>

It's all just ridiculous. If you either lose or gain something based on the color of your damn skin, it's racist - period. We should be able to have the best people leading our country but we're too concerned with with all this optic nonsense. "The judiciary should reflect the community at large"... I agree Cepheus, the at large are Americans, not black or white Americans, just plain old Americans. If a black judge is going to provide a lesser sentence to a black person, they aren't fit to be a judge. This country is a joke.
Biden is a white guy with many leeways to appoint people of color to positions of power.
Obama said how a murdered kid might be his child and every news outlet made a living hell out of that innocent comment saying he was stirring racial sentiments.
He had to walk on eggshells not to upset both republicans and white people in his own party by refusing to go too "woke". >

Lesson is don't walk on eggshells because those people still win when you do that. How much police reform was there? That's what walking on eggshells gets you. >

And there was still a massive backlash ie. Maga & Trump >

I think the point is that he walked on eggshells and there was still a massive backlash.  If that's the response no matter what, then he should just do what's right. >

If you're focused on results (and most of us in r/politics are), then Obama totally made the wrong play by catering to republicans, but if you're focused on your legacy, then Obama played it perfectly. Obama was a reasonable, middle-of-the-road democrat and the republicans still acted ridiculously and history will remember that.
That said, I wish he put the needs of the country over his legacy as the first black president. We sorely need a progressive revolution and it's kinda icky that Biden has been more progressive than Obama while still being a far cry from what this country needs. >

Biden is accomplishing more than Obama did in two terms, with the exception of the ACA. 
Voting rights could be his ACA. >

He's ordered far less bombs being dropped on foreign countries(Afghan's and the like)than any other past POTUS in decades.
So far. >

How many did trump order besides that one Iranian General he had drone-striked? I honestly don’t remember. >

Remember when people thought Dems should have kicked Manchin out of the party in 2021? >

Half of people are stupid. >

~~stupid~~ Uneducated.
Which is part of the right’s strategy. >

There’s a lot of stupid people too. You know, the ones that think Manchin should be kicked out of the party or primaried. >

Also anyone who voted Trump in 2020. I'm sick of the "uneducated" excuse, in 2016 I sort of understood it, blah blah tuned out blah blah disillusioned blah blah.
Being willfully ignorant no longer gets you the uneducated excuse, after 4 years of Trump you are a bonafide imbecile to vote for him again. >

"Diverse" is fine, but is their judicial philosophy progressive? 
In NY, Gov. Hochul just nominated the first Latino judge to be our new chief justice. Sounds great, right? But he's an anti-abortion, anti-union conservative. Oops?
Edit: To be clear, my issue is with the article's framing, not Biden's nominees. They should be highlighting their pro-labor stances as the true sign of progress, not reducing them to the color of their skin. 
If it were that simple, Clarence Thomas would be as much of an ally as KBJ. Clearly not the case. >

What research have you done? >

Clearly none. He’s “just asking questions” 
… in a very misleading way. 
To answer the question: these judges are quite  progressive overall >

No, my point is that focusing on the racial/gender/sexual diversity of the judges as opposed to their judicial philosophy is unproductive. 
If the article were titled "Biden's Judicial Nominees are the most Progressive and Pro-Union in Decades," I'd have no problem with it. >

Unproductive to you.  There is value in diversity.  Not just in progressivism.  (This coming from someone almost too progressive for the Democratic party) >

Why?  That's an odd and counter-productive position.
Who got more done for the state of California and wider America from a progressive standpoint?  White Male Henry Waxman or multiracial (black/S Asian) Kamala Harris?
It's very emphatically not even close.
Of course there's "value in diversity".  The crucial point is that it's merely one aspect to a Progressive society. >

I wasn't disagreeing with anything you said.  Just pointing out OP is giving no value to diversity. >

Lot of concern troll - ey takes about diversity .
You know how I know these judges are more progressive and more likely to be public defenders ?  
BIDEN APPOINTED THEM. And I read beyond headlines.
Also, no one questioned when Trump's appointments just happened to be overwhelmingly Old white men. >


overwhelmingly Old white men.

For the lifelong seats, the GOP tries to pick younger candidates for example Amy Barret was in her late 40s. >

This is good. The judiciary should reflect the community at large and only act in ways that protect the constitution and the community. >

So why not get the most qualified in the position rather than concentrating on melanin? It wouldn't bother me if they were all black, indian, women, whatever long as they're the best for the position. I think this diversity first is nonsensical. >

Thats what people who aren't racist would think.  We are thinking too much about diversity rather then people who would be diverse.