• the Supremes and discrimination in hiring

    From RichD@21:1/5 to All on Fri Feb 11 21:29:10 2022
    Emperor Biden has announced that race and sex
    are the determining factors in his upcoming SCOTUS nomination.

    Can other prospective candidates, who don't
    meet the stated criteria, bring a class action suit,
    under the 1964 Civil Rights Act? How would that play out?

    Suppose such a suit were filed, then the Senate
    confirms Biden's choice, she's seated, and then a lower
    federal court rules in favor of the plaintiffs?

    --
    Rich

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rick C@21:1/5 to RichD on Sat Feb 12 06:20:41 2022
    On Saturday, February 12, 2022 at 12:29:13 AM UTC-5, RichD wrote:
    Emperor Biden has announced that race and sex
    are the determining factors in his upcoming SCOTUS nomination.

    Can other prospective candidates, who don't
    meet the stated criteria, bring a class action suit,
    under the 1964 Civil Rights Act? How would that play out?

    Suppose such a suit were filed, then the Senate
    confirms Biden's choice, she's seated, and then a lower
    federal court rules in favor of the plaintiffs?

    Do you think that selecting a Supreme Court Justice falls under the same rules as hiring a factory worker? Besides, there have been many instances of minorities being given a preference in order to make up for past discrimination, sometimes court
    ordered. Do you think there really is any basis for contesting Emperor Biden's decision?

    I would ask why you call him "Emperor Biden", but that's probably off topic here.

    --

    Rick C.

    - Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
    - Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Stuart O. Bronstein@21:1/5 to Rick C on Sat Feb 12 08:25:18 2022
    Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:

    Do you think that selecting a Supreme Court Justice falls under
    the same rules as hiring a factory worker? Besides, there have
    been many instances of minorities being given a preference in
    order to make up for past discrimination, sometimes court ordered.
    Do you think there really is any basis for contesting Emperor
    Biden's decision?

    Congress has exempted itself from a number of laws, such as
    prohibitions against insider trading and against discrimination in the workplace. I wouldn't be surprised if that exemption applies to the
    President as well.

    --
    Stu
    http://DownToEarthLawyer.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Levine@21:1/5 to It appears that Stuart O. Bronstein on Sat Feb 12 11:48:46 2022
    It appears that Stuart O. Bronstein <spamtrap@lexregia.com> said:
    Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:
    Do you think that selecting a Supreme Court Justice falls under
    the same rules as hiring a factory worker? ...

    Congress has exempted itself from a number of laws, such as
    prohibitions against insider trading and against discrimination in the >workplace. ...

    The Constitution says that the President "shall nominate, and by and
    with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors,
    other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and
    all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not
    herein otherwise provided for"

    The President can nominate anyone he wants, and the Senate can confirm
    or reject those appointments. I suppose the Senate could make rules
    about what nominations it would consider, but there's no way it could
    bind itself to follow those rules, so why bother? As we found in 2016
    and 2020, they can and will change the rules to fit political whims.

    It's been quite clear that in recent years there has been a religious
    test for court nominees: six of the current nine justices are Catholic,
    even though only about 20% of the country is Catholic. There has also
    been a racial test: in 1991 when Thurgood Marshall retired, everyone
    correctly assumed the successor that George HW Bush nominated would be Black.

    So some of us are a wee bit sceptical about this newly discovered
    devotion to race and gender blind meritocracy in judicial appointments.

    --
    Regards,
    John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
    Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rick C@21:1/5 to John Levine on Sat Feb 12 14:39:41 2022
    On Saturday, February 12, 2022 at 2:48:49 PM UTC-5, John Levine wrote:
    It appears that Stuart O. Bronstein <spam...@lexregia.com> said:
    Rick C <gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote:
    Do you think that selecting a Supreme Court Justice falls under
    the same rules as hiring a factory worker? ...
    Congress has exempted itself from a number of laws, such as
    prohibitions against insider trading and against discrimination in the >workplace. ...

    The Constitution says that the President "shall nominate, and by and
    with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors,
    other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and
    all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not
    herein otherwise provided for"

    The President can nominate anyone he wants, and the Senate can confirm
    or reject those appointments. I suppose the Senate could make rules
    about what nominations it would consider, but there's no way it could
    bind itself to follow those rules, so why bother? As we found in 2016
    and 2020, they can and will change the rules to fit political whims.

    It's been quite clear that in recent years there has been a religious
    test for court nominees: six of the current nine justices are Catholic,
    even though only about 20% of the country is Catholic. There has also
    been a racial test: in 1991 when Thurgood Marshall retired, everyone correctly assumed the successor that George HW Bush nominated would be Black.

    So some of us are a wee bit sceptical about this newly discovered
    devotion to race and gender blind meritocracy in judicial appointments.

    Before claiming a bias regarding Supreme Court nominees regarding religion, consider the population nominees are drawn from. It is not the general population of the country.

    --

    Rick C.

    + Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
    + Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Levine@21:1/5 to All on Sat Feb 12 21:45:49 2022
    According to Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com>:
    It's been quite clear that in recent years there has been a religious
    test for court nominees: six of the current nine justices are Catholic,
    even though only about 20% of the country is Catholic. There has also
    been a racial test: in 1991 when Thurgood Marshall retired, everyone
    correctly assumed the successor that George HW Bush nominated would be Black.

    So some of us are a wee bit sceptical about this newly discovered
    devotion to race and gender blind meritocracy in judicial appointments.

    Before claiming a bias regarding Supreme Court nominees regarding religion, consider the population nominees are drawn from. It is not the general population of the country.

    What population do you believe is 2/3 Catholic? Lawyers? Policiticians?

    Pew says that the income distribution of Catholics is about the same
    as for the country as a whole. About 9% of Catholics have a graduate
    degree (such as a law degree) compared to 11% of the country as a
    whole, not surprising for a church where many members are first or
    second generation immigrants.

    Two or three Catholic justices would not be surprising. But six?

    https://www.pewforum.org/2015/05/12/chapter-3-demographic-profiles-of-religious-groups/








    --
    Regards,
    John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
    Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rick C@21:1/5 to John Levine on Sun Feb 13 06:10:49 2022
    On Sunday, February 13, 2022 at 12:45:52 AM UTC-5, John Levine wrote:
    According to Rick C <gnuarm.del...@gmail.com>:
    It's been quite clear that in recent years there has been a religious
    test for court nominees: six of the current nine justices are Catholic,
    even though only about 20% of the country is Catholic. There has also
    been a racial test: in 1991 when Thurgood Marshall retired, everyone
    correctly assumed the successor that George HW Bush nominated would be Black.

    So some of us are a wee bit sceptical about this newly discovered
    devotion to race and gender blind meritocracy in judicial appointments.

    Before claiming a bias regarding Supreme Court nominees regarding religion, consider the population nominees are drawn from. It is not the general population of the country.
    What population do you believe is 2/3 Catholic? Lawyers? Policiticians?

    Pew says that the income distribution of Catholics is about the same
    as for the country as a whole. About 9% of Catholics have a graduate
    degree (such as a law degree) compared to 11% of the country as a
    whole, not surprising for a church where many members are first or
    second generation immigrants.

    Two or three Catholic justices would not be surprising. But six?

    I believe Supreme court judges are typically drawn from the population of other Federal judges.

    --

    Rick C.

    -- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
    -- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rick@21:1/5 to John Levine on Sun Feb 13 06:41:19 2022
    "John Levine" wrote in message news:su9g9n$2au5$1@gal.iecc.com...

