110 people have served as justices on the U.S. Supreme Court - all but 4 have been white men

In other words, 96 percent of the Supreme Court justices have been white males.

For most of its history, until 1967, only white men served on the Supreme Court.

The lowest percentage of white men on any Supreme Court panel has been 67 percent - from 1993 through 2005 when Sandra Day O'Connor, Clarence Thomas, and Ruth Bader Ginsberg diversified the pool.

The current Court is made up of 78 percent white men.

If Judge Sotomayor is confirmed, the white male percentage will go back to 67 percent - the ratio in place before Justice O'Connor retired.

But while the percentage will go back to what it was during the O'Connor years, there will be one critical difference.

For the first time in history, the Supreme court will have more two justices of color - meaning that for the first time in history, the U.S. Supreme Court will be less than 89 percent white.

I suspect that much of the handwringing and desperate attacks from some quarters has nothing to do with judicial philosophy - instead, it is a visceral reaction to the abject fear of the creeping colorization of one of the nation's last bastions of racial exclusion.

No Rush, White Males are not going to be stripped of citizenship or put in the back of the bus, hey O'Reilly is it OK for women and Minorities to take part in running of the country too? Hey Hannity can women and minorities make decisions that affect and guide this country also? If not then all of you Rwers can go Dick Cheaney yourselves!

why can't all the blacks and women and hispanics be happy with 4%?

Just as any group would be, when they have been the ones in power, and then, seemingly "suddenly" they are thrust out of that position.

They will not go softly into that good night. Kicking and screaming, is more like it.

As Obama said during the campaign, those in power don't give it up easily.

(Altho I must say that I don't subscribe to the notion that it is necessary to have different colors and genders in a power group. Some of the biggest blockers of the women's rights movement years ago were women. And Clarence Thomas is hardly a bastion of philosophies that favor minorities. Still, I think if it's possible, while maintaining quality, it is best for groups in power to reflect the country.)

They would love a Clarence Thomas clone.

And more people of color would mean fewer white justices - regardless what the black and brown folks' leanings.

To those in panic mode, this is not about judicial philosophy - it's about maintaining racial superiority, entitlement and power.

...and couldn't think of the 4th one. Wonder why.

Can't stand him.

Because back in the day they certainly were not considered so.

Your major point stands, tho.

For example, I'm half Latino and half Asian, and one of my friends is black.

I had never experienced DWB (Driving While Black), or even driving while being non-white, for the first 30 years of my life, having lived in Southern California almost my entire life.

However, he lives in my general area, and has experienced it himself quite a bit. I saw it first-hand some years ago when I was a passenger in his car, and he got pulled over by the police several times that day. He wasn't speeding, didn't run a stop sign, didn't make a lane change or turn without signaling, didn't have a broken tailight, didn't have an expired license. Nada. Still was pulled over, I presume now because a black man driving a newish Lexus causes suspicion.

So, if we minorities don't always experience the same discriminations and prejudices as each other, how can a court that has been almost entirely white male for its entire existence, understand that?

Some of us said the same thing a few weeks ago and got royally flamed for it. :shrug: