The “Fairer Sex” Imperative for Sound Supreme Court
By Amy Siskind on May 2, 2009 at 1:15 AM in Souter Vacancy, Supreme Court, Women
(Bumped up from Friday afternoon.)
The New Agenda calls on President Obama to select a woman to fill Justice Souter’s seat
The New Agenda, a non-partisan national movement advocating for all women, called on President Obama to fill the seat that will be vacated by Justice Souter with a qualified woman. Currently only one of nine positions on the nation’s highest court is a woman.
“Women’s experiences, expectations, and lives are sufficiently different from men’s that men can not represent women no matter how sympathetic they may be,” said Nancy Hopkins, MIT biology professor – a leader in her field and New Agenda co-founder. “Women are best represented by women. The fact that only one of nine Supreme Court Justices is a woman is an enormous injustice to the women of the United States.
We expect - we demand - that President Obama begin to correct this injustice.”
Last week Hopkins was awarded one of Women’s eNews 2009 21 Leaders for the 21st Century – a distinction shared with Lily Ledbetter. Hopkins knows what it’s like to be in a field dominated by men who are highly educated and smart, but often clueless about gender. Hopkins was in the audience when Larry Summers famously stated that girls are genetically inferior to men when it comes to math and science – a statement Hopkins’ life and career strongly refutes.
The field of law would benefit greatly from a feminine perspective. Upon learning that John Roberts would take her place, former Justice Sandra Day O’Connor declared him “good in every way, except he’s not a woman.”
“There is an amazing pool of incredibly talented women who are leaders in the field of law,” said The New Agenda co-founder Amy Siskind. “We look forward to President Obama selecting one of them.”
To reinforce the message that there is a rich pool of candidates, The New Agenda released the following list of exemplar candidates for the Supreme Court seat.
- Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm: Harvard Law School graduate, former federal prosecutor and a county attorney
- Kathleen Sullivan: dean of the Stanford Law School after teaching at Harvard Law School. Has argued key cases before the Supreme Court
- Diane Pamela Wood: longtime professor at the University of Chicago Law School, federal appeals court judge (7th Circuit)
- Georgia Supreme Court Chief Justice Leah Ward Sears: the first black woman to be appointed chief justice in any state
- Kimberly McLane Wardlaw: federal appeals court judge in California, and would be the first Hispanic woman on the Supreme Court.
- Sonia Sototomayor: 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
- Sandra Lea Lynch: chief judge of the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
- Elena Kagan: U.S. Solicitor General
- M. Margaret McKeown: 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
- Pamela S. Karlan: Stanford University law professor
(Release: November 13)
on sale for only $16.95.
has a spatula.)
8% Off at $11.95, with a rare five-star ranking by 294 customers: 
And check out these: 
("This crazy redhead is on to something. Her pink Rambler story alone is worth the price of the book," writes 
- “Richard Sale’s reportage on Washington, the CIA, the American armed forces, and foreign intrigue has created a perfect background for this account of the steady growth of President Clinton as a master of the game of nations.”--W. Patrick Lang, former head of Middle East Operations, DIA
"Anne C. Heller's stunning biography of Ayn Rand" uses a "plethora of newly unearthed research and fresh insight."
We’d expect the PC Obama to engage in such tokenism. Expect a Latina or Asian woman of course so that he gets the double-pander credit.
Appointing, say, Sonia Sotomayor (a Hispanic woman) wouldn’t have anything to do with tokenism. She’s a brilliant, accomplished jurist who leans Obama’s way politically and is about the right age. Belittling such a potential pick as “tokenism” is just evidence of small-mindedness.
We all remember that “I won” sentiment. Of course whoever it is will lean his way. He won after all. This is all about him, and rightfully so… since he is who won.
Sotomayor was actually appointed to the Circuit Court by Bush 41, for what it’s worth.