    According to Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com>:
    It's been quite clear that in recent years there has been a religious
    test for court nominees: six of the current nine justices are Catholic,
    even though only about 20% of the country is Catholic. There has also
    been a racial test: in 1991 when Thurgood Marshall retired, everyone
    correctly assumed the successor that George HW Bush nominated would be
    Black.

    So some of us are a wee bit sceptical about this newly discovered
    devotion to race and gender blind meritocracy in judicial appointments.

    Before claiming a bias regarding Supreme Court nominees regarding
    religion, consider the population nominees are drawn from. It is not the >>general population of the country.

    What population do you believe is 2/3 Catholic? Lawyers? Policiticians?

    Pew says that the income distribution of Catholics is about the same
    as for the country as a whole. About 9% of Catholics have a graduate
    degree (such as a law degree) compared to 11% of the country as a
    whole, not surprising for a church where many members are first or
    second generation immigrants.

    Two or three Catholic justices would not be surprising. But six?

    https://www.pewforum.org/2015/05/12/chapter-3-demographic-profiles-of-religious-groups/









    But given such a small sample size - nine people - you can't really draw inferences from the population as a whole or even the population of judges
    in general.

    --

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Levine@21:1/5 to All on Sun Feb 13 11:06:56 2022
    According to Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com>:
    Two or three Catholic justices would not be surprising. But six?
    https://www.pewforum.org/2015/05/12/chapter-3-demographic-profiles-of-religious-groups/

    I'm not sure that is accurate. Consider this. An arbitrarily large population (sufficiently close to infinite in size) has 20% blue and the
    rest orange. If you draw 9 samples from that population, what are the chances of any 6 being blue? Well, someone else can do the math, but I
    know it is below 1%.

    Right.

    However, Supreme court justices are not picked from the general public. They are lawyers and generally they are federal judges. So what is
    the percentage of federal judges that are catholic? This number will hugely skew the probability.

    I cannot find any hard numbers but I find nothing to suggest that it's different from the overall population.

    The numbers for income over $100K and for graduate degrees, which should be indicators that someone is a lawyer,
    are similar to the overall population.

    I hope I don't have to spell out *why* Republican presidents have packed the court with Catholics.

    --
    Regards,
    John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
    Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rick C@21:1/5 to Rick on Sun Feb 13 10:41:40 2022
    On Sunday, February 13, 2022 at 9:41:21 AM UTC-5, Rick wrote:
    "John Levine" wrote in message news:su9g9n$2au5$1...@gal.iecc.com...

    According to Rick C <gnuarm.del...@gmail.com>:
    It's been quite clear that in recent years there has been a religious
    test for court nominees: six of the current nine justices are Catholic, >>> even though only about 20% of the country is Catholic. There has also
    been a racial test: in 1991 when Thurgood Marshall retired, everyone
    correctly assumed the successor that George HW Bush nominated would be >>> Black.

    So some of us are a wee bit sceptical about this newly discovered
    devotion to race and gender blind meritocracy in judicial appointments. >>
    Before claiming a bias regarding Supreme Court nominees regarding >>religion, consider the population nominees are drawn from. It is not the >>general population of the country.

    What population do you believe is 2/3 Catholic? Lawyers? Policiticians?

    Pew says that the income distribution of Catholics is about the same
    as for the country as a whole. About 9% of Catholics have a graduate
    degree (such as a law degree) compared to 11% of the country as a
    whole, not surprising for a church where many members are first or
    second generation immigrants.

    Two or three Catholic justices would not be surprising. But six?

    https://www.pewforum.org/2015/05/12/chapter-3-demographic-profiles-of-religious-groups/








    But given such a small sample size - nine people - you can't really draw inferences from the population as a whole or even the population of judges
    in general.

    I'm not sure that is accurate. Consider this. An arbitrarily large population (sufficiently close to infinite in size) has 20% blue and the rest orange. If you draw 9 samples from that population, what are the chances of any 6 being blue? Well,
    someone else can do the math, but I know it is below 1%. So a sample set of 9 from a large population is sufficiently large to determine if 2/3rds of the selection set being all from a 20% subgroup, is likely to happen by chance. The typical test of
    likelihood uses 95% as a threshold and we are above 99% for this to be unlikely.

    However, Supreme court justices are not picked from the general public. They are lawyers and generally they are federal judges. So what is the percentage of federal judges that are catholic? This number will hugely skew the probability.

    --

    Rick C.

    -+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
    -+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rick C@21:1/5 to John Levine on Sun Feb 13 16:06:27 2022
    On Sunday, February 13, 2022 at 2:06:59 PM UTC-5, John Levine wrote:
    According to Rick C <gnuarm.del...@gmail.com>:
    Two or three Catholic justices would not be surprising. But six?
    https://www.pewforum.org/2015/05/12/chapter-3-demographic-profiles-of-religious-groups/
    I'm not sure that is accurate. Consider this. An arbitrarily large population (sufficiently close to infinite in size) has 20% blue and the
    rest orange. If you draw 9 samples from that population, what are the chances of any 6 being blue? Well, someone else can do the math, but I
    know it is below 1%.
    Right.
    However, Supreme court justices are not picked from the general public. They are lawyers and generally they are federal judges. So what is
    the percentage of federal judges that are catholic? This number will hugely skew the probability.
    I cannot find any hard numbers but I find nothing to suggest that it's different from the overall population.

    The numbers for income over $100K and for graduate degrees, which should be indicators that someone is a lawyer,
    are similar to the overall population.

    I hope I don't have to spell out *why* Republican presidents have packed the court with Catholics.

    To make that case you would need to show Republicans nominated the Catholic members. Is that the case? I've never studied the religious associations of the Supreme Court justices.

    --

    Rick C.

    +- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
    +- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Barry Gold@21:1/5 to Rick C on Sun Feb 13 21:36:08 2022
    On 2/13/2022 10:41 AM, Rick C wrote:
    On Sunday, February 13, 2022 at 9:41:21 AM UTC-5, Rick wrote:
    "John Levine" wrote in message news:su9g9n$2au5$1...@gal.iecc.com...

    According to Rick C <gnuarm.del...@gmail.com>:
    It's been quite clear that in recent years there has been a religious >>>>> test for court nominees: six of the current nine justices are Catholic, >>>>> even though only about 20% of the country is Catholic. There has also >>>>> been a racial test: in 1991 when Thurgood Marshall retired, everyone >>>>> correctly assumed the successor that George HW Bush nominated would be >>>>> Black.

    So some of us are a wee bit sceptical about this newly discovered
    devotion to race and gender blind meritocracy in judicial appointments. >>>>
    Before claiming a bias regarding Supreme Court nominees regarding
    religion, consider the population nominees are drawn from. It is not the >>>> general population of the country.

    What population do you believe is 2/3 Catholic? Lawyers? Policiticians?

    Pew says that the income distribution of Catholics is about the same
    as for the country as a whole. About 9% of Catholics have a graduate
    degree (such as a law degree) compared to 11% of the country as a
    whole, not surprising for a church where many members are first or
    second generation immigrants.

    Two or three Catholic justices would not be surprising. But six?

    https://www.pewforum.org/2015/05/12/chapter-3-demographic-profiles-of-religious-groups/








    But given such a small sample size - nine people - you can't really draw
    inferences from the population as a whole or even the population of judges >> in general.

