary will MURDER Biden, he won't resign. She will also do it a few weeks after Jan 20 2023, so that her nearly-two-years won't count as a full term, so she could run again twice.

[Sir Adrian]

There's a non-trivial probability that Biden will die in office of natural causes.