Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

More Women for The Supreme Court

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Captain_Nemo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-04-09 11:26 PM
Original message
More Women for The Supreme Court
More Women for The Supreme Court
February 10, 2009




http://www.postwritersgroup.com/archives/cocc090210.htm

"WASHINGTON -- Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's renewed struggle with cancer is both a demonstration of courage and a dismaying reminder that she represents a quota of one.

Ginsburg, who has pancreatic cancer, says she intends to resume her duties on the high court before the end of February, a quick return after surgery and harrowing treatment for a disease that is difficult to overcome. That is the courageous part.

The cheerless truth is that Ginsburg's ill health brings to mind her unique position. She is the only female justice, and has been since Sandra Day O'Connor left the court in 2006.

Certainly if Ginsburg's health fails and she is forced to retire, President Barack Obama would be under intense pressure to appoint another woman to fill her slot. With women voters providing Obama's margin of victory in last year's election, there is little doubt that he would do so.

But what then? Would a second vacancy automatically go to a man?

That is how it usually works. This use of women as tokens must now be reversed.

Justice Clarence Thomas is the sole African-American sitting on the high court, and the only member of any racial minority group. All ethnic groups legitimately aspire to greater representation. But why set up a zero-sum game in which the advancement of one means the other must wait?

Women -- of all ethnic backgrounds -- are not a minority. We are a majority of the population and a majority of the electorate. Women earn about half the law degrees awarded each year, and comprise well over half of those earning bachelor's and master's degrees. Still, we are treated as a cranky interest group to be placated, and rarely given our rightful place in leadership."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Captain Hilts Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-04-09 11:27 PM
Response to Original message
1. The Post should talk. 14% of their op-eds are written by women. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Captain_Nemo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-04-09 11:31 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. Marie Cocco is on e of the few feminist columnists who talks about facts of our underrepresentation
Women are in the majority of this country and we are underrepresented:

Congress - 17% are women
Governors - 8 out of 50 are women
SC - 1 woman out of nine justices.

We are in the majority of the country.

I am a woman and I have a big problem with this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Captain Hilts Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-04-09 11:32 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. I like Marie Coco, and it was great when she'd be on Leherer.
Edited on Wed Mar-04-09 11:34 PM by Captain Hilts
She rarely gets in the WP.

I, too, have a Big Problem with this. Most folks here do not.

Didn't you just love all the folks here saying that Obama winning the presidency was proof that anyone can be president?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Captain_Nemo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-04-09 11:33 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. Clearly a woman cannot win the presidency.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-05-09 11:16 AM
Response to Reply #6
21. I don't think that's true
Edited on Thu Mar-05-09 11:18 AM by karynnj
HRC came very very close, in spite of responding badly when she was criticized for one answer in the first Philly debate. Had she just explained that the issue did not lend itself to 1 to 2 minute responses - then stating a position - she would have been better off than whining it was the "guys against the girl" when it was everyone against the frontrunner and having Bill Clinton bring up the idea that it could be swiftboating. Between this and attacking Obama as she did, she destroyed for some the perception that she was the gracious, very accomplished, inevitable candidate. That was one of her best assets and they threw it away.

In addition, her strategy was flawed - spending no money or resources on the SuperTuesday caucus states. (I bet even if they had just assigned the internet team (and she had a pretty big one) to co-ordinate and encourage the people in those states to show up -- with friends, they would have held down Obama's numbers there.

Now, no campaign will have a perfect candidate or the perfect strategy. I also think she was hurt by it being a change election - and she was not a new face. It also hurt that Iraq, where she was badly positioned as one of the last Democrats to get behind setting a firm timeline or deadline to get out, was the big issue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BrklynLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-04-09 11:30 PM
Response to Original message
2. An excellent concept. Why hasn't anyone ever thought of that before??
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Muttocracy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-04-09 11:30 PM
Response to Original message
3. "Would a second vacancy automatically go to a man?" - huh? why?
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OmahaBlueDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-04-09 11:35 PM
Response to Original message
7. If I had my way, every Obama SCOTUS pick would be a woman
...preferably from a variety of ethnic backgrounds. Females need to eventually make up 4-5 of the justices.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Captain_Nemo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-04-09 11:38 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. Since we are 51% of population, how about 5 out of 4?
In all fairness and honesty, all the next nominees should be female to even our paying ground.

Abortion has been a big issue for the Court - and we only have one woman on the court.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OmahaBlueDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-04-09 11:43 PM
Response to Reply #8
11. I think you mean 5/9
Honestly, I think 4 would shame the rest into being reasonable on the issue, but a majority would be fine by me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Captain_Nemo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-05-09 10:54 AM
Response to Reply #11
18. yes 5 out of 9.....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CTyankee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-05-09 12:23 PM
Response to Reply #8
25. 5 out of 4, are you crazy? We can't have a bunch of women on the Supreme Court
fer crissakes!