    I'm not sure that is accurate. Consider this. An arbitrarily large population (sufficiently close to infinite in size) has 20% blue and the rest orange. If you draw 9 samples from that population, what are the chances of any 6 being blue? Well,
    someone else can do the math, but I know it is below 1%. So a sample set of 9 from a large population is sufficiently large to determine if 2/3rds of the selection set being all from a 20% subgroup, is likely to happen by chance. The typical test of
    likelihood uses 95% as a threshold and we are above 99% for this to be unlikely.

    However, Supreme court justices are not picked from the general public. They are lawyers and generally they are federal judges. So what is the percentage of federal judges that are catholic? This number will hugely skew the probability.

    Actually, the "universe" you should be looking in is "Conservative"
    judges -- and more specificaly, judges who oppose abortion. That has
    been the single main thrust of the Republican Party and Republican
    Presidents ever since the late 1970s.

    So, of jurists who oppose abortion and Roe v. Wade, what percentage are
    Roman Catholic? Or in more statistically important terms, what are the
    chances that 6 Justices chosen from that set will be RC?

    Also note that Supreme Court Justices are not required to have been
    judges. Earl Warren was Governor of California before Eisenhower
    appointed him. I answered a Quora question about SC Justices a few days
    ago, and easily found several Justices with no judicial experience.

    The Constitution does not even require federal judges and SC Justices to
    be lawyers, but in practice I think all or nearly all have been.



    --
    I do so have a memory. It's backed up on DVD... somewhere...

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Levine@21:1/5 to All on Sun Feb 13 21:35:36 2022
    According to Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com>:
    I hope I don't have to spell out *why* Republican presidents have packed the court with Catholics.

    To make that case you would need to show Republicans nominated the Catholic members. Is that the case? I've never studied the religious
    associations of the Supreme Court justices.

    The stats are there for anyone who cares to know. I'm done.

    --
    Regards,
    John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
    Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rick@21:1/5 to Barry Gold on Mon Feb 14 10:00:51 2022
    "Barry Gold" wrote in message news:suck6u$um7$1@dont-email.me...

    On 2/13/2022 10:41 AM, Rick C wrote:
    On Sunday, February 13, 2022 at 9:41:21 AM UTC-5, Rick wrote:
    "John Levine" wrote in message news:su9g9n$2au5$1...@gal.iecc.com...

    According to Rick C <gnuarm.del...@gmail.com>:
    It's been quite clear that in recent years there has been a religious >>>>>> test for court nominees: six of the current nine justices are
    Catholic,
    even though only about 20% of the country is Catholic. There has also >>>>>> been a racial test: in 1991 when Thurgood Marshall retired, everyone >>>>>> correctly assumed the successor that George HW Bush nominated would >>>>>> be
    Black.

    So some of us are a wee bit sceptical about this newly discovered
    devotion to race and gender blind meritocracy in judicial
    appointments.

    Before claiming a bias regarding Supreme Court nominees regarding
    religion, consider the population nominees are drawn from. It is not >>>>> the
    general population of the country.

    What population do you believe is 2/3 Catholic? Lawyers? Policiticians? >>>>
    Pew says that the income distribution of Catholics is about the same
    as for the country as a whole. About 9% of Catholics have a graduate
    degree (such as a law degree) compared to 11% of the country as a
    whole, not surprising for a church where many members are first or
    second generation immigrants.

    Two or three Catholic justices would not be surprising. But six?

    https://www.pewforum.org/2015/05/12/chapter-3-demographic-profiles-of-religious-groups/








    But given such a small sample size - nine people - you can't really draw >>> inferences from the population as a whole or even the population of
    judges
    in general.

    I'm not sure that is accurate. Consider this. An arbitrarily large
    population (sufficiently close to infinite in size) has 20% blue and the
    rest orange. If you draw 9 samples from that population, what are the
    chances of any 6 being blue? Well, someone else can do the math, but I
    know it is below 1%. So a sample set of 9 from a large population is
    sufficiently large to determine if 2/3rds of the selection set being all
    from a 20% subgroup, is likely to happen by chance. The typical test of
    likelihood uses 95% as a threshold and we are above 99% for this to be
    unlikely.

    However, Supreme court justices are not picked from the general public.
    They are lawyers and generally they are federal judges. So what is the
    percentage of federal judges that are catholic? This number will hugely
    skew the probability.

    Actually, the "universe" you should be looking in is "Conservative"
    judges -- and more specificaly, judges who oppose abortion. That has been
    the single main thrust of the Republican Party and Republican Presidents
    ever since the late 1970s.

    So, of jurists who oppose abortion and Roe v. Wade, what percentage are
    Roman Catholic? Or in more statistically important terms, what are the >chances that 6 Justices chosen from that set will be RC?

    Also note that Supreme Court Justices are not required to have been judges. >Earl Warren was Governor of California before Eisenhower appointed him. I >answered a Quora question about SC Justices a few days ago, and easily
    found several Justices with no judicial experience.

    Right - and among current justices I don't believe Elena Kagan was ever a judge. Neither was the most recent Chief Justice, William Rehnquist.


    --

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mike Anderson@21:1/5 to John Levine on Fri Feb 18 21:58:25 2022
    On 2/13/2022 12:45 AM, John Levine wrote:
    According to Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com>:
    It's been quite clear that in recent years there has been a religious
    test for court nominees: six of the current nine justices are Catholic,
    even though only about 20% of the country is Catholic. There has also
    been a racial test: in 1991 when Thurgood Marshall retired, everyone
    correctly assumed the successor that George HW Bush nominated would be Black.

    So some of us are a wee bit sceptical about this newly discovered
    devotion to race and gender blind meritocracy in judicial appointments.

    Before claiming a bias regarding Supreme Court nominees regarding religion, consider the population nominees are drawn from. It is not the general population of the country.

    What population do you believe is 2/3 Catholic? Lawyers? Policiticians?

    Pew says that the income distribution of Catholics is about the same
    as for the country as a whole. About 9% of Catholics have a graduate
    degree (such as a law degree) compared to 11% of the country as a
    whole, not surprising for a church where many members are first or
    second generation immigrants.

    Two or three Catholic justices would not be surprising. But six?

    https://www.pewforum.org/2015/05/12/chapter-3-demographic-profiles-of-religious-groups/

    For that matter, how many Catholic presidents have we had? Well, there
    was JFK and then there's Biden and also.....ummm....wasn't Catholic the religion of.....Well, I'll be. There's only been TWO Catholic
    presidents. Looks like there's some discrimination going on here as
    well. We should sue to have more Catholic presidents elected!!!!

    In case it wasn't obvious from the wording, saying "we only have X
    that's in population Y" when X is a really low number to begin with
    isn't really a good test, either way, to say if there's discrimination
    at play. If there's only nine judges, it doesn't take much to skew the
    numbers. And for a long time, the court was mainly or all Protestant but
    we didn't get up in arms then.

    If you took a deck of cards and shuffled them and dealt out nine cards,
    it wouldn't be super-surprising to see six hearts in the nine (unusual?
    Yes. Super-surprising? No. I wouldn't shoot the dealer over it.) But if
    you dealt out 9,000,000 cards and had 6,000,000 hearts, I'd start
    looking really closely to see if there was some cheating going on.

    And about 1/4 (actually about 23%) of the US is Catholic, just like 25%
    of the cards are hearts so that's why I used playing cards as a reference.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mike Anderson@21:1/5 to Rick C on Sat Feb 19 07:26:46 2022
    On 2/13/2022 1:41 PM, Rick C wrote:
    On Sunday, February 13, 2022 at 9:41:21 AM UTC-5, Rick wrote:
    "John Levine" wrote in message news:su9g9n$2au5$1...@gal.iecc.com...

    According to Rick C <gnuarm.del...@gmail.com>:
    It's been quite clear that in recent years there has been a religious >>>>> test for court nominees: six of the current nine justices are Catholic, >>>>> even though only about 20% of the country is Catholic. There has also >>>>> been a racial test: in 1991 when Thurgood Marshall retired, everyone >>>>> correctly assumed the successor that George HW Bush nominated would be >>>>> Black.

    So some of us are a wee bit sceptical about this newly discovered
    devotion to race and gender blind meritocracy in judicial appointments. >>>>
    Before claiming a bias regarding Supreme Court nominees regarding
    religion, consider the population nominees are drawn from. It is not the >>>> general population of the country.

    What population do you believe is 2/3 Catholic? Lawyers? Policiticians?

    Pew says that the income distribution of Catholics is about the same
    as for the country as a whole. About 9% of Catholics have a graduate
    degree (such as a law degree) compared to 11% of the country as a
    whole, not surprising for a church where many members are first or
    second generation immigrants.

    Two or three Catholic justices would not be surprising. But six?

    https://www.pewforum.org/2015/05/12/chapter-3-demographic-profiles-of-religious-groups/








    But given such a small sample size - nine people - you can't really draw
    inferences from the population as a whole or even the population of judges >> in general.

    I'm not sure that is accurate. Consider this. An arbitrarily large population (sufficiently close to infinite in size) has 20% blue and the rest orange. If you draw 9 samples from that population, what are the chances of any 6 being blue? Well,
    someone else can do the math, but I know it is below 1%. So a sample set of 9 from a large population is sufficiently large to determine if 2/3rds of the selection set being all from a 20% subgroup, is likely to happen by chance. The typical test of
    likelihood uses 95% as a threshold and we are above 99% for this to be unlikely.

    However, Supreme court justices are not picked from the general public. They are lawyers and generally they are federal judges. So what is the percentage of federal judges that are catholic? This number will hugely skew the probability.

    I tend to agree that there was some cherry-picking of judges (when you
    have three new ones in a single four-year presidential term, you can
    easily skew the results like that) but that being said....

    Your above analysis of the odds and using that to say something is wrong
    here is a complete misuse/misunderstanding of probability and chance. Confidence levels of 95% or 99% are basically a measure of how confident
    you are that future measurements will lie within the confidence
    interval. But it doesn't mean that ALL data must lie within that range.
    It's simply a way of saying "this data lies outside of the 95% interval
    and we should look at it much closer to make sure it's valid."

    If you dealt out a bridge hand and you had 2D, 3D, 4H, 6S, 6C, 6D, 8H,
    9D, 10H, 10S, JH, QH and AD, is that more or less likely than if you
    dealt it out and had 2H, 3H, 4H, 5H, 6H, 7H, 8H, 9H, 10H, JH, QH, KH and
    AH?

    Answer: BOTH have a probability of 1:635,013,559,600 or about a 0.000000000000157% chance of happening. But both can happen and if the
    first happened, you wouldn't even think twice about it. Even if the
    probability of something happening is 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001%, it doesn't
    mean it CAN'T happen purely by chance. It just means "don't bet your
    retirement on it" and if you DID see it happen, you might want to check
    things very carefully to see if there was any error or cheating.
    Flipping a coin 10 times and getting HHHHHTTTTT is just as likely as
    getting HTTHTHHTHT (but it's NOT as likely as "getting five heads and
    five tails where there are no more than two flips in a row that were the
    same" as there's many more ways to get such a sequence than the one I
    showed here.)

    Getting one grouping of judges that are heavily Catholic purely at
    random is possible, even if unlikely, and the mere fact that the
    probability is low doesn't mean there was undue influences that caused
    that result.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Levine@21:1/5 to All on Sat Feb 19 21:23:28 2022
    According to Mike Anderson <prabbit237@gmail.com.com>:
    Two or three Catholic justices would not be surprising. But six?

    https://www.pewforum.org/2015/05/12/chapter-3-demographic-profiles-of-religious-groups/

    For that matter, how many Catholic presidents have we had? Well, there
    was JFK and then there's Biden and also.....ummm....wasn't Catholic the >religion of.....Well, I'll be. There's only been TWO Catholic
    presidents. Looks like there's some discrimination going on here as
    well. We should sue to have more Catholic presidents elected!!!!

    Let's not pretend we know nothing about US history. The only serious
    Catholic presidential candidate before JFK was Al Smith in 1928. The
    Klan burned crosses to protest his nomination and he was clobbered by
    Hoover, partly due to anti-Catholic bias, partly due to a belief (soon
    shown to be disastrously wrong) that Republicans would bring continued prosperity. Even in 1960 there was plenty of muttering that JFK would
    take orders from the Pope.

    If there's only nine judges, it doesn't take much to skew the
    numbers. And for a long time, the court was mainly or all Protestant but
    we didn't get up in arms then.

    Well, yeah, and there weren't any Black justices until 1967. The US
    has a long and ugly history of bigotry. Fortunately, it has receded
    somewhat in recent years. As we saw in 2020, Biden's religion was a
    non-issue, but look at all the faux outrage that he might appoint
    a Black woman to the court.

    On the other hand, if I were a Republican president, and I knew that I
    wanted to fill the court with judges that would outlaw abortion, but
    I couldn't actually ask them if they would do that, what would be a
    strong indication that they would do so?

    --
    Regards,
    John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
    Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bernie Cosell@21:1/5 to All on Sat Feb 19 21:22:37 2022
    RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> wrote:

    } Emperor Biden has announced that race and sex
    } are the determining factors in his upcoming SCOTUS nomination.

    I believe that is a misunderstanding of what he has said [and likely what
    he will do]. The pool of exceptional justice candidates is fairly large
    and within that pool there is a lot of room to exercise some judgment who
    is picked and no matter which he picks, the country will still get one of exceptional qualifications. Or on the other side: you can look at the
    pool and pick one who is near or below the bottom [I'm looking at you
    Justice Kavanugh :o)] and that's it -- it is the President's choice.

    } Can other prospective candidates, who don't
    } meet the stated criteria, bring a class action suit,
    } under the 1964 Civil Rights Act? How would that play out?

    Aside from the nonsense of this assertion, who are the "other prospective candidates"? You don't even need a law degree to be a Supreme Court
    justice, much less a sitting judge, so I guess the "other prospective candidates" could include just about anyone and everyone. [is there an age requirement for a justice? Could biden propose, say, a 25-year-old? A 15-year-old?]. You don't "apply" for the job of supreme court justice --
    the President deliberates as he pleases and picks someone, so there's no meaning to "other prospective candidates" who could be disappointed.

    /Bernie\
    --
    Bernie Cosell Fantasy Farm Fibers
    bernie@fantasyfarm.com Pearisburg, VA
    --> Too many people, too few sheep <--

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Levine@21:1/5 to All on Sun Feb 20 10:51:45 2022
    According to Bernie Cosell <bernie@fantasyfarm.com>:
    Aside from the nonsense of this assertion, who are the "other prospective >candidates"? You don't even need a law degree to be a Supreme Court >justice, much less a sitting judge, so I guess the "other prospective >candidates" could include just about anyone and everyone. [is there an age >requirement for a justice? Could biden propose, say, a 25-year-old? A >15-year-old?]. ...

    The only qualification for a justice, or any other Federal judge, is that
    the president appoints her and the Senate confirms her. There is no age
    limit and I don't even see that she would have to be a US citizen.

