Are the President's nominations are too "male"?
With President Trump’s Supreme Court nomination of Brett Kavanaugh, and his latest wave of judicial nominees to lower courts released, some critics suggest that he isn't nominating enough women.
Granted, Judge Amy Coney Barrett of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit made the President's "short list" for the Supreme Court seat, but the other three judges on the short list -- Judges Kavanaugh, Raymond Kethledge of the Sixth Circuit, and Thomas Hardiman of the Third Circuit -- were male, and the nomination went to a male.
President Trump has nominated at least 130 federal judges, more than any other president since Ronald Reagan. President Trump started his first year in office with more than 100 judicial vacancies – more than those of Presidents Reagan, George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama. The vacancies and nominations continue to increase.
The pace that President Trump has set in nominating, and the Senate in confirming, his judicial nominees has set a record for the most-ever federal appellate judges confirmed during a first year of a presidency. This accelerated pace is largely due to favorable Senate dynamics and a large number of vacancies when President Obama left office.
It is not surprising that President Trump’s judicial nominees are conservative. More surprising may be the fact that they are mostly male. The President has nominated fewer women than President Obama did, and his percentage of female nominees (25 percent) is lower than the percentage of women currently in the federal judiciary (34 percent). By contrast, 44 percent of President Obama’s judicial nominees were women.
Because federal judges are appointed for life, President Trump’s appointments will affect the makeup of the federal judiciary for decades to come, and long after he has left office. Will the relative lack of women’s perspectives, experiences, and opinions have an impact on issues that directly affect women, such as equal pay and federally mandated maternity leave?
Perhaps not, but it is certainly a possibility.
Diversity, equity, and inclusion has been the bedrock of our firm since we opened over 75 years ago. As we like to say, it is in our DNA. We believe that to foster diverse leadership and urge diversity of thought, we must do what we can to advance the conversation about diversity, equity, inclusion, accessibility, and belonging in the workplace and the communities in which our workplaces thrive. Through our blog, we share our insights from the perspective of both an employer and employee, regarding emerging issues that affect diverse leaders and workforces. We hope you enjoy our tidbits of legal and practical information, wisdom, and humor. Thanks for joining the conversation!
Subscribe
Contributors
Archives
- November 2024
- October 2024
- September 2024
- August 2024
- July 2024
- June 2024
- March 2024
- August 2022
- June 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- October 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- October 2020
- May 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- June 2019
- March 2019
- December 2018
- October 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- November 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016