A quick thought on the Supreme Court situation

[catsittingstill]

Women are slightly over half the population.  So women should be slightly over half the Supreme Court.  There are nine Supreme Court judges, so that means five of them should be women.

The most we've ever had is two.  George W. Bush left us with only one.  Of course the next Supreme Court judge should be a woman.  The next four Supreme Court judges should be women.  Unless Ruth Bader Ginsberg retires in that time, in which case the next five Supreme Court judges should be women.

Duh.

And I'm being moderate and patient, here.  If I was really going for true equality and fairness, the Supreme Court should have only women on it for the next one hundred and ninety years, at which point a single male would be allowed to serve and twelve years later, a second male would be allowed to serve, with the court only opening up to allow a total of four males sixteen years after that.

Comments

[howeird]

How to lie with statistics. The supreme court is not chosen from the general population, but from people who are actually qualified to make decisions at a technical legal level. Okay, Clarence slipped through the cracks somehow but he at least owned the appropriate pieces of paper.

One of the sad things about US history and patriarchal societies in general is few women attempt to become judges, and even fewer stick it out long enough to make a name for themselves at the highest levels. So the pool of qualified individuals is still heavily weighted toward males.

And just because someone is female does not automatically make her someone whose decisions you would agree with.

But having said that, I agree Obama ought to make a special effort to identify qualified women to take Souter's place. Before she was Secretarified, Hillary was being pundited as a possible court nominee.

Do you have anyone particular in mind?

I wonder how Judge Judy would do in a court where she had to share power with all those other justices?

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

Thomas, Scalia and Alito slipped through the cracks, yes, and I have my doubts about Roberts.

True that female does not equal decisions I would agree with. Palin pops to mind. But majority female would at least equal a Supreme Court that doesn't stand around talking about giving each other wedgies. A modicum of professional behavior while on duty does not strike me as too much to ask.

If you agree that a special effort should be made to find a qualified woman to take Souter's place, why not agree that a special effort should be made to find a qualified woman to take every place that becomes available until we have five women on the court? I don't understand why it would be an okay strategy for one position but not for five.

I do not have anyone particular in mind, but from what I last read in the paper there are at least six leading women candidates, so there doesn't seem to be any shortage.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

There is such a thing as making the perfect the enemy of the good, and remember that when the Republicans are in power, they won't be looking for either perfect, or good, or female judges. So you've got to ask yourself--will a really stellar male judge do as much good as a good woman judge once the Repubs are packing the court with right-wing males again?

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

Whups--I meant to attach this to a different post.

[pocketnaomi.livejournal.com]

One vote is one vote. I'd rather have that one vote be stellar if possible, especially if they're young enough to be a thorn in the side of the Republicans for some time to come. The great individual justices manage to put their stamp on the Court, no matter who else is there.

[pocketnaomi.livejournal.com]

Roberts is a first-class lawyer, even if I haven't been happy with him as a judge. Scalia used to be a first-class lawyer before his ideology drove him outright wacko. Thomas just slipped through the cracks, and I don't know enough about Alito's pre-Court service to have an informed opinion.

I'd like to see Elena Kagan at least vetted, though I don't know what I'd find if I did take a serious look at her scholarship. But she seems to have her head screwed on straight. She's probably a little too much of a novice at that level, though -- she might be better for the next opening, after a few years as solicitor general.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

Don't know if we can afford to wait for the next opening; no guarantee it will happen under a democratic president.

[pocketnaomi.livejournal.com]

Odds are pretty good that we'll have at least one more opening within the next three years. Probably Stevens', unfortunately.

An interesting possibility

[bigbumble.livejournal.com]

Michigan's Governor is conspicuously absent from the Obama administration despite the large role she played in the transition. A quick look at her bio makes me suspect she is angling for the supreme court after her current term ends in 2011. I would be interested in learning your opinions of her.
From her state website bio:
JENNIFER M. GRANHOLM was elected governor in 2002 and re-elected in 2006. She began her career in public service as a judicial clerk for Michigan's 6th Circuit Court of Appeals. She became a federal prosecutor in Detroit in 1990, and in 1994, she was appointed Wayne County Corporation Counsel. Granholm was elected Michigan's first female attorney general in 1998.

Re: An interesting possibility

[pocketnaomi.livejournal.com]

As a governor, I've been impressed with what I hear of her. I don't know enough about her as a lawyer rather than a politician to be able to tell how she'd do as a judge, and since she hasn't been one, the only person who might have a decent opinion on how well she'd do as a judge would be Judge Damon Keith, whom she clerked for.

acrobatty used to be a clerk within the 6th Circuit. If I get a chance, I'll ask him if the judge he worked for knows Granholm, and what he thinks of her, or if he knows what Keith thinks of her.

[howeird]

If you agree that a special effort should be made to find a qualified woman to take Souter's place, why not agree that a special effort should be made to find a qualified woman to take every place that becomes available until we have five women on the court?
Because there are not nearly as many women qualified to be Supes as there are men. By your logic we need to have at least one illiterate person on the court, because 10% of our nation is illiterate.

Also, I suspect some of the back-story behind your wanting half the court to be women is you hold the belief that the Old Boy Network is what has kept women out of the higher levels of jurisprudence, and you want to see that ceiling broken.

From what I have observed, this has not been true for a generation, maybe two. Michelle Obama is a good example of my point - she chose to be #2 and to be a mommy and wife, despite having overcome several layers of prejudice to pass the bar. As long as women continue to make this choice, we'll have too few women in the Superme Court pool.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

By your logic we need to have at least one illiterate person on the court, because 10% of our nation is illiterate.

I am not suggesting appointing anyone to the Supreme Court who is not capable of carrying out the duties of the position. Someone who is illiterate is obviously unfit--you can't know the law or review cases without doing a lot of reading. Someone who lacks male parts...not so much. Unless men read with their... never mind.

So *do* you think women are inherently unfit to be Supreme Court Justices? Or do you "just" think that there is not one single woman now who is fit to be a Supreme Court Justice?

And yes, I certainly think the Old Boy Network, so to speak, has something to do with a relative paucity of women at the top levels of many professions. I also think that people's inherent assumption that the current situation is normal, and thus their assumption that of course most SCJs will be male, and thus their tendency to look first for male candidates has a lot to do with that, even without male SCJs choosing (mostly) male clerks and proteges.

I'm just pointing out that the current situation is not normal, and what a normal situation would look like. And for my part, I'm quite sure there is a woman lawyer or judge out there who is fit for the Supreme Court. And I'm quite sure that when the next position comes open, there will be a woman lawyer or judge who, by then, is fit. And so on.

It's not like Scalia and Thomas set a very high bar. Of course, I concede, we definitely want women who are better than *that*.

As long as women continue to make this choice, we'll have too few women in the Superme Court pool.

Some people do tend to blame the underdog, and maintain that the underdog's choices (made in a world where the underdog's chances of ever winning the top dog postion are pretty poor) are why the underdog is an underdog. That looks to me like blaming the victim. I try not to do that.

In a world where a top woman lawyer or judge seriously had a prospect of being appointed to the Supreme Court (or even to a position from which a move to the Supreme Court would be likely), I bet more women would either not have kids, or say "Okay, honey, if you really want. You do understand you will need to be the principal caregiver, right? Okay, just sign this acknowledgement, and initial here, and here..."

[howeird]

You're stuck on this "inherently" theme. Most women are inherently able to create babies inside them, most men are not. Other than that I don't think anyone is inherently anything because of gender.

In a world...
We have been in that world for 20 years, and your theory has not been borne out. Far too few women in the law stick it out for long enough. Heck, even Sandra Day O'Connor bailed, to take care of her huband. And to make about 10 times more from the lecture circuit and book sales than she was making as a justice.

I know you'll be doing some research and coming up with names of women you would like to see on the Supreme Court. I look forward to seeing those names. This might be a good place to start: http://www.nawj.org/

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

You're stuck on this "inherently" theme.

Err, not me. You're the one saying we can't have women Supreme Court Justices because we don't have any qualified women.

That is in fact what you're saying, right? That we don't have enough, or even any, qualified women and thus we shouldn't try for five, or even one, female SCJ?

We have been in that world for 20 years, and your theory has not been borne out.

I realize that you're part of the priveledged gender in this case, and thus the tilted playing field honestly looks level to you because you're at the top of it. I'm here to tell you about the view from the other end of the field.

At the other end of the field, you're expected to do all the work for your job, and then the vast majority of the housework and the vast majority of the childcare (if you have children) when you get home. Unless you're unmarried, in which case you have to do all the housework, but at least you don't have to pick up after anybody else or meet anyone's standards but your own.

If you *are* married, and your partner makes some effort do so some (any) of either of these extra jobs, you are expected to 1) be his manager--reminding him of what needs to be done, checking to see that it *got* done, and done properly (poor housecleaning isn't a problem, but clean dishes are a health issue), and reminding him again, or taking up the slack yourself, if necessary, all so delicately that he never realizes you're managing him, because then it becomes a status issue for him to resist and 2) pretend that this isn't more work than just doing it yourself and 3) be grateful, because most women honestly don't have it so good.

I remember the summer I was working and my partner at the time was free; he agreed to do the laundry and the dishes (which I normally did) and what actually happened was that he played videogames all day during the week while I was working, because it was his vacation, and then on the weekends he played videogames while I did the dishes and the laundry that had piled up over the week. Yes, you bet that kind of thing affects how much energy you have to give to your job, and whether you take on extra responsibilities there that would mean working longer hours.

Yes, women for make choices that take the genuinely tilted expectations of the real world into account. No, that doesn't mean it's our own fault and we should be shut out of positions of power as a consequence.