Here's the Supreme Court before the term "diversity" became undefinable

[Mr.Mystery]

and mysterious to right-wingers like Clarence Thomas benefiting from a push for diversity.

Photo of Supreme Court Justices in 1941:

Do you see any similarities among the group?

Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?

[yankee87]

1. Equality equals repression according to the Reich Wing

Since the old guard cannot discriminate and subjugate everyone else, obviously they are being discriminated against. This is how the RWNJ party believes.

[Mr.Mystery]

2. I agree with your assessment of them.

But to have Thomas take this line when he so obviously benefited more than anyone from the push for diversity is hypocrisy to a mind-numbing level.

[kelly1mm]

3. Although not as diverse as todays Court, was the 1941 Court more liberal

than todays Court? By 1941 the Court had begun approving FDRs New Deal programs. The Berger Court a decade or two after the 1941 Court was also less diverse but WAY more liberal than todays Court.

[spooky3]

4. And all but one of the 6-3 majority are male; all but

One are white.

[kelly1mm]

7. Right, which is WAY more diverse than the 1941 Court. Simply being diverse

does not make them better, unless thats what you are arguing?

[spooky3]

9. If you watch the RBG documentary, you'll see plenty of evidence

That the white male courts in her time and earlier were not so liberal on a lot of issues.

[Mr.Mystery]

12. Ideologically "better or worse" is not the same as more representative of society.

Diversity means the Court reflects the society from which it is drawn better.

[kelly1mm]

13. That makes sense. However I will just again point out we currently have the most

diverse Court ever and reflects the society better than any previous Court and one of the most conservative in decades.

[Mr.Mystery]

14. Yes . . . after thinking about this, it ties in with the Bernie Sander's idea that "identity

politics" should be secondary to "class struggle" . . . (I don't know if he would characterize his position that way, but that's what I see him saying.)

And I think that position is basically right.

Just because you put an Afr.-American on the Court (Thomas) or a woman (Sandra Day O'Conner or Amy Covid Barrett) or a Catholic (Alito, Scalia, Kavanaugh, Gorsuch) or a Jew (Cardozo) in no way means that they will honor the interests of their "identity" or the interests of the majority of Americans.

The Cons have played jiu-jitsu with identity politics--they replaced the towering justice-for-all figure of Thurgood Marshall with the puppet-of-the-special interests Clarence Thomas, but the Libs can't object because "he's black, you know." Same with Amy Covid Barrett, she a woman sold out women's rights practically the first thing she did on the bench. But by golly, she is a woman, heigh ho.

So the Court is diverse in gender, religion, ethnicity, race etc., but it's still packed with ONE political viewpoint.

[LastDemocratInSC]

5. That looks like a casting call for the role of Henry F. Potter.

[Mr.Mystery]

11. HAH! Good one. nt

[Montauk6]

6. That's pretty diverse...

You got balding, full head, possible toup...

[MichMan]

8. Is that the court that ruled putting Japanese Americans into prison camps was legal?

[whathehell]

10. All white males