And um… yeah. Bush got to appoint judges whose philosophy he liked, and Obama will get to appoint judges whose philosophy he likes. That is, in fact, how it works.
“He” did not win. The Democrats won the election. That’s why the Democratic Electors from the Electoral College cast their votes for him. (If BO, in concert with the DNC, had not stolen the D nomination from her then, voters would have cast their votes for Electors for the Democratic Party with her as their nominee in larger numbers than they voted for Electors for him.)
http://www.google.com/search?q=hillary+clinton+would+have+won+election+over+obama&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
When everyone knows well ahead of time that he’d pick a female minority….it’s tokenism.
Let’s just hope he picks a women. We are 52% of the population. Who cares what color her skin is. We need a woman to understand women’s issues from the bench!
52% of the population, and .11 of the Supreme Court make-up.
Conversely, men make up 48% of the population, but .89% of the Supreme Court make-up.
And remembering that BO and the DNC cheated the country of the true primary winner, a woman, more competent than he. He should be doing all he can to do pennance for that one.
Certainly, the color of “her” skin should not matter, but I’m afraid recent history says otherwise. The election of 2008 firmly convinced me that the skin color issue trumps any concerns about sexism or mysogyny.
Hillary had many congress people committed to her as super delegates early on, many of whom were women of color. But after the first four primary contests, AA’s and other people of color everywhere realized Obama was a much more viable candidate than at first thought - regardless of the fraud and race-baiting that got him there. (Granted not too many people were aware of such misconduct by the Obama campaign unless they were paying close attention.) When they saw him winning, AA’s switched in droves to Obama - liberal, conservative, democrat or republican. It didn’t matter - he was like them.
The most egregious example of this was the May 29th DNC Rules and By-Laws Committee meeting that was made up primarily of white men and AA or women of color. There were virtually no white women among them. Those women had no problem following pledged Hillary super delegate and Chairman of the RBC, Alexis Hermon and rabid Obama super delegate (though unannounced), Donna Brazile’s support to give Obama delegates that Hillary had won through primary elections in FL & MI.
Other AA committee members who were also pledged to Hillary chastized those Hillary supporters who were visibly angry and protesting this action. Before that fateful day was out, three of the AA or of color female committee members who had been pledged super delegates to Hillary switched to Obama. I’m not speaking of Jane Doe Public. These were activist democrats of the highest order.
So, I can tell you, I will NOT be happy if an AA or woman of color is chosen any more than I will be happy if a white man or man of color is chosen. A liberal white woman can generally be counted on to be an ardent civil rights supporter. Unfortunately, an AA or woman of color cannot always be counted on to fight the battles that have faced all women since time began.
Bear in mind that not all women of color share the same political philosophy.
There are a number of prominent right-wing women of color (African-American, Asian-American, Hispanic) who seem only to appreciate THEIR rights that were hard fought by women of earlier generations but aren’t that eager to fight to keep those rights for other women.
sadly, those women have no chance of being nominated by the big zero.
oops, was tired and completely misread your comment, so my comment made no sense! what i meant to reference was that the big zero would never nominate a woman who would appreciate the efforts of earlier women and fight for the rights of all women, regardless of race/ethnicity. seems to me he doesn’t even like women, other than to manipulate/use us.
right on the money: I expect he’ll pick a woman but one that has no feminist leanings whatsoever. he has a history of giving women the finger.
RIGHT, who cares about the color of HER skin so long as she’s female . . . sorry, regardless of racial and gender traits I and all of USA deserve a qualified nominee. The more I hear about race and gender the less I believe the candidates judicial character and qualifications.
By the way, what’s up with the Souter resignation at so young an age? Is there any precedent for it? What’s he planning on doing from now on? Strikes me as weird, anyone else?
(I’m guessing you’re a white man, so feel free to correct if I’m mistaken.)
whites have 8.
white men/you have 7 of them.
women have 1.
white women have (the same)1.
AA men have 1.
nobody else has any.
Is the picture becoming clearer to you?
you seem to assume that any woman/minority must be chosen from other than a pool of qualified candidates, but it’s not like our country has a shortage of lawyers.
Souter is said to be retiring because he wants to go home to NH; also his wife was previously sick with pancreatic cancer: perhaps he wishes to spend more time with her; one presumes having a (supposed) liberal pres. makes him (a supposed liberal SCJ) more comfortable with a replacement.
“Is the picture becoming clearer to you?”
Here’s what’s clear to me: presuming that superficial characteristics of gender or race denote the quality of intellectual ability or breadth of knowledge is a stupid and dangerous shorthand way of selecting anyone for anything. Using this stupid and dangerous shorthand is tokenism by definition. I have no doubt that there are well qualified people of either gender and all races, as there are poorly qualified people of either gender and all races. The proof is in the pudding, not superficial traits.
“Here’s what’s clear to me: presuming that superficial characteristics of gender or race denote the quality of intellectual ability or breadth of knowledge is a stupid and dangerous shorthand way of selecting anyone for anything.”
I agree that gender and race are not correlated with intelligence or ability. I don’t agree that these are “superficial characteristics.”
If they were so freaking superficial, 50% of the judges would already be women, and 30% would be minorities.
No one has suggested that they want an unqualified woman or minority as SCJ, only that they select a SCJ from one of these vastly underrepresented groups.
He should pick Geraldine Ferraro. But he’s a piece of shit and won’t.
IF he picks a Catholic Hispanic we would have 6 Catholics on the Court. More interestingly, we might wonder if she would be a wild card on the issue of abortion. I can think of no greater irony than Barack Obama, who blocked the “born alive” legislation in Illinois, appointing the justice who overturns Roe v. Wade.
Its been known to happen that a stealth justice turns out to be very different than what was expected.
Chief Justice Warren and David Sutter ended up farther to the left than expected, and Byron White ended up farther to the right.
Sonia Sotomayor may well be highly qualified. But if Obama picks her after an orchestrated champaign to have a female selection, most of the public will conclude that her selection was tokenism.
how can choosing *any* women be considered “tokenism?” women make up over 50% of the population; if anything the DEFAULT CHOICE should be a woman - the choice of a man would be more tokenism than the choice of a woman.
Good point!
oh.yes..he loves the twofers
It’s already reported he’s appointing a hispanic woman. Have to appease the new owners of the USA.
Well 1/9 or 11% women when we are 51% of the population sure doesn’t work!
You would think it would be 5 women and 4 men in a fair and just world.
Proportionally yes. Isn’t it pathetic that we are begging for table scraps? To have 22%….
isn’t that reverse sexism to insist that it be a woman? it should be the most qualified candidate. period.
Ya know bubblewrap,
When we get above 30% representation then you can ask a question like that. when we live in a giant fraternity where women are under 20% of our gov’t, corp mngt and tenured profs you can’t. esp when the fraternity has done such a marvelous job mucking up our country! we need some balance and true leaders who we select for their abilities - not who they played lacrosse with in college or which private society they joined at Princeton.
Wow, if their going to sound like you…not so much, sorry.
Well, maybe if you were a woman, you would “feel” what she is talking about and know she is right on.
I could give you personal stories about how my work ended up credited to my male “superior” and then a young snot male friend-of-a-friend got the promotion. It happened to Hillary during the campaign.
It’s impossible to ensure the “most qualified candidate” - if something that specific could be determined, the chances are they might want the money they could get in the private sector, or simply prefer a different type of job. You always choose from the most qualified POOL - and from that, you can find female candidates who would fit the bill. The gender inequality and discrimination that still exists today is simply inexcusable.
And don’t forget - all the men who have disproportunately filled jobs now and in the past - they weren’t chosen simply “because they were the best candidate” - they were chosen from a pool which intentionally excluded women.