    Time for a class action with the class being all 7.9 billion people on
    the earth, minus the eight other justices. Except that it would be
    hard to take the suit to trial since any lawyer who could argue it and
    any judge who could hear it would be part of the class and would have
    a conflict of interest.

    FYI, the youngest justice was Joseph Story, appointed at age 32 by
    Madison in 1811, and served until his death in 1845.
    --
    Regards,
    John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
    Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From RichD@21:1/5 to Barry Gold on Sun Feb 20 16:57:06 2022
    On February 13, Barry Gold wrote:
    Also note that Supreme Court Justices are not required to have been
    judges. Earl Warren was Governor of California before Eisenhower
    appointed him. I answered a Quora question about SC Justices a few days
    ago, and easily found several Justices with no judicial experience.

    I fantasize I sit on the throne, and nominate Tom Sowell.

    Who satisfies half the emperor's requirements. And if he surgically trades
    his testicles for ovaries, he'll be fully qualified.


    --
    Rich

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rick C@21:1/5 to Mike Anderson on Sun Feb 20 18:21:50 2022
    On Saturday, February 19, 2022 at 12:58:27 AM UTC-5, Mike Anderson wrote:
    On 2/13/2022 12:45 AM, John Levine wrote:
    According to Rick C <gnuarm.del...@gmail.com>:
    It's been quite clear that in recent years there has been a religious
    test for court nominees: six of the current nine justices are Catholic, >>> even though only about 20% of the country is Catholic. There has also
    been a racial test: in 1991 when Thurgood Marshall retired, everyone
    correctly assumed the successor that George HW Bush nominated would be Black.

    So some of us are a wee bit sceptical about this newly discovered
    devotion to race and gender blind meritocracy in judicial appointments. >>
    Before claiming a bias regarding Supreme Court nominees regarding religion, consider the population nominees are drawn from. It is not the general population of the country.

    What population do you believe is 2/3 Catholic? Lawyers? Policiticians?

    Pew says that the income distribution of Catholics is about the same
    as for the country as a whole. About 9% of Catholics have a graduate
    degree (such as a law degree) compared to 11% of the country as a
    whole, not surprising for a church where many members are first or
    second generation immigrants.

    Two or three Catholic justices would not be surprising. But six?

    https://www.pewforum.org/2015/05/12/chapter-3-demographic-profiles-of-religious-groups/
    For that matter, how many Catholic presidents have we had? Well, there
    was JFK and then there's Biden and also.....ummm....wasn't Catholic the religion of.....Well, I'll be. There's only been TWO Catholic
    presidents. Looks like there's some discrimination going on here as
    well. We should sue to have more Catholic presidents elected!!!!

    In case it wasn't obvious from the wording, saying "we only have X
    that's in population Y" when X is a really low number to begin with
    isn't really a good test, either way, to say if there's discrimination
    at play. If there's only nine judges, it doesn't take much to skew the numbers. And for a long time, the court was mainly or all Protestant but
    we didn't get up in arms then.

    If you took a deck of cards and shuffled them and dealt out nine cards,
    it wouldn't be super-surprising to see six hearts in the nine (unusual?
    Yes. Super-surprising? No. I wouldn't shoot the dealer over it.) But if
    you dealt out 9,000,000 cards and had 6,000,000 hearts, I'd start
    looking really closely to see if there was some cheating going on.

    And about 1/4 (actually about 23%) of the US is Catholic, just like 25%
    of the cards are hearts so that's why I used playing cards as a reference.

    But you don't give any actual references to the numbers. What are the odds of 6 hearts out of 9 cards? Inquiring minds want to know.

    I dug around and it seems the binomial distribution is the formula for this and I get 0.57% chance of 6 Supreme Court justices being Catholic when drawn from a population with 23% are Catholic.

    n 9
    p 23.0%
    x 6
    1-p 77.0%
    (p)x 0.015%
    (1-p)(n-x) 45.7%
    nCx 84
    P(x) 0.57%

    Check my work.

    --

    Rick C.

    ++ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
    ++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mike Anderson@21:1/5 to Rick C on Wed Mar 2 10:49:16 2022
    On 2/20/2022 9:21 PM, Rick C wrote:
    On Saturday, February 19, 2022 at 10:26:50 AM UTC-5, Mike Anderson wrote:
    On 2/13/2022 1:41 PM, Rick C wrote:
    On Sunday, February 13, 2022 at 9:41:21 AM UTC-5, Rick wrote:
    "John Levine" wrote in message news:su9g9n$2au5$1...@gal.iecc.com...

    According to Rick C <gnuarm.del...@gmail.com>:
    It's been quite clear that in recent years there has been a religious >>>>>>> test for court nominees: six of the current nine justices are Catholic, >>>>>>> even though only about 20% of the country is Catholic. There has also >>>>>>> been a racial test: in 1991 when Thurgood Marshall retired, everyone >>>>>>> correctly assumed the successor that George HW Bush nominated would be >>>>>>> Black.

    So some of us are a wee bit sceptical about this newly discovered >>>>>>> devotion to race and gender blind meritocracy in judicial appointments. >>>>>>
    Before claiming a bias regarding Supreme Court nominees regarding
    religion, consider the population nominees are drawn from. It is not the >>>>>> general population of the country.

    What population do you believe is 2/3 Catholic? Lawyers? Policiticians? >>>>>
    Pew says that the income distribution of Catholics is about the same >>>>> as for the country as a whole. About 9% of Catholics have a graduate >>>>> degree (such as a law degree) compared to 11% of the country as a
    whole, not surprising for a church where many members are first or
    second generation immigrants.

    Two or three Catholic justices would not be surprising. But six?

    https://www.pewforum.org/2015/05/12/chapter-3-demographic-profiles-of-religious-groups/








    But given such a small sample size - nine people - you can't really draw >>>> inferences from the population as a whole or even the population of judges >>>> in general.

    I'm not sure that is accurate. Consider this. An arbitrarily large population (sufficiently close to infinite in size) has 20% blue and the rest orange. If you draw 9 samples from that population, what are the chances of any 6 being blue? Well,
    someone else can do the math, but I know it is below 1%. So a sample set of 9 from a large population is sufficiently large to determine if 2/3rds of the selection set being all from a 20% subgroup, is likely to happen by chance. The typical test of
    likelihood uses 95% as a threshold and we are above 99% for this to be unlikely.

    However, Supreme court justices are not picked from the general public. They are lawyers and generally they are federal judges. So what is the percentage of federal judges that are catholic? This number will hugely skew the probability.
    I tend to agree that there was some cherry-picking of judges (when you
    have three new ones in a single four-year presidential term, you can
    easily skew the results like that) but that being said....

    Your above analysis of the odds and using that to say something is wrong
    here is a complete misuse/misunderstanding of probability and chance.
    Confidence levels of 95% or 99% are basically a measure of how confident
    you are that future measurements will lie within the confidence
    interval. But it doesn't mean that ALL data must lie within that range.
    It's simply a way of saying "this data lies outside of the 95% interval
    and we should look at it much closer to make sure it's valid."

    I think you have botched your explanation. What you are talking about is not related to the problem at hand. We are trying to determine the probability of the observed result given the population the sample was drawn from. Not the same thing at all.
    There are no future measurements. We know the composition of the general public. This is not much different from poker hand probabilities other than that the poker hands have a finite deck size and we are working with a group size that can be
    considered infinite for out purposes.

    It doesn't matter if it's future or past or present measurements. A
    "confidence level" is simply that; "How confident can you be that any
    given measurement is not erroneous?"

