|
|
May 25, 2013
|
|
|
|
 The Arc of Women’s ProgressPosted on May 10, 2010
By Ruth Marcus The first woman to be dean of Harvard Law School. The first woman to be solicitor general. But: the fourth woman, if she is confirmed, on the Supreme Court. The third woman among the current justices. The arc of women’s progress is measured by Elena Kagan’s transition from anomaly to norm, from trailblazer to “just another.” Well, more than just another—a Supreme Court nominee never is—but less of a big deal. And no big deal is what makes Kagan’s nomination such a welcome moment. There is certainly no going back to a court with a lone female justice, probably no going back to a court with only two women. It represents, as Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the day of her own nomination, “the end of the days when women, at least half the talent pool in our society, appear in high places only as one-at-a-time performers.” Advertisement The overlong era of firsts is coming, happily, to a close where women are concerned. Not completely—there are a few hard ceilings yet to crack—but mostly. I happened to be at a working dinner the other day at which I was the only woman, and I think the men were more uncomfortable about the gender imbalance than I was. The new abnormal is a situation where there aren’t a reasonable number of women present. Why does this matter? On an institution like the Supreme Court court, symbolism counts—something, by the way, the justices ought to have paid more attention to when they closed the court’s majestic front entrance. A token woman or two conveys a different message than does a solid plurality, a critical mass. As to results, I’d hope the answer is: not very much. It’s too bad that, assuming Kagan is confirmed, the three female justices are apt to be part of its liberal wing. Women come in different ideological stripes. A study of female federal appellate judges by Christina Boyd, Lee Epstein and Andrew Martin published this year in the American Journal of Political Science found no significant gender difference in an array of cases—including, perhaps surprisingly, sexual harassment, abortion and affirmative action. The exception came in claims of sex discrimination, in which, the authors said, “not only do males and females bring distinct approaches to these cases, but the presence of a female on a panel actually causes male judges to vote in a way they otherwise would not—in favor of plaintiffs.” Kagan’s nomination raises another, somewhat uncomfortable question: what to make of the fact that, assuming she is confirmed, two of the three women on the court will be unmarried and childless. The obvious inference is that marriage and motherhood are not particularly compatible with the relentless career path required to achieve that level of success. Obvious, but I think wrong. I was prepared to draw this conclusion, until I went through the biographies of the nearly 50 women now serving on federal appeals courts. The overwhelming majority are (or, in some cases, were) married and have children. If there is a difference between male and female appeals court judges in terms of family status, it’s not a glaring one. The only thing worse than not having women adequately represented in positions of importance is having inadequate women represented there. Selecting someone manifestly unqualified just because she is a woman is more offensive than not selecting a woman at all. Sarah Palin as a vice presidential nominee and, more to the point, Harriet Miers as a Supreme Court nominee, come to mind. I know Kagan and consider her a friend, but the notion that she is President Obama’s Miers is ludicrous. She clerked on the federal appeals court and the Supreme Court. She has taught law, worked in the White House counsel’s office and been solicitor general. To those who complain about the paucity of her publicly stated views on legal issues: blame Republicans. If they had confirmed Kagan when she was nominated to the federal appeals court by President Bill Clinton, they’d have a juicier paper trail to pick apart today.  TAGS:
|
A Cooler Century? Wait And See
Email 
Print
Share
Email to a friend
Newsletter 
Like Us
Follow Us
Get Our Feed
Tags|Bazaar|Podcast|About Us|Contact Us|User Agreement|Privacy Policy|FAQ: Comments and Moderation | Google+
© 2013 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.
By omop, May 13, 2010 at 9:06 am Link to this comment
Actually the title should read
NEW YORK RULES.
According to the NYT its in the bag already:
“Kagan is so MANHATTAN, Scalia is so QUEENS
Ginsburg is so BROOKLYN and Sotomayor is so BRONX”, the author of a
biography of Justice Antonin Scalia is quoted as saying..
“They adopted in their identities the whole New York sensibility.”
Report thisBy Hammond Eggs, May 13, 2010 at 8:59 am Link to this comment
By Rosa Luxemburg, May 12 at 11:16 pm #
There’s a typo in the title, no? It should read: Arc of Elite Women’s Progress.
That should read: Corrupt and Elite Women.
Report thisBy Rosa Luxemburg, May 12, 2010 at 7:16 pm Link to this comment
There’s a typo in the title, no? It should read: Arc of Elite Women’s Progress.
Report thisBy Michael Shaw, May 12, 2010 at 10:04 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
What she looks like is one hell of a stupid way to
Report thisdetermine what she will do if nominated. Is this how
superficially fickle we have become as a society? One
thing that interested me was what I saw and heard on
the Today Show this morning. FOX shill Laura Ingrams
was a guest and after ranting about liberal
elitists(as she always does), said she opposed Kagan
because she booted the ROTC off campus at Harvard. Of
course she failed to mention Kagan challenged the
legitimacy of the ROTC recruiting on their campus on
the constitutional grounds that as employers and
because of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” the ROTC sexually
discriminates as an employer. More importantly, Kagan
did not boot the ROTC off campus. But what she did do
and is way more significant than anything else was to
make a complete 180 on her own grandstanding argument
when she discovered Harvard would lose millions in
federal grant money if the ROTC was not allowed to
recruit on campus. Here is where we need to be
looking to ascertain what kind of supreme court
justice she might make. Not how she looks or what
kinds of clothes she wears. Also whoever said we
should get rid of the court or worse still, allow the
court to select their own nominees are not thinking
this through very clearly. In either of these
suggested scenarios, the constitution is further
trashed. Also, allowing the federalist society
judges… (who control the court and have already
done their utmost to trash the constitution,)... to
pick their own buddies for the court is sheer
insanity! One thing that hits me is the fact that
when republicans choose their applicants for the
courts, they care not what democrats think as they
push forth the most extreme right wing demagogues
possible. Of course then the democrats after a little
bitching always give in and give us these dweebs IE
Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Alito. Yet on the other
hand, it seems Obama and the democrats always seem to
pick the least controversial figures(the most
“moderate”) they can find so as not to upset the
republicans so they will accept the nomination. What
does that tell us? It tells me both Obama, the
democrats and the republicans want to steer the
SCOTUS on the same disastrous right wing course. From
what little we do know about her, Kagan it would seem
may very well be the perfect means to that end,
especially if she sells out the constitution over
money. Another aspect is she supports the Reagan
notion that the executive office should gain powers
over government agencies that are generally overseen
by congress. Now here is what we should be looking
at! IE Sells out principles in constitutional law for
money and might very well agree with the federalist
society “unitary executive” theory, that as we know
is day by day becoming far more than merely a theory.
By faultroy, May 11, 2010 at 6:16 pm Link to this comment
I certainly wouldn’t consider this nomination the “Arc of Women’s Progress.” What I would consider female progress is seeing the best person nominated rather than another affirmative action baby. I don’t mean to disparage Kagan, but the reality is that all Supreme Court Justices are now chosen not for the timbre of judicial skill, but of the color of their skin and/or what is between their legs and who they know. This critera hardly sounds like “the arc of Women’s Progress,” unless of course you’re a feminist that fervently believes in the equality of men and women—as long as women have just a little more equality than men.
Report thisBy Big B, May 11, 2010 at 5:15 pm Link to this comment
Again, we see some other well connected member of the judicial conservative elite annointed (not appointed) to a lifetime ruling position in a supposedly free republic. All members of SCOTUS need dragged into the street and treated to the bastinado. These elitist scummbags need to be tarred and feathered and have there noses chopped from their smug faces.
SCOTUS is an evil institution that needs to be removed from our republic. It transfers power from the masses to a small group of old idealogs. It is a fascist organization.
That said, she does look like Danny Devito in a dress. Jebus, just because you are swinging from the other side of the plate doesn’t mean that your fashion sense should take a holiday. But then again, we have a president who is a proud black man but dresses like an accountant.
Is there anything more frightening than a judge that thinks it’s OK to torture people? Or hold them in a gulag indefinitly? Renquist would be proud! (and a little turned on)
Report thisBy omop, May 11, 2010 at 3:25 pm Link to this comment
Looks like the same old gang playing musical chairs.
Washington is under the control of Wall Street and the Harvard clique.
The nomination of Ms Kagan is an added fodder to the secessionists who may
at one time looked like “crazies” but are begining to make sense. Not by what
they do but what the Obama clique is doing.
There are 50 states in the Union. and there are 310 million Americans. Of whom
more than 96% live outisde DC, New York and Conn.
Is Obama kidding or this is what he means by change? Maybe their secet plan
is the splitting up of the USA into several separate nations.
While the following may sound naive, it makes more rational sense than
nominating someon that is politically in. why not ask the presiding members of
the Supreme Court to submit a list of at leas 6 to 8 candidates for consideration
rather than the President nominating a political buddy.
With all due respect we are fast becoming a cartoon naion.
Report thisBy Artful Dodger, May 11, 2010 at 1:37 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
I have no beef with the advancement of women of goodwill and conscience. Ms. Kagan is not of that company of women. Her stands on free speech and due process are horrifying.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=152305
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/18/us/politics/18policy.html?_r=1
During her confirmation hearing last week, Elena Kagan, the nominee for solicitor general, said that someone suspected of helping finance Al Qaeda should be subject to battlefield law — indefinite detention without a trial — even if he were captured in a place like the Philippines rather than in a physical battle zone.
Ms. Kagan’s support for an elastic interpretation of the “battlefield” amplified remarks that Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. made at his own confirmation hearing. And it dovetailed with a core Bush position. Civil liberties groups argue that people captured away from combat zones should go to prison only after trials.
Report thisBy REDHORSE, May 11, 2010 at 10:35 am Link to this comment
The problem seems to be, no one knows where she stands on “the issues”. I enjoyed the research in the article and the insights on interplay between genders. (Like race that’s of less and less interest to me.) Well, hooray for women—without whom I would not have been possible—but,” where’s the beef”?
Report thisBy samosamo, May 11, 2010 at 8:13 am Link to this comment
Another thing, why do these picks always come from the ivy
Report thisleague colleges? If the scotus were functioning in an unbias way,
you know, not bought out for favoring corporate agnendas, this
would not be raise any doubts, but just as the court is made of
catholics and jews only is another concern of doubt. Just
imagine, the roman catholic church controls the scotus and
izrael has chipped in the other 2.
By samosamo, May 11, 2010 at 8:02 am Link to this comment
***************
Who cares what she looks like? What is she going to be if
Report thisconfirmed? Another john roberts, clarence thomas, antonio
scalia or samuel alito or just another plain federalist? Just so the
president’s choice is another female doesn’t mean he is picking
someone that will be the fair, just and open minded person that
one would hope the pick would be. As ultra right wing acting o
has been ever since becoming president, it would seem that she
could very well be just another conservative member to insure
the conservative majority on the on this now most despicable
court.
By ardee, May 11, 2010 at 2:51 am Link to this comment
amos wu, May 10 at 7:20 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Bizzarro!!!
First off, she looks awful-
What does one say in response to such blatant sexist garbage? Why, nothing at all.
Report thisBy lichen, May 10, 2010 at 5:27 pm Link to this comment
Oh yes, let’s whitewash every war criminal right wing scumbag who happens to be a woman as creating some great ‘progress.’ Another Madeline Albright…
Report thisBy amos wu, May 10, 2010 at 3:20 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Bizzarro!!!
First off, she looks awful—perhaps Lady Gaga would have been a better choice!
on a more serious note: What, no Protestants on the court? Only Catholics and Jews? Chief Justice Marshall must be turning in his grave—serves him right for allowing the court to deem laws unconstitutional. Perhaps this is the time to go back to democracy! No monarch (Obama, Bush, et. al.) no House of Lords (Schumer, McCain, et. al.), just a House of Representatives expanded to 1 member for every 30,000 population—as it was in the beginning. (Actually, the only people who don’t want democracy are the truly rich—the Blankfein’s, the Gates’s, et. al. ) However, the rich have so royally screwed up this country, that it’s time to let Jefferson’s rabble rule!
Report this