Quantcast

«

»

Sep 30 2013

Mefferd Isn’t Good at Math

Wingnut radio host Janet Mefferd is beside herself that the Senate confirmed the nomination of an openly gay judge to an appeals court and she shows both her inability to do math and deliberate indifference to reality in claiming that gays are “overrepresented” on the federal bench.

“Because he had to be gay?” Mefferd asked. “I mean, that was like a qualification, if you’re going to be on the appeals court you better be gay? That’s how it rolls now.”

“They mention that at least seven gay or lesbian judges now serve or have served on federal district courts; sounds like overrepresentation,” she continued. “I don’t know how many judges are on that system but we’re talking about what, 2-3% of the population? This is overrepresentation but they don’t care.”

Precisely the opposite; it’s underrepresentation but Mefferd doesn’t care. A quick Google search would have told her that there are 874 federal judges. Which means seven gay judges would be less than one percent. Math — it’s your friend. Unless you’re a wingnut.

19 comments

Skip to comment form

  1. 1
    StevoR : Free West Papua, free Tibet, let the Chagossians return!

    “I don’t know how many judges are on that system but we’re talking about what, 2-3% of the population?

    Also ignorant Mefferd, try about ten percent or more.

  2. 2
    StevoR : Free West Papua, free Tibet, let the Chagossians return!

    That are non-heteronormative, that is.

    If Kinsey was right, probably higher?

    (Typing from memory here so could be mistaken but still – quite sure its much more than just 3%.)

  3. 3
    Doug Little

    StevoR,

    Do you have a cite for the 10% figure? I thought that the current understanding was 3%.

  4. 4
    Doug Little

    Holy shit StevoR you can read minds as well.

  5. 5
    Doug Little

    Also you would have to add up all the judges that have served not just the current serving ones. As she stated

    They mention that at least seven gay or lesbian judges now serve or have served on federal district courts

    emphasis mine.

  6. 6
    Larry

    And women make up anywhere from 10% to 30% of the state judges. This would be under-representation but I’m pretty damn sure Mefferd doesn’t care.

  7. 7
    StevoR : Free West Papua, free Tibet, let the Chagossians return!

    @4. Doug Little : Thankfully not.

    Its ..complicated of course but the wiki-basics can be found here :

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_sexual_orientation

    Although, again, stress, complicated situation and depends on various definitions and survey methodologies.

  8. 8
    Modusoperandi

    You don’t understand how much more powerful HomoJudges are than HeteroJudges. A single HomoDecision in HomoCourt can undo decades of HeteroLaw.

  9. 9
    barry21

    Since judges tend to be on the old side, it’s safe to assume that there are several closeted judges, too. Vaughan Walker came out publicly after he left the bench.

    There are persistent rumors about a VERY high profile judge. Regardless of the veracity of those rumors, they serve to remind us that “The Closet” still exists, and some people feel compelled to stay in there.

    Anyhow, fuck Janet Mefferd.

  10. 10
    Michael Heath

    StevoR: Your own cite directs us to a number of 3% that identify as such in the U.S., and up to 5.6% when also including those who don’t identify as GBLT but do express same-sex attraction: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_demographics_of_the_United_States. This is the link I’m directed to at your cite to get the U.S. numbers, which is what Ms. Meffords is referencing.

    So I don’t know how you can claim a far higher rate. However I was skimming so perhaps I missed something.

  11. 11
    barry21

    Now that I’m thinking about the closet – how would someone like Mefferd deal with the idea of a super secret gay judge?

    On the one hand, she may be a little lenient because the judge isn’t rubbing it in our faces (read: doing any of the things that people in relationships do to indicate that they’re in relationships).

    On the other hand, not only is the closeted judge gay, but she’s also a secret agent of the homosexual agenda, worming her way into the halls of power in order to sabotage Christmerica.

    On the third hand, and as I said above, fuck Janet Mefferd.

  12. 12
    mastmaker

    @8

    I nominate this comment for ‘Comment of the week’, possibly ‘Comment of the month’!

  13. 13
    Gregory in Seattle

    Reality has a provable liberal bias.

  14. 14
    colnago80

    Re barry21 @ #9

    I assume you are talking about Federal Judge William Pryor. What is know is that, apparently, Pryor, while a student, posed nude for a photographer, and subsequently the photos appeared on a gay oriented web site, Badpuppy. This does not mean that Pryor is gay as many of the models who pose for such sites are straight. Maybe he needed the bread.

    http://abovethelaw.com/2013/09/underneath-his-robes-nude-photos-of-a-federal-judge/

  15. 15
    Trebuchet

    I think the 10% figure comes from an old, long discredited study by Dr. Kinsey.

    Of course, to Mefferd even one gay on the bench is over-representation. That no doubt applies to women as well.

  16. 16
    d.c.wilson

    It really doesn’t matter what percentage of the population is gay. Contrary to Mefford’s delusion, there is no gay quota for the appeals. He wasn’t appointed to be the “gay judge.” Sucking as it may be to some, he was appointed because he’s well qualified for the job.

  17. 17
    colnago80

    Well, it she’s going to complain about over-representation, the Supreme Court is the mother of all over-representation, with 3 Jews and 6 Catholics.

  18. 18
    Doug Little

    I read the title as

    “Mefferd Isn’t Good on Meth”

  19. 19
    Robert B.

    Overrepresentation, is it? Okay, let’s talk about overrepresentation. 105 out of 112 Supreme Court justices in history have been straight white guys, but they only make up 35% of the population. I agree with Mefford that overrepresentation is a serious problem, and therefore she will surely agree with me that the next one hundred and ninety-five Supreme Court justices should be women, queer, and/or POC. That should help presidents narrow down the field of possible appointees for the next 350 years or so.

Leave a Reply

Switch to our mobile site