    If the confidence factor of 99% indicates that a particular measurement
    should be between 100 and 110 and you measure something that's 82, you
    look long and hard to try and determine if that measurement was flawed
    and should be thrown out or was it simply one that "beat the odds?"
    Chances are that it WAS in error but, again, that's "chances are."

    If you dealt out a bridge hand and you had 2D, 3D, 4H, 6S, 6C, 6D, 8H,
    9D, 10H, 10S, JH, QH and AD, is that more or less likely than if you
    dealt it out and had 2H, 3H, 4H, 5H, 6H, 7H, 8H, 9H, 10H, JH, QH, KH and
    AH?

    Answer: BOTH have a probability of 1:635,013,559,600 or about a
    0.000000000000157% chance of happening. But both can happen and if the
    first happened, you wouldn't even think twice about it. Even if the
    probability of something happening is
    0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001%, it doesn't
    mean it CAN'T happen purely by chance. It just means "don't bet your
    retirement on it" and if you DID see it happen, you might want to check
    things very carefully to see if there was any error or cheating.
    Flipping a coin 10 times and getting HHHHHTTTTT is just as likely as
    getting HTTHTHHTHT (but it's NOT as likely as "getting five heads and
    five tails where there are no more than two flips in a row that were the
    same" as there's many more ways to get such a sequence than the one I
    showed here.)

    Getting one grouping of judges that are heavily Catholic purely at
    random is possible, even if unlikely, and the mere fact that the
    probability is low doesn't mean there was undue influences that caused
    that result.

    Hmmmm... I think you fail to understand probability. If the probability is sufficiently low, it can be considered to be impossible on a practical level and other explanations can be considered. Yes, there is a possibility that your wife really did
    run into an old friend and spent the night in town getting very drunk and coming home in the early hours of the morning... for the tenth time this month! Does that make it more understandable?

    One of the things that bugs me about applying probability is that when there are many, many samples taken, unlikely events can't be dismissed as "unlikely". Such as people accused of crimes, unlikely alibis are discarded out of hand. A lot of people
    are accused of crimes and some percentage of those alibis are valid, even if unlikely, because of the large number of samples being taken. Just like getting heads 6 times in a row. If you flip the coins long enough, you are most "likely" going to see
    consecutive heads 6 times in a row!

    Turns out the likelihood of 6 Catholic Supreme Court justices of 9 from a 23% Catholic population is 0.57% or about 1 in 200. Yeah, in politics that is low enough to cast suspicion. However, the flaw is that judges are not typically picked from the
    general population, but from other federal benches. So the discrimination may have happened previously at lower levels. Without knowledge of the makeup of the actual population, we can't say.

    No, I understand it just fine and yes, when we see anomalous results, we
    look long and hard to see if it was caused by improper testing,
    analysis, data cherry-picking, fraud, etc. I was simply pointing out
    even the extremely unlikely CAN happen and that "improbable" is not the
    same as "impossible."

    But your point about how there could have been discrimination at lower
    levels is very valid. If we sampled 10,000 judges at all levels (there's
    close to 2,000 just in federal courts) and found the same skewing of
    religious practices, then it shows the odds are much greater that
    there's something else going on. If you flipped the coin 10 times and
    got 7 heads, that's not a very good sample and it could have easily
    happened by chance. If you flipped the coin 10,000,000,000 times and got 7,000,000,000 heads (without regard to "in a row") then there's almost certainly some sort of bias with the coin.

    The fewer the number of samples, the less you can talk about "was it
    simple chance or was it bias?" and that's what I was addressing was that
    small sample sizes give wider ranges for confidence values and less firm evidence for bias. If you flipped a coin once, you can't even calculate
    a confidence value. If you flipped it one trillion times, the 99%
    confidence range becomes extremely narrow and it's centered on 500 billion.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rick C@21:1/5 to Mike Anderson on Wed Mar 2 21:38:59 2022
    On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 1:49:19 PM UTC-5, Mike Anderson wrote:
    On 2/20/2022 9:21 PM, Rick C wrote:
    On Saturday, February 19, 2022 at 10:26:50 AM UTC-5, Mike Anderson wrote:
    On 2/13/2022 1:41 PM, Rick C wrote:
    On Sunday, February 13, 2022 at 9:41:21 AM UTC-5, Rick wrote:
    "John Levine" wrote in message news:su9g9n$2au5$1...@gal.iecc.com... >>>>>
    According to Rick C <gnuarm.del...@gmail.com>:
    It's been quite clear that in recent years there has been a religious >>>>>>> test for court nominees: six of the current nine justices are Catholic,
    even though only about 20% of the country is Catholic. There has also >>>>>>> been a racial test: in 1991 when Thurgood Marshall retired, everyone >>>>>>> correctly assumed the successor that George HW Bush nominated would be
    Black.

    So some of us are a wee bit sceptical about this newly discovered >>>>>>> devotion to race and gender blind meritocracy in judicial appointments.

    Before claiming a bias regarding Supreme Court nominees regarding >>>>>> religion, consider the population nominees are drawn from. It is not the
    general population of the country.

    What population do you believe is 2/3 Catholic? Lawyers? Policiticians? >>>>>
    Pew says that the income distribution of Catholics is about the same >>>>> as for the country as a whole. About 9% of Catholics have a graduate >>>>> degree (such as a law degree) compared to 11% of the country as a
    whole, not surprising for a church where many members are first or >>>>> second generation immigrants.

    Two or three Catholic justices would not be surprising. But six?

    https://www.pewforum.org/2015/05/12/chapter-3-demographic-profiles-of-religious-groups/








    But given such a small sample size - nine people - you can't really draw >>>> inferences from the population as a whole or even the population of judges
    in general.

    I'm not sure that is accurate. Consider this. An arbitrarily large population (sufficiently close to infinite in size) has 20% blue and the rest orange. If you draw 9 samples from that population, what are the chances of any 6 being blue? Well,
    someone else can do the math, but I know it is below 1%. So a sample set of 9 from a large population is sufficiently large to determine if 2/3rds of the selection set being all from a 20% subgroup, is likely to happen by chance. The typical test of
    likelihood uses 95% as a threshold and we are above 99% for this to be unlikely.

    However, Supreme court justices are not picked from the general public. They are lawyers and generally they are federal judges. So what is the percentage of federal judges that are catholic? This number will hugely skew the probability.
    I tend to agree that there was some cherry-picking of judges (when you
    have three new ones in a single four-year presidential term, you can
    easily skew the results like that) but that being said....

    Your above analysis of the odds and using that to say something is wrong >> here is a complete misuse/misunderstanding of probability and chance.
    Confidence levels of 95% or 99% are basically a measure of how confident >> you are that future measurements will lie within the confidence
    interval. But it doesn't mean that ALL data must lie within that range.
    It's simply a way of saying "this data lies outside of the 95% interval
    and we should look at it much closer to make sure it's valid."

    I think you have botched your explanation. What you are talking about is not related to the problem at hand. We are trying to determine the probability of the observed result given the population the sample was drawn from. Not the same thing at all.
    There are no future measurements. We know the composition of the general public. This is not much different from poker hand probabilities other than that the poker hands have a finite deck size and we are working with a group size that can be considered
    infinite for out purposes.
    It doesn't matter if it's future or past or present measurements. A "confidence level" is simply that; "How confident can you be that any
    given measurement is not erroneous?"

    If the confidence factor of 99% indicates that a particular measurement should be between 100 and 110 and you measure something that's 82, you
    look long and hard to try and determine if that measurement was flawed
    and should be thrown out or was it simply one that "beat the odds?"
    Chances are that it WAS in error but, again, that's "chances are."

