Supreme Court Math

Under pressure from aggressively abusive liberals, Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer this week announced his retirement. President Biden quickly issued a statement saying his pick as a replacement would be a black female, while seeming to dismiss the goal of finding the best justice to protect our constitution and serve the nation. President Biden’s assertion is that the Supreme Court should represent a cross section of our country, which seems noble. So, let’s assume this assertion, and because liberals like identity politics, do the math.

To start, 51.1% of the US population is female, which means, according to President Biden, half the Supreme Court Justices should be women, but since there are nine justices, there will always be an imbalance. Currently there are three female justices (33%), so adding one more would be mathematically called for. . . so score one for POTUS, if you support his assertion.

The Black population in America is 41.1 million, which is 13.4% of the overall US population. There is currently one black justice, which amounts to 11% of Supreme Court representation. Adding another black justice would increase their representation to 22%. Since 13.4 is mathematically closer to 11 than 22, it can be argued that adding a black justice to the Supreme Court would over-represent this demographic, and according to liberals, that would be, well, unjust.

There are currently 62.1 million Hispanics in America and growing by 2 million per year according to US Border Patrol estimates. This represents 20.25% of the overall US population. There is currently one Hispanic justice, so if the President, and the liberals who control his nomination, truly believe the Supreme Court should represent a cross-section of America, it would be righteous and just to make the Supreme Court nominee a Hispanic Female.

The Asian population in America 18.1 million, or 5.9% of the overall US population. There are currently no Asian justices represented on the Supreme Court. Mathematically, 5.9 is closer to 11 than zero, so if the President truly believes the Supreme Court should represent a cross-section of America, as he could hold to his beliefs while nominating an Asian Female.

Mathematically, the strongest argument for moving the US Supreme Court into alignment with the latest census data would be to nominate a Hispanic woman. However, there is always room in statistics for options, and since Asians currently have no representation on the supreme court, an argument can be made that they are due. Either way, if President Biden believes his liberal rhetoric, his hands are mathematically tied in this matter, and he must move forward with either a Hispanic or Asian female Supreme Court nominee. However, as most pundits would point out, what liberals espouse, and what they practice, have at best a weak correlation.

The Far More Disconcerting Statistic: There are 199 American Bar Association accredited law schools in America, but eight out of nine (89%) Supreme Court justices are from Harvard, an academic institute that openly discriminates against Asians to keep their privileged but marginal students from looking stupid. On the surface this is mathematically outrageous, and points to the extent in which powerful elites quietly control the most powerful branch of the US government. Until President Trump had the unprecedented audacity to appoint Amy Coney Barrett from Notre Dame, to the Supreme Court it had been 100% owned by Harvard graduates for most our lives. Which is hard to explain when you consider that compared to serious academic institutions like UC Berkeley or Stanford, Harvard is a second-tier school catering to America’s privileged but less than gifted elites.

When California dropped their minority preference practice in the 1990’s, Berkeley became an Asian majority campus, which suggests (mathematically), that the best legal scholars graduating from Berkeley are likely to be Asian. On top of that, Berkeley, along with many other law schools in America, are performance based, meaning you must earn your law degree, rather than purchase it.

In theory, the reason one chooses a particular graduate college is because of the college’s approach to teaching their discipline. For example, I attended Purdue for my PhD, because the engineering college taught optimization from a perspective I wanted to learn, i.e., game theory. I chose Berkeley for my post-graduate work because they approached probability theory from a Bayesian perspective.

Most technical schools adhere to the frequentist ideology of probability theory, which is based on a belief that the world is random. In this ideology, for example, a coin toss is equally likely to be heads or tails. In a Bayesian ideology, the world is perceived as biased, i.e., not random. In this world, a coin toss is biased towards either heads or tails because it is not possible to make a perfectly balanced coin or devise a perfectly random method for tossing the coin.

Law colleges are similar in that they approach legal theory from different perspectives. For example, a student graduating from the Berkeley Law School has been taught a different way of interpreting the law than say a student graduating from the Baylor Law School. From the standpoint of liberal equality, the most diverse distribution of legal thought on the Supreme Court would come from representing a cross-section of legal perspectives.

We have, however, unfortunately been brainwashed into a false partisan dogma in which all that matters in selecting a Supreme Court justice is whether we have a balance of liberal and conservative ideologies, when in fact, that’s just a distraction so no one notices that a cabal of Harvard elites are quietly running the country. If President Biden really wants to promote diverse representation on the US Supreme Court, as his predecessor did, he will nominate a Hispanic or Asian female who studied law anywhere but Harvard.

The President’s nominee for the Supreme Court will not be the best legal scholar in America, it never has been. And that’s okay, if you also believe it’s okay to not have the best engineers producing the aircraft you fly. Having survived a plane crash, I personally like to believe no Harvard engineers were involved in producing the aircraft I fly. . . but wait, what am I saying, Harvard doesn’t graduate real engineers, probably because engineering is still a performance-based profession. . .thank God.

I predict, based on my Bayesian clairvoyance, that President Biden’s Supreme Court nominee will be a black woman from Harvard, which defies mathematical logic, liberal fairness, and our nation’s core ideals about diversity. What it does do, however, is perpetuate the cabal that quietly runs the country and pulls Pinocchio’s presidential strings.