In the most important district in the state, the state’s most conservative, California’s judges are all on the bench.
The judges are usually more liberal and are more conservative than the general population, which tends to lean more conservative.
The judges on the Supreme Court are almost entirely white.
Of the 11 justices appointed to the Supreme, only one is Hispanic, with four of them African American.
All are also mostly Republican, and all are appointed by Republican presidents.
The other nine justices are appointed and confirmed by Democratic presidents.
The other five are appointed to their respective offices by Republican senators.
All eight are appointed under the Reagan-era Court of Appeal, which has a reputation for being conservative.
That means the court has a record of upholding the state Supreme Court’s interpretation of the state Constitution and its decisions in lower court cases.
And it’s made it difficult for the state to defend itself against claims that its laws violate federal immigration laws.
For instance, a judge who wrote in a California Supreme Court decision that a state law requiring mandatory fingerprinting for everyone entering the state for welfare purposes violated the U.S. Constitution could not have written the decision himself, according to the state.
The court also often sided with the state in cases that did not have a direct bearing on the federal immigration law, and the court did not always hold that the state had violated the federal law, said David French, a professor at the University of Texas at Austin who has written about the Supreme Courts.
The justices have also made decisions that have left many people frustrated.
A 2011 case that said the state could not prevent a pregnant woman from returning to her home country after a trip to the United States was overturned on the basis that the woman’s constitutional rights were being violated.
The California Supreme Courts ruled in the case that the governor had the authority to impose the requirement and that the fetus could be returned to her country, and that because the state was able to protect her constitutional rights, the requirement was constitutional, French said.
The state Supreme Courts also sided with a federal judge who said the legislature could not pass a law requiring the sale of medical marijuana.
In a 5-4 ruling, the court said the Legislature could not create an exception to the law for patients who need it, and could not override the medical use of marijuana provision in the California Constitution.
The ruling also made it possible for California to appeal to the U