Thread by @AngryLawyerLady

Thread: A note about representation. RBG famously said there will be enough women on SCOTUS "when there are nine." Unfair? Cases decided by justices in the 1700s, 1800s, 1900s still have force of law. These are the white men of SCOTUS.
/1

These are the SCOTUS justices who are/were not white men. /2

These are the Black SCOTUS justices. /3

These are the female SCOTUS justices. /4

A picture of Latinx justices on SCOTUS. /5

A picture of the combined Asian and Native American justices on SCOTUS. /6

These are the white male chief justices. /7

These are the chief justices that were not white men. /8

These are the Black women SCOTUS justices. /9

There've been 115 SCOTUS justices total. There've been nearly 2,000 Senators. I'd put together a photo representation but I don't have the time & we don't have photos/portraits for them all. Only TWO have been Black women. /10

White men have been making and interpreting our laws for more than 200 years. Many of those laws are still in effect today. There are still laws on the books from the 1700s. Much SCOTUS precedent is still in effect today, including from the early 1800s. /11

For things to begin to be fair, we'd need to kick white men off everything for decades to balance out what they've spent centuries putting in place. Black women are underrepresented TODAY. And in the arc of this country's history, Black women have had no voice. /12

Consider the weight of while male laws on the backs of all marginalized, but especially Black women, before you tell Black women how to feel now that they have no representation in the Senate. Again. /13

(Of course, AFAIK, there have been no openly non-heterosexual, non-cisgender justices, nor have there been any openly atheist justices, or justices with any religion other than Christianity or Judaism. So many other categories as well.)

*white male. grr