    We know for certain that the measurement is correct, 6 Catholics out of 9 on the Supreme Court. We know for certain the general public is 23% Catholic, assuming some definition of Catholic. So what are you trying to say?


    If you dealt out a bridge hand and you had 2D, 3D, 4H, 6S, 6C, 6D, 8H,
    9D, 10H, 10S, JH, QH and AD, is that more or less likely than if you
    dealt it out and had 2H, 3H, 4H, 5H, 6H, 7H, 8H, 9H, 10H, JH, QH, KH and >> AH?

    Answer: BOTH have a probability of 1:635,013,559,600 or about a
    0.000000000000157% chance of happening. But both can happen and if the
    first happened, you wouldn't even think twice about it. Even if the
    probability of something happening is
    0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001%, it doesn't
    mean it CAN'T happen purely by chance. It just means "don't bet your
    retirement on it" and if you DID see it happen, you might want to check
    things very carefully to see if there was any error or cheating.
    Flipping a coin 10 times and getting HHHHHTTTTT is just as likely as
    getting HTTHTHHTHT (but it's NOT as likely as "getting five heads and
    five tails where there are no more than two flips in a row that were the >> same" as there's many more ways to get such a sequence than the one I
    showed here.)

    Getting one grouping of judges that are heavily Catholic purely at
    random is possible, even if unlikely, and the mere fact that the
    probability is low doesn't mean there was undue influences that caused
    that result.

    Hmmmm... I think you fail to understand probability. If the probability is sufficiently low, it can be considered to be impossible on a practical level and other explanations can be considered. Yes, there is a possibility that your wife really did
    run into an old friend and spent the night in town getting very drunk and coming home in the early hours of the morning... for the tenth time this month! Does that make it more understandable?

    One of the things that bugs me about applying probability is that when there are many, many samples taken, unlikely events can't be dismissed as "unlikely". Such as people accused of crimes, unlikely alibis are discarded out of hand. A lot of people
    are accused of crimes and some percentage of those alibis are valid, even if unlikely, because of the large number of samples being taken. Just like getting heads 6 times in a row. If you flip the coins long enough, you are most "likely" going to see
    consecutive heads 6 times in a row!

    Turns out the likelihood of 6 Catholic Supreme Court justices of 9 from a 23% Catholic population is 0.57% or about 1 in 200. Yeah, in politics that is low enough to cast suspicion. However, the flaw is that judges are not typically picked from the
    general population, but from other federal benches. So the discrimination may have happened previously at lower levels. Without knowledge of the makeup of the actual population, we can't say.
    No, I understand it just fine and yes, when we see anomalous results, we
    look long and hard to see if it was caused by improper testing,
    analysis, data cherry-picking, fraud, etc. I was simply pointing out
    even the extremely unlikely CAN happen and that "improbable" is not the
    same as "impossible."

    What made you think this was in doubt?


    But your point about how there could have been discrimination at lower
    levels is very valid. If we sampled 10,000 judges at all levels (there's close to 2,000 just in federal courts) and found the same skewing of religious practices, then it shows the odds are much greater that
    there's something else going on. If you flipped the coin 10 times and
    got 7 heads, that's not a very good sample and it could have easily
    happened by chance. If you flipped the coin 10,000,000,000 times and got 7,000,000,000 heads (without regard to "in a row") then there's almost certainly some sort of bias with the coin.

    ???


    The fewer the number of samples, the less you can talk about "was it
    simple chance or was it bias?" and that's what I was addressing was that small sample sizes give wider ranges for confidence values and less firm evidence for bias. If you flipped a coin once, you can't even calculate
    a confidence value. If you flipped it one trillion times, the 99%
    confidence range becomes extremely narrow and it's centered on 500 billion.

    How do you apply any of this to the matter at hand? I believe I came up with a number, using the binomial distribution, of 0.57% likelihood of 6 justices being Catholic with a random selection (with regards to religion) from a population that was 23%
    Catholic. Do you concur?

    --

    Rick C.

    --- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
    --- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mike Anderson@21:1/5 to Rick C on Fri Mar 4 08:33:20 2022
    On 3/3/2022 12:38 AM, Rick C wrote:
    On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 1:49:19 PM UTC-5, Mike Anderson wrote:
    If the confidence factor of 99% indicates that a particular measurement
    should be between 100 and 110 and you measure something that's 82, you
    look long and hard to try and determine if that measurement was flawed
    and should be thrown out or was it simply one that "beat the odds?"
    Chances are that it WAS in error but, again, that's "chances are."

    We know for certain that the measurement is correct, 6 Catholics out of 9 on the Supreme Court. We know for certain the general public is 23% Catholic, assuming some definition of Catholic. So what are you trying to say?

    What am I SAYING? (I'm not TRYING to say anything. I AM saying that "The
    reason WHY there's such a difference in the percentage of the judges who
    are Catholic vs the number of people in the general population MAY be
    simply due to chance."

    Is it likely? No. Is is POSSIBLE? Yes.

    So some of us are a wee bit sceptical about this newly discovered
    devotion to race and gender blind meritocracy in judicial appointments.

    Before claiming a bias regarding Supreme Court nominees regarding
    religion, consider the population nominees are drawn from. It is not the general population of the country.

    Your comments: "What population do you believe is 2/3 Catholic? Lawyers? Policiticians?" and "Two or three Catholic justices would not be
    surprising. But six?"

    Yes, it's a surprising result. Does that mean it's biased? Not
    necessarily and we can't tell without more data.

    The fewer the number of samples, the less you can talk about "was it
    simple chance or was it bias?" and that's what I was addressing was that
    small sample sizes give wider ranges for confidence values and less firm
    evidence for bias. If you flipped a coin once, you can't even calculate
    a confidence value. If you flipped it one trillion times, the 99%
    confidence range becomes extremely narrow and it's centered on 500 billion.

    How do you apply any of this to the matter at hand? I believe I came up with a number, using the binomial distribution, of 0.57% likelihood of 6 justices being Catholic with a random selection (with regards to religion) from a population that was 23%
    Catholic. Do you concur?

    I wasn't arguing what the probability of it happening was. I was saying
    that any statement that amounts to "this has an extremely low
    probability, thus it must be biased" is fallacious.

    Do I THINK there's bias? Probably so. But we've also had 20 presidents
    since 1902. Of those, there's been two Catholics. So that's only 10% of
    them that are Catholic vs 1/4 of the general population. Is there bias
    there? Probably not. And yes, I realize that 10% and 25% are a lot
    closer than 66% and 25% and thus the odds for a 10-25 are higher than
    the odds for a 66-25 so less likely to have a bias. But the point is
    that no matter if the odds of something happening are 1:2 or 1:2
    trillion, SIMPLY looking at the odds and the actual result are not
    enough to prove bias (nor can you rule out bias, either.)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rick C@21:1/5 to Mike Anderson on Fri Mar 4 12:42:31 2022
    On Friday, March 4, 2022 at 11:33:23 AM UTC-5, Mike Anderson wrote:
    On 3/3/2022 12:38 AM, Rick C wrote:
    On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 1:49:19 PM UTC-5, Mike Anderson wrote:
    If the confidence factor of 99% indicates that a particular measurement
    should be between 100 and 110 and you measure something that's 82, you
    look long and hard to try and determine if that measurement was flawed
    and should be thrown out or was it simply one that "beat the odds?"
    Chances are that it WAS in error but, again, that's "chances are."