Heart attacks among the fundies would be reason enough not to do that!

On second thought: hmmm, let's think about things that would be different if women were in charge of the Court...abortion, children's welfare, sex discrimination prosecution, hmmm...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Captain Hilts Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-04-09 11:39 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. I'm not comfortable with that. It's seems like a quota system.
And, it's best to refer to adult humans as 'women' rather than 'females' because 'females' is not exclusive to humans.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Captain_Nemo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-04-09 11:40 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. Well, affirmative action was quite successful in bringing African Americans in to the workforce.
I think we have to look at the problems that gender disparity causes a nation.

I believe in evening the playing field so all people can reach to their highest potential.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OmahaBlueDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-04-09 11:46 PM
Response to Reply #9
13. Unfortunately, it's become a numbers game.
The court is overwhelmingly male and overwhelmingly white in a nation which is neither.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrSlayer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-04-09 11:45 PM
Response to Original message
12. I want the best possible person in there regardless of gender.
If the next best qualified person is a woman then she should get it. If it's a man then he should get it. I don't care what gender they are as long as they are the most qualified for the job. Having one specific set of genitals should not be the determining factor.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lyric Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-05-09 10:57 AM
Response to Reply #12
19. The problem is that there are plenty of qualified people
many of whom are equally qualified. In that case, I think that women should be given some preference, as we are currently BADLY under-represented, and one of OUR most basic human rights is at stake within that court on an alarmingly regular basis.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Captain_Nemo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-05-09 11:00 AM
Response to Reply #12
20. Because around the world (according to UN report from August 2008) gender parity in government
gender parity in government makes women's lives better. Women bring different things to the table.
From that report "Who Answers to Women"

" A large-scale
survey of members of parliament undertaken
by the Inter-Parliamentary Union recently
found that over 90 per cent of respondents
agreed that women bring different views,
perspectives and talents to politics, and an
equally large percentage of male and female
respondents believed that “women give pri-
ority to those issues believed to be women’s
issues.”28 In the words of one member of par-
liament, “It’s the women in politics who put
women’s rights and violence against women
and children on the political agenda.”

http://www.unifem.org/progress/2008/media/POWW08_Report_Full_Text.pdf


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
camera obscura Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-05-09 12:57 AM
Response to Original message
14. Just look at Obama's cabinet, I think diversity is the last thing we have to worry about.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Captain_Nemo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-05-09 10:53 AM
Response to Reply #14
17. But, out of 21 Cabinet posts there are only 5 confirmed women.....where's the diversity?
Cabinet Posts
Men
Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack
Secretary of Commerce Locke (not confirmed)
Secretary of Defense Robert Gates
Secretary of Education Arne Duncan
Secretary of Energy Steven Chu
Secretary of Housing & Urban Development Shaun Donovan
Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar
Attorney General Eric Holder
Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood
Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner
Secretary of Veterans Affairs Eric Shinseki



Women
Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano
Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis
Secretary of Health & Human Services Sebillus (not confirmed)
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton

Cabinet-level posts

Men
Vice President of the United States Joe Biden
White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel
Director, Office of Management & BudgetPeter Orszag
U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk

Women

Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency Lisa Jackson
U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hekate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-05-09 01:31 AM
Response to Original message
15. Ah,of all the women who should've been in the pool, Barbara Jordan still tops my list after 35 years
Edited on Thu Mar-05-09 01:31 AM by Hekate
Even so, by this time the pool of candidates is very large indeed, and deep. I see no reason why any and all SCOTUS vacancies that occur during the Obama presidency could not be filled by women in a rainbow of colors.

Hekate

http://watergate.info/impeachment/74-07-25_barbara-jordan.shtml
"A President Is Impeachable If He Attempts To Subvert The Constitution"
July 25, 1974
This is the speech given by Representative Barbara Jordan (Democrat-Texas) reminding her colleagues on the House Judiciary Committee of the Constitutional basis for impeachment. The Committee met in Washington, D.C.
(video clip)


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Captain Hilts Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-05-09 12:07 PM
Response to Reply #15
23. Barb rocked. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LiberalFighter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-05-09 08:58 AM
Response to Original message
16. Anita Hill
Clarence Thomas -> :spank: <-Anita Hill
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
noonwitch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-05-09 12:04 PM
Response to Original message
22. Sandra Day O'Connor was a great guest on The Daily Show the other night
She was pretty funny, and Jon gave her the respect she deserves by giving her two whole segments of the show.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Captain Hilts Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-05-09 12:08 PM
Response to Reply #22
24. I'm glad to hear that. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Eryemil Donating Member (958 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-05-09 03:25 PM
Response to Original message
26. Insofar as females are more likely to hold liberal views, I agree n|t
Edited on Thu Mar-05-09 03:25 PM by Eryemil
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu May 02nd 2024, 03:50 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC