Posted by on Mar 19, 2016 in Criminal Defence, Supreme Court |

When you look at Supreme Court and other similar high ranking places you would expect the example on how it should be. But sadly that is not true because diversity in Supreme Court is rather small.

I don’t say it is all bad, if we compare Supreme Court before and after Obama then there is change, but this is still not enough. Before Obama Supreme Court had all white members, which was a type of racial discrimination Obama fixed. An issue of gender diversity is also something Obama changed.

But many other things are left unchanged. For example all judges went to law school at either Yale or Harvard. Each and every member of the Supreme Court comes from coastal state and none of them is Protestant. Only two members of Supreme Court worked as prosecutors, while none of them worked as defense attorney.

All of the things listed above can be considered as one or another type of discrimination.

Duopoly of members regarding their law school is strange and wrong. People that go at either of these schools are expected to perform well, and no one checks whether they are good enough for the position. Other schools have similar level of knowledge, without arrogance that comes from students that went to those two schools.

Religion is important as well. Even though there is a law that punishes religious discrimination, only Catholics and Jews become members of Supreme Court. Religious upbringing gives us different perspectives of right and wrong, and every religion has something to give. Having one “none” (people who have no religion) might be good thing for Supreme Court because it would add another angle in the equation.

Criminal defense lawyer orange county said that lack of members of Supreme Court that had some experience as defense lawyer means that they don’t have insight into costs of procedures and other things for defendant.