The basic bottom line question presented to her was: "Could you reflect some on the dynamics of the court in terms of what it means to have a woman or more than one woman?”
Her answer stated in part: "So now the perception is, yes, women are here to stay. And when I’m sometimes asked when will there be enough [women on the court]? And I say when there are nine, people are shocked. But there’d been nine men, and nobody’s ever raised a question about that."
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said she will not be satisfied until there is an all female Supreme Court. Just curious, if Antonin Scalia would call for an all male Court, would he not be derided and attacked as a sexist pig?
Not that he would, as this arch-rival in judicial philosophy is actually one of his closest personal friends, his self-declared "best buddy" on the Court.
For all those hyperbolic liberals that will respond with nonsensical rhetoric about the right fearing a female court, a basic history lesson is in order:
The point is that to specifically call for a Court made up of a specific gender is to see the world through gender-tinted lenses. Women's rights is supposed to be about equality of opportunity, about not giving preference on the basis of gender alone. Ginsburg made a stupid comment, clearly calling for preference on gender alone when it comes to the highest federal bench. That is of course unless a defender of Ginsburg also thinks it would be fine for someone to say they would not be satisfied until the Court returns to being all male? Nobody is stupid enough to say that. Nobody, therefore, should be stupid enough to say the reverse. Tweet
Who was the first female Supreme Court Justice? Her name was Sandra Day O'Connor.
Who nominated her? His name was Ronald Reagan
RSS Feed (xml)
No comments:
Post a Comment