Be careful what you wish for - I heard Michelle suggested this morning.
Yep, she is a lawyer too. As is Valerie Jarrett. With this administration anything is possible and they have 60 votes to ram it up America’s backside.
Good point. Can the Dems have whoever they want with 60 votes?
Question is… what is Specter getting as his thirty pieces of silver?
Possibly. But they are not going to be able to count on 60 votes on much of anything particularly on something as controversial as a Supreme Court Nominee. The conservative dems are not playing ball.
I say Jarrett is the one to watch for.
Me too. I haven’t seen anybody else mention her which means she is probably it. Pay to play. Mechelle would be a conflict of interest. He is shameless, but not ignorant.
anyway, they’re saving Mechelle to run for prez when Obama’s done. After all, they have to outdo the Clintons in everything.
agree. i think they’re saving meechelle for a future potus run (which she will win, much to the detriment of the country).
i think the long range plan is for the big zero to be chief justice after his 2, 3, 4, 5? terms (however many he wants after getting the constitution changed to permit it).
Michelle run for POTUS?? Based on what?
great arms, etc., for now.
when the time comes, msnbc, cnn, etc., will tell the world that she’s the most brilliant woman ever born. they’ll point to her first lady experience as highly qualifying, while conveniently forgetting their scorn for such experience when it was hillary. they’ll cover for her, proclaim her every word a gem that could have come from no other than the greatest person ever born, etc. they’ll suddenly decide that it’s just wrong that we’ve never had a female president and will proclaim that it must be because we were waiting to have the best of the best, and doesn’t she have great arms/isn’t it wonderful that she finds time to work out while being the most intelligent, well-informed, best person every born?
and the suckers will buy it.
Well, certainly we won’t mention that arguments against Hillary were given saying her “only” experience was that she was First Lady. With Mechelle that argument would be true.
I don’t know - he seems to think of himself as the “big ideas” man - he doesn’t have the depth of knowledge on anything, he just likes to come up with general ideas of where he wants to go, not how to get there. I think that justices have to really delve into details, do a lot of critical thinking - I don’t think that’s his style or his skill. Plus, he really wouldn’t get any attention on the court, couldn’t read to crowds from a teleprompter.
He is ignorant; but not stupid.
That was the first person to cross my mind. I have know idea WHY it was she.
Random.
Actually, they only need 51 votes.
A nomination may be filibustered once debate opens in the Senate, with a supermajority (of 60) required to end the filibuster through cloture, but once cloture has occured only 51 votes are needed to confirm the nominee.
Also, don’t forget that a Senator may vote to bring cloture but still vote against the nominee which means that even if the Senate votes 60-40 to end the filibuster, that doesn’t automatically translate to a confirmation with 60 votes for and 40 against.
Michelle isn’t licensed to practice law. She gave it up.
I’m not sure - her paperwork with the bar says “court ordered inactive”. I saw it online.
I have grown used to being disappointed by the POTUS’s example of hope and change. I keep hoping, though not blindly, while growing more and more cynical that we will ever get the change we need.
I just noticed an Internet ad with a headline claiming that Obama wants mothers to continue their educations. I am sure, since I didn’t really stop to read it, that it was simply a way to sell loans for education assistance. But it just struck me as extremely hypocritical on the part of the Obama family.
We had a post recently about Michelle’s role so far. It just appears to me that she is playing the role of June Cleaver as in Leave It to Beaver or Margaret Anderson as in Father Knows Best. It seems to placate the Republican conservatives while sending a major anti Hillary-as-First-Lady message.
Quite frankly, I really LIKED Hillary as first lady while thinking all the time SHE should have been president.
We need someone like her on the Supreme Court. I won’t hold my breath, however, since Michelle’s new role as fifties housewife seems to be the model O wants all women to take……..