    We know for certain that the measurement is correct, 6 Catholics out of 9 on the Supreme Court. We know for certain the general public is 23% Catholic, assuming some definition of Catholic. So what are you trying to say?
    What am I SAYING? (I'm not TRYING to say anything. I AM saying that "The reason WHY there's such a difference in the percentage of the judges who
    are Catholic vs the number of people in the general population MAY be
    simply due to chance."

    Is it likely? No. Is is POSSIBLE? Yes.

    The appropriate response to that would be, DUH! No one has ever said it was IMPOSSIBLE. We are looking at the likelihoods. Did you not see where I calculated the possibility of this being due to chance?

    You don't need to involve the laws of probability or statistics (wrong field actually) to support the idea of it being POSSIBLE.


    So some of us are a wee bit sceptical about this newly discovered
    devotion to race and gender blind meritocracy in judicial appointments.

    Before claiming a bias regarding Supreme Court nominees regarding
    religion, consider the population nominees are drawn from. It is not the general population of the country.
    Your comments: "What population do you believe is 2/3 Catholic? Lawyers? Policiticians?" and "Two or three Catholic justices would not be
    surprising. But six?"

    Yes, it's a surprising result. Does that mean it's biased? Not
    necessarily and we can't tell without more data.

    No amount of "data" will tell you if there is bias involved. There will always be the possibility that this happened by chance. The question is how likely is the result we have observed? At some level of likelihood (or unlikelihood) we draw a line and
    say it strains credulity that this is due to random chance. 0.5% is getting close to that line if not across.


    The fewer the number of samples, the less you can talk about "was it
    simple chance or was it bias?" and that's what I was addressing was that >> small sample sizes give wider ranges for confidence values and less firm >> evidence for bias. If you flipped a coin once, you can't even calculate
    a confidence value. If you flipped it one trillion times, the 99%
    confidence range becomes extremely narrow and it's centered on 500 billion.

    How do you apply any of this to the matter at hand? I believe I came up with a number, using the binomial distribution, of 0.57% likelihood of 6 justices being Catholic with a random selection (with regards to religion) from a population that was 23%
    Catholic. Do you concur?
    I wasn't arguing what the probability of it happening was. I was saying
    that any statement that amounts to "this has an extremely low
    probability, thus it must be biased" is fallacious.

    Do I THINK there's bias? Probably so. But we've also had 20 presidents
    since 1902. Of those, there's been two Catholics. So that's only 10% of
    them that are Catholic vs 1/4 of the general population. Is there bias
    there? Probably not. And yes, I realize that 10% and 25% are a lot
    closer than 66% and 25% and thus the odds for a 10-25 are higher than
    the odds for a 66-25 so less likely to have a bias. But the point is
    that no matter if the odds of something happening are 1:2 or 1:2
    trillion, SIMPLY looking at the odds and the actual result are not
    enough to prove bias (nor can you rule out bias, either.)

    Once again, DUH! This is not a criminal trial. We don't need evidence beyond a "reasonable" doubt. Even if we did, at some level of improbability we convict.

    Did you not read my post where I talk about the nature of doubt in matters where many, similar cases arise? If there is a 1 in 1,000 chance of a criminal's alibi being valid in each of 1,000 cases, what are the chances of a wrongful conviction based on
    this alibi? It's not 1 in 1,000. But when you have just one case you are looking at, 1 in 200 is a pretty good indication it's not purely by chance.

    --

    Rick C.

    --+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
    --+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mike Anderson@21:1/5 to Rick C on Fri Mar 4 12:41:07 2022
    On 2/20/2022 9:21 PM, Rick C wrote:
    On Saturday, February 19, 2022 at 12:58:27 AM UTC-5, Mike Anderson wrote:
    On 2/13/2022 12:45 AM, John Levine wrote:
    According to Rick C <gnuarm.del...@gmail.com>:
    It's been quite clear that in recent years there has been a religious >>>>> test for court nominees: six of the current nine justices are Catholic, >>>>> even though only about 20% of the country is Catholic. There has also >>>>> been a racial test: in 1991 when Thurgood Marshall retired, everyone >>>>> correctly assumed the successor that George HW Bush nominated would be Black.

    So some of us are a wee bit sceptical about this newly discovered
    devotion to race and gender blind meritocracy in judicial appointments. >>>>
    Before claiming a bias regarding Supreme Court nominees regarding religion, consider the population nominees are drawn from. It is not the general population of the country.

    What population do you believe is 2/3 Catholic? Lawyers? Policiticians?

    Pew says that the income distribution of Catholics is about the same
    as for the country as a whole. About 9% of Catholics have a graduate
    degree (such as a law degree) compared to 11% of the country as a
    whole, not surprising for a church where many members are first or
    second generation immigrants.

    Two or three Catholic justices would not be surprising. But six?

    https://www.pewforum.org/2015/05/12/chapter-3-demographic-profiles-of-religious-groups/
    For that matter, how many Catholic presidents have we had? Well, there
    was JFK and then there's Biden and also.....ummm....wasn't Catholic the
    religion of.....Well, I'll be. There's only been TWO Catholic
    presidents. Looks like there's some discrimination going on here as
    well. We should sue to have more Catholic presidents elected!!!!

    In case it wasn't obvious from the wording, saying "we only have X
    that's in population Y" when X is a really low number to begin with
    isn't really a good test, either way, to say if there's discrimination
    at play. If there's only nine judges, it doesn't take much to skew the
    numbers. And for a long time, the court was mainly or all Protestant but
    we didn't get up in arms then.

    If you took a deck of cards and shuffled them and dealt out nine cards,
    it wouldn't be super-surprising to see six hearts in the nine (unusual?
    Yes. Super-surprising? No. I wouldn't shoot the dealer over it.) But if
    you dealt out 9,000,000 cards and had 6,000,000 hearts, I'd start
    looking really closely to see if there was some cheating going on.

    And about 1/4 (actually about 23%) of the US is Catholic, just like 25%
    of the cards are hearts so that's why I used playing cards as a reference.

    But you don't give any actual references to the numbers. What are the odds of 6 hearts out of 9 cards? Inquiring minds want to know.

    I dug around and it seems the binomial distribution is the formula for this and I get 0.57% chance of 6 Supreme Court justices being Catholic when drawn from a population with 23% are Catholic.

    n 9
    p 23.0%
    x 6
    1-p 77.0%
    (p)x 0.015%
    (1-p)(n-x) 45.7%
    nCx 84
    P(x) 0.57%

    Check my work.

    Again, either you're missing the point (or ignoring it.)

    It doesn't matter if the chance is 0.57% or 49.57%. The point was that
    with a small sample size, you can't reasonably expect the results to
    come out exactly like chance would say they should every time. If the
    sample size is much bigger then you'd expect closer and closer to what
    the math says.

    Someone flips a coin four times. Chance says you should expect two heads
    and two tails. Would you shove the table away, jump up, grab both
    six-shooters and start blazing away at the coin-flipper if it came up
    three heads and one tails? How about four heads? Both results are not
    what chance says you should expect but with a small sample size, you
    can't reasonably expect to get 1:1 out of every random group of four.
    Sometimes you'll get the 3:1 split or 4:0 split. And you would simply
    shrug and say "that's the way it goes."

    Now flip the same coin 4,000,000 times. If you came up with 3,000,000
    heads, I'd definitely call you a cheater or look for other such reasons
    for the results (even if I didn't dispense with some old-fashioned
    western justice.)

    But the odds of getting a 3:1 split like that are exactly the same
    whether you're flipping it four times or four million.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)