Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Elroy who wrote (242479)	7/21/2005 3:04:46 AM
From: tejek	Read Replies (5) \| Respond to of 1574307

It makes sense to me that the sexual makeup of the Supreme Court matches the sexual makeup of the qualified applicant pool. Do you know the approximate sexual makeup of the qualified applicant pool (say, highly placed judges with 10-30 years experience)? If so, what is it? If not, how can you claim their is a bias in the sexual makeup of the Court? Just start with the data before you start with the whining, that's all I ask! PS - The fact that 50% of the population is women does not mean that 50% of the applicant pool is women. This is obvious to most normal people, but I point it out to help you along. Amy is stating a hypothesis that the Supreme Court should make some attempt to reflect the make up of the general population. You have presented no evidence that the pool of applicants is not in the same ratio as the general population. However, even if the ratio for the pool of applicants is not 50/50 [like the general population] but 60/40 or 70/30 in favor of the men, it very unlikely to come any where near the ratio of the current Court which is roughly 90/10 in favor of the men. So if you disagree with her very reasonable hypothesis, than the onus is on you to disprove it with empirical evidence that contradicts that hypothesis, or to shut up and move on yourself.