That is unless you are not a latte liberal “with it” type yuppie mom who drives a SUV, takes her kids to all their lessons, and plays tennis while her hubby is at work ala the Glade air freshener adds and are instead, a lowly working class mom who should get an education so you can work in some administrative position to support a male boss.
Diana L. C., You are so right. Michelle is much more interested in being a role model for AA or women of color than she is in projecting a leadership role for women in something other than as a Mom. Regardless of her education and career, she is playing that down. Both she and 0 are much more invested in “families” than women and their issues. In fact, I don’t think either one of them “gets” it about women.
I believe there would be a huge backlash if we did NOT pick a woman….but, I have been surprised by lack of response so far so i might be wrong.
Oh, this will be interesting!
I hear Anita Hill has bowed out.
bwahahaha…
A “huge backlash” if he doesn’t choose a woman? I doubt it. I expect he’ll pick whoever is most politically advantageous for him, whatever the gender. That is BO’s SOP.
I’d like to see BO choose a woman, not least because Justice Ginsburg at some point, will resign. Ginsburg is 75, and she has pancreatic cancer. America deserves to have more female representation; preferably 2-3 more female justices would be my choice.
Does this circumstance remind anyone of the cautionary phrase:
Elections Have Consequences?
I’m not an Obama fan, but I do acknowledge that I’m happier having BO pick Supreme Court Justices than the GOP.
Well, we shall see, but I don’t feel any more confident of his choice than I would of McCain’s. He is a loose cannon.
Souter turned out well for Bush the First didn’t it?
I am curious why he is retiring and frankly BO will appoint someone that “crazy” Frank would have wanted.
Ah, you’re assuming anybody in the administration is listening to us.
backlash from who? conservatives won’t care, “progressive” men won’t care, and Obot women are used to taking it up the *ss from their Dear Leader - i guess they like it that way. about the only backlash you will see will be right here on NQ and on a few other similar sites.
I’ve actually read there’s a very good to excellent chance that the appointment “will” be a woman. And it’s not like there aren’t excellent candidates to choose from. Justice Ginsburg, though she’s made a brave front, has serious, serious health issues. I mean if she loses anymore weight, she’ll literally disappear.
It’s a scandal that we only have “1″ woman on SCOTUS. To have none at all is unthinkable in 2009.
But then, I’ve been appalled before! But on this issue, I’m thinking positive.
Amy, I don’t know who the backlashers would be. Younger women are so bamboozled by Obama, they don’t seem to care that their mothers and grandmothers fought tooth and nail for them to enjoy what rights they have. The women of the women’s movement of the 70’s & 80’s are scattered every which way. N.O.W. gets much more worked up over abortion and lesbian rights. NARAL endorsed Obama over Hillary. I don’t think much of anything will be said regardless of who he chooses, unfortunately.
This “opportunity” for Obama to make a lasting mark on the Supreme Court and laws of this country has come much too soon to suit me. His very misleading popularity could cause him to do no telling what.
Obama’s decisions definitely always take into account political pandering. However, he doesn’t have a pattern of pandering to women. It is almost as if doesn’t even recognize women as a constituency, much less value it. If he does nominate a woman to supreme court, it will surprise me. I’m a woman and I’ll take the pandering. When a politician doesn’t value or want your vote, you know you’re in big trouble.
Our country would definitely benefit from leadership and representation more accurately reflective of the population. When over half your population is grossly underrepresented, you’re going to have problems. And our country does.
Why pander when he doesn’t have to? But I suspect, this time, will have to. Because local elections are only 1.5 years away; and while people let him get away with stealing the Presidency from one woman, even switching their support from her to him, these same women are not likely to do this again, with their blind allegiance thrown up in their faces (if he chooses a male Justice).
I think the reason so many women were so furious with Senator Kennedy’s support of BO over HRC was the fact that, they had grudgingly given him a pass for all of these years, for his personal shortcomings viz-a-viz women, only to have their blind allegiance thrown up in their faces.
“with a qualified woman.”
