you're proving my point entirely. because of the fact that so few blacks were admitted into law school BECAUSE of racist underpinnings and institutions, it is an inherently racist system that's supported the very makeup of the supreme court. you're making broad strokes with your assumption that people are telling people not to apply because of the racist institutions. I'm not sure who you're referring to with "they" but it seems like you're just making an amalgam of made up boogeymen which somehow try to push BIPOC folk from even trying to get into the system. I would posit that there's been a greater emphasis within these communities to get people into positions of power to change the very roots of the system to allow for more non-whites to be in positions of power within the legal system.

so then you'd be fine having a supreme court made up 100% of black judges. because if they're good judges who just happen to be black, then you would be okay with it based on your logic.

Affirmative action has helped white women more than any single group.

And the least offensive to those who shy away from being taught about the past.

We’ve had plenty of instances where judges make inferences based on thinking that isn’t in line with the progress of society. Scalia was an originalist who interpreted the constitution in his way. ACB and Kavanaugh have interpretations of the constitutions which may only benefit a certain subset of the population - namely their stance on Roe V wade based on confirmation hearings and Trump’s need to appoint justices that would overturn it. Those beliefs in overturning roe v wade don’t represent me or my beliefs yet were at the behest of conservative judges who would move to overturn it completely. So that goes against your point of a judge interpreting the constitution.

From a racial standpoint, yes in an ideal world every judge would simply uphold the constitution, regardless of their background, and ideally we’d have a proper representation of as many groups as is possible or feasible. But how can you say the court itself, which was built on exclusion rather than inclusion, and has made rulings which actually help every single person and represent everyone?

Nobody is saying appointing a black judge is to give preferential treatment to black people. You’re making that inference, which is pretty gross. You’re inherently removing her accomplishments because you think the only impetus she has to be on the bench is to help colored folk. That right there is pretty god damn racist wouldn’t you think? Maybe it’s because she has qualifications and experiences that others don’t, namely being the only public defender on the court. Maybe her qualifications of going to Harvard make her more competent than her peers. Maybe her experience dealing with constitutional matters make her a better fit to understand how it may affect people even if giving opinions in an impartial matter.

But if the institutions themselves are inherently reducing the pool of people to choose from for this position, a rebalancing seems appropriate to be representative of the country. It seems weird to claim finding better representation for the court by finding someone who represents an in represented group of people is racist when the entire makeup of the court is rooted it racism. What I’m saying is if the status quo itself is racist, then why would a rebalancing of it to be more representative of the population as a whole be more racist? And given white males only make up 30% of the population, isn’t it racist that they hold the most seats on the bench? Seems very apartheid like to me.

But isn’t the very process and way to get to a judge racially selective either explicitly or implicitly up until relatively recently?

For example, education wasn’t integrated until the 1960s, and as such the path to even getting the kind of education that make you appear qualified enough before a senate confirmation was almost out of the question. So then once you solve for the elementary school education issue, you move into secondary and graduate level and employment level institutionalized racism which was much more overt and less dealt with than just Brown v Board of Education. The very nature of getting to the top was always skewed against blacks, so how could it not be seen as racist at all?