Glenn Sugameli

According to the graph from the United States Courts' website, which is maintained by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts on behalf of the federal judiciary, since 1998 the number of female judges has risen, but is still significantly lower than male judges. The number of women judges, since 1998, has increased to 496 from 302. In 2009 male judges exceeded 1,500.

Glenn Sugameli, founder and head of the environmental community's Judging the Environment project and website on federal judicial nominations, told ACSblog, "The U.S. Courts' Federal Bench Gender Snapshot shows a disappointing lack of major progress in the percentage of female federal judges in recent years."

Sugameli continued, "President Obama's 43 confirmed judicial nominees include 22 women and 17 men and women of color. Senate Republican obstruction of every pending judicial nominee, however, is blocking votes that would increase the diversity of the federal bench. Ten of the 23 nominees awaiting Floor votes are women and 13 are men and women of color."

In an interview with ACSblog, Maryland law school professor Sherrilyn Ifill talks about the need to diversify the federal bench, noting that the decision-making process would be enhanced by judges "who represent and are reflective of the larger society." Ifill's interview followed an ACS panel discussion focusing on diversity on the federal bench.

"Conservatives' court-packing ploy," an op-ed by Professor William Marshall, explained how Republicans'

"judicial activism" mantra has been inordinately effective in shaping the debate over judicial nominations. It has allowed them to push through deeply conservative nominees [and] changed the course of American jurisprudence from one based on advancing principles of equality and liberty to one centered on protecting wealth and privilege. The replacement of Justice Stevens stands as an opportunity for Obama to begin the process of returning our understanding of the Constitution to its essential moorings.

E.J. Dionne Jr.'s Washington Post column described how "the conservative intellectual offensive" has transformed

our discussion of the judiciary. That is why the coming clash over President Obama's next Supreme Court nominee ... must be the beginning of a long-term effort to expose how radically conservatives have altered our understanding of what the Supreme Court does and how it does it. Above all, it should become clear that the danger of judicial activism now comes from the right, not the left. It is conservatives, not liberals, who are using the courts to overturn the decisions made by democratically elected bodies ....

Accounts of right-wing judicial activism have focused on the Roberts' Court's opinions, and properly so. For example, my April 13th ACSblog guest post explained how laws that protect people and the environment are "threatened by activist Supreme Court Justices with agendas that result in plurality and bare majority opinions that are overly broad, unwarranted, and ignore or overturn established precedent."