Sorry, but I do not think Obama will fill Souter’s spot with this.
I do think he will fill it with a woman.
She just won’t be “qualified.”
i don’t think he’ll pick a woman *or* someone qualified. it will probably be an unqualified male.
one of his kingmakers — he owes many to stay quiet..
thermo said:
‘“with a qualified woman.”
Sorry, but I do not think Obama will fill Souter’s spot with this.’
So what are you implying? That none of the women on Amy’s list are qualified? Or that they simply do not or will not pass your litmus test?’
Btw, I don’t remember the conservative Republicans being thrilled with Souter, even though Pappy Bush appointed him.
PS: If Obama were to select an “unqualified woman,” I’d be the first to scream. But there’s no reason to do that–the pool is rich. I supported HRC, not simply because she was a woman, but because she was the “most” qualified candidate, who happened to be a woman.
But no lie, it made the choice/support all the sweeter.
But it would also be okay to vote for her because she is a woman.
Facts are - as Dr. Hopkins says in her quote - women’s issues get dealt with when women are in office. Plain and simple. UNIFEM study showed this among all countries in the world - those with the greatest proportion of women leaders had most action on traditional women (and children’s) issues.
Although I’m not sure what “women’s issues” she would deal with on the court that Obama couldn’t get a man to support with the same ideology. Yes, being female may have some impact, but I don’t know that that necessarily colors a justice’s decision-making any more than any other aspect of her life experiences would. How do you separate who you are on any number of levels from the kinds of ways that you think about things ?
Sandra Day O’Connor being Exhibit A for not going the way a pro women’s lobby person always ought to vote.
She wasn’t Exhibit A - she was moderate to left on many issues.
Check out UNIFEM study. Facts is facts. There are a number of issues that go before the SC that impact women in their daily lives. Lily Ledbetter sound familiar? It was Judge Ginsberg that kicked that back to the Senate for clarification - else Lily would have plain lost and the Fair Pay Act would not have happened.
I don’t even want to go there, Amy, because it muddies the water and just gives ammunition to those looking for an excuse to cancel out the effectiveness of women and claim that support from other women is a simple act of gender discrimination. We all know there are many qualified women out there in many arenas. The fact that women are so often overlooked, minimized and diminished is the real disgrace in 2009.
But then, I agree with you that the women in positions of power, even quasi-power, have a extraordinary affect on the societies in which they operate. Unfortunately, it’s often in societies other than our own.
I’m thinking positive on this one. If Obama screws this one up, I predict an unified and justified howl.
I agree totally. As a liberal democrat, that’s the main reason I could vote for Sarah Palin.
Exactly what i said - nothing to dow ith Amy’s list.
we should have another woman
I also heard the name of Ann Lewis (sp?) who is “as Wood is a friend of PBO” from
Chicago.
Do you know who’s she/what her credentials are (Lewis) ?
Thanks for this post! He better name not just a woman but one of the so many qualified ones (ie. not just one of his pals). I gasped today when I heard on
my local NPR station that Deval Patrick was also a name being thrown around for a SCOTUS nomination….
Ugh….Deval Patrick!?
ugh yes just like Jennifer Granholm above; most of the others on the NA list look at least qualified but before I’d get behind any of them I’d sure like to know more of their politics.
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/11/19/supreme_court/index.html
Salon (ugh again) also has a list, much overlap.
A commenter suggested former pres Bill Clinton.
No Quarter ahead of the game as usual, but this story in up in the Washington Post:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/05/01/interest_groups_begin_to_weigh.html?wprss=44
And the HuffPo (we didn’t give it to them - they copied WAPO):
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/01/supreme-court-vacancy-wom_n_194644.html
from WaPo article above.
Go Amy, go! As much as I don’t expect 0bama to do the right thing here, we must press on and be optimistic in the strength of our collective voice.
Just imagine the big woman wearing a designer gown with her Lavin sneakers. A HIP supreme court justice.
[...] Our friends at No Quarter [...]
I have pondered whom 0 would select to replace Justice Souter. Not that I wouldn’t want a qualified woman for Souter’s seat, I believe 0 will select a black man. After what many may view as *a lot of women in Cabinet posts*, blacks will clamor for a black man to be chosen to balance the disappointing Clarence Thomas.
I’m not aware of any woman close to 0 (other than Hillary) who would be pushing him to select a woman. It would be a long awaited honor for a hispanic, with their growing population. There’s not much political gain in selecting an asian.
However, he placates his supporters with the selection of a second black man to the Supreme Court.
That would mean that 12% of the population had a 22% representation on the Court, at the expense of underrepresented women. People would scream - but I don’t think he would care. Also, if he were to appoint a black woman, I sure hope she would remember she’s a woman, in contrast to all the voters last year who only recognized their own color.
I prefer that Kathleen M. Sullivan be selected for Souter’s seat for all these reasons:
http://www.law.stanford.edu/directory/profile/57/
My personal choice would be Kathleen M. Sullivan for these reasons:
http://www.law.stanford.edu/directory/profile/57/
Let Bo the wonder dog pick the next nominee. Take the Lincoln bedroom and play Bo Bingo in it. Draw squares on the floor of the Lincoln bedroom floor. Write the name of each candidate on a square. Shut Bo in the room. Come back in periodically to see if Bo has chosen. Whatever square Bo poops on… well there you have it. Bo has chosen and it is fate. That is Bo Bingo in a nutshell.
I’m all for a female appointee, but not as a token and even less for the reason cited:
“Women’s experiences, expectations, and lives are sufficiently different from men’s that men can not represent women no matter how sympathetic they may be,” said Nancy Hopkins, MIT biology professor.
As someone who studies and works in the field of reproductive biology and endocrinology, it’s really disappointing to me to hear a biologist make a claim like that - as if it were a biological fact or imperative. I’ve led and taught men and been led and taught by them, and there’s really nothing that makes a either sex more qualified to lead or make decisions. And the Supreme Court isn’t there to represent anyone - it’s there to interpret and apply the Constitution.
I don’t think anyone is saying one gender is more qualified to lead or make decisions. I think it’s naiive to think that men aren’t influenced by a lifetime of gender narratives that equate “the norm” with male experience, and that this wouldn’t influence their view of both the world and the constitution.
You need to study the effects of oxytocin and vasopressin. It’s not just the differing effects of estrogen and testosterone we need to be concerned about. I agree that women and men can both be excellent leaders, but I want to up the chance that oxytocin’s effects (as well as estrogen’s) are more in play in our next Supreme Court Justice nomination.
YES!
Sorry, YES! to Bullmoosegal’s comment.
I think BO will appoint the first black woman.
I hope so.
It’s perfect.
Georgia Supreme Court Chief Justice Leah Ward Sears: the first black woman to be appointed chief justice in any state
That’d work.
If she is also openly atheist my brother would finally feel represented on the Court. As for me, there are no obese Americans on the court. Does anyone know what she weighs?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leah_Ward_Sears
http://www.gasupreme.us/justices_bios.php
why not a qualified male? why the discrimination?
I’m going to be even more discriminatory and prejudiced - I hope it isn’t another Catholic.
Descrimination, Benny? You must be kidding? Where have you been the last gazillion years? There are many, many women to fill this spot. The fact they’ve been overlooked, time after time, should be answer enough.
Women represent 52% of the population. You’re not willing to consider that women are under represented [or barely represented at all]. Give me a frigging break!!
I pick Sonia Sotomayor, staunch pro-choice woman of color.
Not Jarrett–I can’t find ANY court experience, but as long as 0 is selecting, anyone is possible.
Maybe MM, (from my ’70s comedy archives):
*http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C570byQCLpI
I’ll take that * out and again:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C570byQCLpI
Isn’t identity politics what got us Barack Obama?
THANK YOU, J.J. (The PUMA)! Was reading along and getting more and more depressed. YES, identity politics got us into the mess we’re in.
IMHO, the big zero will indeed appoint a woman, and it’s good for qualified women to have SCOTUS opportunities. But, the big zero will be making the appointment just to get the female appointee brownie points, and if we praise him for nominating a woman, we’re just feeding the monster.
Hope to see the day that we get beyond all this stuff (am old, so doubt I will).
Mmmmm…. big difference, I think. Obama was selected for the color of his skin. We’re talking about people with competence and experience who are women.
Of course, if we do have a woman on the supreme court, we can never be assured that the biggest ass in the universe, Keith “you’re no Ed Murrow” Olbermann won’t be mocking her breasts in his frat-boy, animal house broadcast he calls “countdown.”
KEITH OLBERMANN IS A DISGUSTING PIG.
Olbermann loves to denigrate women on his program, particularly young, blonde women, at least when he’s not denigrating Hillary Clinton or her daughter Chelsea Clinton.
So, now he’s gone after Carrie Prejean, Ms. California, mocking her breasts on Countdown.
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/05/01/video-shame-miss-californias-anti-gay-marriage-ad-boob-job-hi
I hate Keith Olbermann. I truly, truly loathe him. Carrie Prejean is just a young woman who has a right to her own opinion, whether or not I agree with it. I don’t agree with her.
But to make fun of her BREASTS on his news show? That’s really the most contemptuous act imaginable.
I hate MSNBC for continuing to give this PIG of a man a platform.
Check out the post on Ms. California on our blog:
http://thenewagenda.net/2009/05/02/attacks-on-ms-california-wheres-the-outrage/
In response to Bruce Nahn’s question about where is the outrage over Ms. California, there is outrage all the time towards KO’s sexist and misogynist remarks, and he continues to anchor his show (which I have forgotten the name of, lol), as well as others of his ilk.
The better question is why do these e-mails and calls to MSNBC receive no answer, or why no one at MSNBC has called KO out for his demeaning remarks about women.
It is because KO is rated #1 in audience numbers at MSNBC — and that means profits. And, of course, boys will be boys.
Kathleen Sullivan is also an out lesbian. I think she would be a brilliant pick. Let the GOP prove how bigoted they are in their response to her selection.
All I can say is how glad I am McCain/Palin aren’t getting to make this decision right now. That would be truly scary.
To the person who said Obama was “selected” because of the color of his skin. That is an extremely unfortunate thing to say. Extremely. Please think about the things you are saying before you say them. Also please realize that President Obama wasn’t “selected” (unlike George W. Bush in 2000) - he was ELECTED (handily.)
I have thought about about the things I’m saying before I say them.
Obama played the race card in SC, stole Hillary’s ideas and plans, e.g., her healthcare plan, had many doors opened for him (by the Kennedys, Reid, Pelosi, Soros, and all those capitalizing on his win–Richardson), and had the best of fortunes–the media drooling over him (Matthews, KO, Maddow, and others) because for one thing that he was black and, if elected, it would have to be chronicled in the Bible.
He was selected by the DNC, Mr. Weird.
What amuses me is your need to protect this barracuda from us, the Noq extremes!
The spammer has a personal vendetta against me. If I throw ziggy and Jonny Weird into the sacrificial fire will spamo let my comments through?
Obama is consulting Hatch and Specter for his choice of SC and Rosen and Yglesias are talking about her IQ.
She went to Princeton and Yale, the best college and law school in the country. Yale is perennially the best law school in the US.
Obama went to an inferior college and law school, Columbia and Harvard yet he’s “brilliant” and she’s “too dumb”? For writing two bullshit, new-agey books about himself?
A textbook case of sexism. A man of color is “brilliant” while a superior woman of color who worked her way up from the working class is “dumb”.