K.

Rice, 1

Kayra Rice

“Diversity and Judicial Decision-Making”

December 8, 2022
 K. Rice, 2

Racial segregation has always been an American top discussion. Because of

our deep roots of hatred and inferiority. Different legal approaches, it has made

through time caused extraordinary improvement and progress in a more pleasant

inclusive system. Diversity and gender differences in our Representative

Democracy federal courts have been beloved because of President Obama’s critical

responses to designate judges who reflect the diversity rates of the nation. During

2022, America’s judges do not highlight America's diversity rate state by state. The

Judge's diversity rates show extraordinary differences. The disparity inclusion has

critical consequences on Americans’ reputation of equity. Does diversity in the

state supreme courts create progress in decision-making? I went on a journey to

find answers in response to that query. Hoping to find out more history regarding

state supreme courts' diversity rates throughout time, and why it is not an accurate

racial record of America with different judges of every ethnic background who are

qualified. What America stands for with the Constitution. I want questions

answered on the history of diversity in state supreme courts and how the judges

feel and classify views on diversity. I feel like this will be interesting because I am

passionate about diversity, equity, inclusion, and the decision-making of state

supreme court judges. The justices' role in society is to decide on exceptionally

hard questions. This revolves around all aspects of the law, specialized questions

that are vital for policymaking, yet their decisions have others' lives on the line,
 K. Rice, 3

which can cause divided discussions. First, including women or marginalized

groups isn't influencing the consideration of issues within the jury's belief and

decision even if there are mostly women on the jury or marginalized groups.

Female and diverse judges are essentially more focused on multiple laws that are

essential to the case to decide in response to a panel of majority white men. The

need for diversity certainly influences decision-making because there are certain

points of seeing people of different backgrounds create a representation, and it is so

important to have a voice. Representation affects Americans' visualization of the

courts that perform duties for them. The standard of unanimity in court provides

female justices with more impactful leadership regardless of whether they are

outnumbered.

As time flies our nation's progress and development courts have to advocate

for the completion of American involvement. Judges who identify as a minority are

truly underrepresented; many explain their unique life encounters during hearing

cases and pondering with state judges. This may spark change because of

differences between them creating an interface and interesting points of view of an

assortment of prosecutors for the state. Lack of diversity in the courts causes the

viewpoints accessible to advise legal considerations and affects state courts’

capacity to create a legitimate statute for a progressively assorted America. The

ideology is that women cultivate more team building, above and beyond
 K. Rice, 4

satisfaction versus men within the same court. Within the judge's legal setting the

character of the judge appeared to cause more noteworthy consciousness or control

when female judges are included in litigation and appellate courts' more prominent

expressive representation of multiculturalism puts more power into authenticity for

the institution among diversity. In every source, I discover that the white bolster

decreases conditions. In examining information advances that more diversity will

not affect African Americans and Caucasians equally over each other's mindset, or

maybe, a person's philosophy intervenes when evaluating the inclusion of different

ethnicities in court. Sources express that female judge cultivate agreements in

decision-making preparation. Shockingly, with more ladies taking an interest in the

conclusion composing handles, the measure of the court diminishes in racial and

civil rights cases.

Studies often see comparative effects within the bargaining and socializing

that produces speed up the writing process. Men can compose the opinion, but

when they do there is more tension, and more justices are upset. Imperative

suggestions for speculations of clear representation and proposed forms use legal

unity as an implication for creating a political bolster for legally chosen judges.

The judicial system and law run unexpectedly for ladies or individuals of color is a

fair judgment that Americans require more diversity in all courts because their

decisions stay motivated by a white male point of view. Judicial elections are
 K. Rice, 5

seldom for marginalized people in state supreme court seats, yet representation sets

up inspirational figures and fights stereotypes. Racial aberrations in for all intents

and purposes each component of state supreme court races, elected candidates, and

regularly occupant judges are pushed to their limits, fundraising funds, and to more

help with interest groups. Studies showed mindfulness of the results of the effects

of segregation is self-evident to a lady or an individual minority, whose point of

view is critical on the seat. Judges' ethnic background being majority white, does

not represent the environments they provide. People who are in those locations are

less hopeful and supportive because of the judicial system’s ability to create

reasonable explanations for everybody. By ideals of African Americans increase

levels of racial discrimination awareness, so we expect minority groups to see a

government seat, so African Americans are known and seem to be more authentic

such an assorted seat portrays that the government legally is a judicial court of

unity and fairness for the black people in America.

Courts with more diversity produce better problem solvers resulting in good

choices, the Court is by and large on the proper way. Justices do not ideally differ.

Whereas expanding the rate of specific racially marginalized groups seeing people

who look like them succeed in life and become judges. This may boost and bolster

among the black group exactly the sort of effect that advocates of expressive

representation trust to achieve. The independent impact of differing racial qualities

 K. Rice, 6

manipulates bolster among whites diminishes within the current minority

representation. Many scholars of judicial behavior prove diversity on the court

benefits America; they stated how “ the mere presence of diversity will yield

increased support for a governmental institution.” (Clayton, O’Brien, and Piscopo

2019).” Scholars spark readers' minds regarding the diversity benefits, proving my

evidence, “increased civic awareness, and openness to other cultures (Gurin 1999;

Bowman 2011; Buckner 2004).” Earlier historians pondered racial character and

racial support African Americans bolster to see each other succeed. As we

progress, the role has provided the liberty to the part of ethnic character among

Latinos, finding comparative effects. I found it shocking that women are at a

downfall politically when they branch into masculine choices and stray away from

societal roles. “Stepping out of traditional gender roles often leads to negative

consequences for women (Ono and Zilis 2020).” I have always felt regarding this

study that the Supreme Court of different states does not represent much diversity

and the scholars agree, “ (2003), O`Neill (2007), and other recent studies purport to

show that the current Supreme Court is, outside of gender and race, relatively

non-diverse.” For example, “Glen (2010) has argued that the Court lacks

educational diversity because all the current Supreme Court Justices attended either

Harvard or Yale Law School. The Washington Post ran an editorial criticizing the

current justices' overly elite and homogeneous backgrounds (Edley 2010).” If

 K. Rice, 7

everyone comes from the same schooling and minorities who were born lower

class and were accepted into Harvard or Yale. If they could not attend because of

financial means and attended a public university or HBCU it makes it extremely

challenging to be even visually appealing to Supreme Court in their state. IVY

candidates with similar backgrounds, which explains why there is a lack of

diversity because most minorities aren’t accepted into IVY leagues and have the

means to afford them. Apparently, justices' backgrounds do not affect

decision-making. Lately descending data diversity matters force diminishes in

differing qualities of minorities educational foundation, location, and decrease

religious disparity.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court is America's biological system and

encounters we face developing in life and characteristics as minority justices.

Diversity has factions inquired with categories cultural background, race,

spirituality form, proficient background, location of being born and raised,

financial foundation, private vs public education, and political party) develops or

contracts. America combines these categories to form a single inclusion; this

arrival illustrates that although the current Supreme Court is more diversified than

the long-term chronicled normality. Diversity guarantees representation for our

democracy and better decision-making, which means more support for the people.

Women have a huge role in causing less drama and disagreement over cases. In our
 K. Rice, 8

modern time the descending slant is by and enormous differences, driven by

diminishes in ethnic of instructive foundation and sex stereotypes for ladies, with

an authority part in government, this sets women up for drawbacks. Legal polished

skill, political philosophy, and the estimate of cases give an amazing clarification

of the notoriety of state supreme courts and how long it may take for justices to

retire.
 K. Rice, 9

References

Hall. (2014). Representation in State Supreme Courts: Evidence from the Terminal

Term. Political Research Quarterly, 67(2), 335–346.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912913504500

Evans, Franco, A., Polinard, J. L., Wenzel, J. P., & Wrinkle, R. D. (2017). Who’s

on the Bench? The Impact of Latino Descriptive Representation on U.S. Supreme

Court Approval Among Latinos and Anglos. Social Science Quarterly, 98(5),

1233–1249. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.12351

Badas, & Stauffer, K. E. (2018). Someone like Me/: Descriptive Representation

and Support for Supreme Court Nominees. Political Research Quarterly, 71(1),

127–142. https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912917724006

Kaslovsky, Rogowski, J. C., & Stone, A. R. (2021). Descriptive representation and

public support for Supreme Court nominees. Political Science Research and

Methods, 9(3), 583–598. https://doi.org/10.1017/psrm.2019.59

Leonard, & Ross, J. V. (2020). Gender Diversity, Women’s Leadership, and

Consensus in State Supreme Courts. Journal of Women, Politics & Policy, 41(3),

278–302. https://doi.org/10.1080/1554477X.2019.1698213
 K. Rice, 10

Lee, Solberg, R., & Waltenburg, E. N. (2022). See Jane judge: descriptive

representation and diffuse support for a State Supreme Court. Politics, Groups &

Identities, 10(4), 581–596. https://doi.org/10.1080/21565503.2020.1864651

Farhang. (2004). Institutional Dynamics on the U.S. Court of Appeals: Minority

Representation Under Panel Decision Making. Journal of Law, Economics, &

Organization, 20(2), 299–330. https://doi.org/10.1093/jleo/ewh035

Scherer, & Curry, B. (2010). Does Descriptive Race Representation Enhance

Institutional Legitimacy? The Case of the U.S. Courts. The Journal of Politics,

72(1), 90–104. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022381609990491

Barton, B. H., & Moran, E. (2013). Measuring Diversity on the Supreme Court

with Biodiversity Statistics. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 10(1), 1–34.

https://doi.org/10.1111/jels.12000

Caldeira, G. A. (1983). On the Reputation of State Supreme Courts. Political

Behavior, 5(1), 83–108. http://www.jstor.org/stable/586349