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

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

"It's time to give the mediocre people a chance."

When did you start thinking that women are mediocre?

Certainly, if you believe women are not competent, then it makes perfect sense that you don't want women as Supreme Court Justices.

OMG NO!!!

[thnidu.livejournal.com]

God, no, nothing like that!!!!!!! That is ABSOLUTELY NOT!!!! what I meant to say or imply, or anything like what I think or believe. No, no, no, no, no.

In saying "Women are vastly underrepresented on the Court", I was and am agreeing with you that there are too few women on the Supreme Court.

In saying "this argument doesn't work" (emphasis added), I was talking only about the reasoning that goes "Xs are a certain proportion of the population; therefore, Xs should be proportionally represented in public office." The line from the Nix/Ag campaign is a clear example of why the logic fails.

Re: OMG NO!!!

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

Oh, sorry; I misunderstood. I apologize--I should have thought more carefully about what you were driving at.

It's just that *everybody* seems to be assuming we can't find five women suitable for the Supreme Court and that's beginning to annoy me.

I can certainly agree that there are classes of people who are by their nature unfit for the strenuous mental work of 1) becoming fit to be a competent SCJ and 2) carrying out the duties of an SCJ. This is obviously going to require talent, intelligence, education, and hard work, and I don't intend to suggest that *every* class of people (lazy people pop to mind) should be represented on the court in proportion to their presence in the general population.

So okay, I can see why the argument, unqualified, can wander off into some obviously unworkable paths.

I do think it would be a good idea to have half women (granted that enough suitable women can be found; this may be the work of a generation, but I don't think we should rest on our laurels after finding fewer than five) on the Supreme Court. As someone said with reference to Congress, groups that aren't represented, don't get their concerns considered.

Re: OMG NO!!!

[pocketnaomi.livejournal.com]

I'm quite sure we can find five women who are adequate for the Court. I'm frankly skeptical that we can find five people presently alive in the US who are truly superior for the Court, regardless of gender. I'll take any of those I can get.

I do have another question which has come up, since you're raising the subject of groups which aren't represented not getting their concerns considered: there at least is currently someone representing women and their concerns on the Court. There are no openly gay justices. While I'd be delighted to see someone appointed who is both simultaneously (and have seen good reports of a couple who are, and are being proposed for the opening), is there a reason you're focused entirely on proportionate represntation for women, before getting any representation for gays?

Re: OMG NO!!!

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

Good point.

I admit the disparity with respect to gender is 1) more personal for me because I am female and 2) more striking (at least to me) with respect to the numbers (slightly over half the population is female but more like 5-10% of the population are gay. However you're right that I shouldn't overlook this.

I have absolutely no objection to getting a justice who is both female and gay (that would be cool!) and indeed I had the impression that a couple of people whose names are coming up as possiblities *are* in committed long-term homosexual relationships. I would be equally happy with a superior justice who happened to be gay and not female as I would with a superior justice who happened to be female and not gay if we can't get a superior justice who is both. If we can't find a superior candidate, then I would be happy with an adequate female *or* gay (or both) candidate.

Re: OMG NO!!!

[pocketnaomi.livejournal.com]

I agree about the numbers disparity, but I think it's most critical to have one member of a group there, to be able to speak up about things which their experience may have taught them which the rest just wouldn't otherwise consider. I think you're entirely right that the court should have more women, but I'm more eager right now to see one gay member, of either sex.

AFAIK, the specific openly gay candidates under consideration all do happen to be women, though, so we may get both. I haven't researched them as judicial candidates, so I haven't the foggiest idea whether I approve of them as judges, but the demographics would sure be nice.