Proud Member of The Moms Clean Air Force
Print This Post
Feb
10
Marie Cocco wrote an excellent column about the shamefulness of having only one woman on the Supreme Court of the United States. In “Supreme Sexism,” she writes:
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 make up 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.
But when women lead, something extraordinary happens: Suddenly the voice of more than half the population can be heard.
This was the voice that called out almost immediately after President Ronald Reagan appointed [Sandra Day] O’Connor in 1981 as the first woman justice. Though she was appointed by the icon of the contemporary conservative movement—and is best known as a centrist, swing vote on the high court—O’Connor’s most consistent votes were those she cast in favor of equal treatment for women. Her vision became apparent quickly, when she wrote the majority opinion in a 1982 case involving an admissions policy at the University of Mississippi nursing school that favored women over men. O’Connor attacked not just the illegality of the policy but its pernicious message. The admissions rule, she wrote, “tends to perpetuate the stereotyped view of nursing as an exclusively woman’s job” and so “lends credibility to the old view that women, not men, should become nurses, and makes the assumption that nursing is a field for women a self-fulfilling prophecy.”
And, Cocco writes, regarding the concept of having a critical mass and not just tokens, in the case of SCOTUS, two women – Ginsburg and O’Connor:
O’Connor, a Republican and a Westerner, and [Ruth Bader] Ginsburg, a Democrat and the personification of the Eastern intellectual, brought few similarities in personal background to the Supreme Court. Yet they shared an outlook as women who suffered blatant discrimination early in their careers. Both understood intuitively that women experience life differently than do men, and often saw the legal issues before them through that lens.
Finally, Cocco’s conclusion really says it all: an aspiration that women from everywhere along the ideological spectrum can possess, and, in my opinion, should possess:
“Normal” would be having a Supreme Court on which four or five justices are women. And if this sounds like a fantasy, it is only a measure of just how abnormal the high court’s makeup is now.
We are far from normal in far too many settings. That’s what this is about.
By Jill Miller Zimon at 10:25 pm February 10th, 2009 in Barack Obama, Civil Rights, Courts, democracy, Gender, Government, Law, leadership, Politics, Sexism, Social Issues, Whitehouse09, Women
Comments
9 Responses to “A quota of one: “Supreme Sexism” at SCOTUS & what will Obama do”
Voted into Top 25 Political Mom Blogs
Now on sale-WLST essay included!
Posts About Pepper Pike City Council2010 WE Magazine 101 Women Bloggers to Watch
Category Specific RSS
Pepper Pike Cleveland+ Politics Women Ohio Elections Law Jewish
Well said. It’s unbelievable that there is only one woman on the court. What an embarrassment.
By the same token, would you have felt the same way if Peter Sikora and Joe Russo would’ve been elected to the Ohio Supreme Court this past fall? That would’ve reduced the number of female justices on Ohio’s highest court to just one.
Just curious. Thanks.
Greg – that is a very fair question. It depends on who was running against them. I LOVE Eric Fingerhut – I have always liked Eric. But when he supported Issue 3, it had an impact on me but I stuck to my guns and principles – I refused to support that Ohio Learn and Earn amendment.
I like Lee Fisher very much, but I’m not sure whether I will vote for him over Jennifer Brunner if she enters the race.
It is, as always, a matter of first all else being equal in terms of ability and what they bring to the role they seek. Then, gender may matter – MAY.
It’s very hypothetical in what you’re asking anyway. Let’s say it was…Me.
Thanks for still reading – I am impressed!
does this one work too?
I think that this is seeing sexisim where there is none. The court should be made up of people from the federal levels, those made up by people from state, those made up of people from local. To gain ground, you need to show that you earn it. Looking at the state level, you notice how few females there are there. That is where the real problem starts
now it is telling me I posted a comment that hasn’t shown up
and that just worked, what the hell
does this one work too?
I think that this is seeing sexisim where there is none. The court should be made up of people from the federal levels, those made up by people from state, those made up of people from local. To gain ground, you need to show that you earn it. Looking at the state level, you notice how few females there are there. That is where the real problem starts
Barga-
I disagree slightly, only to the extent that Ohio doesn’t quite fit that bill. If you look at the number of female judges, there’s a large number, and on some courts they make up the majority. For example, in Cuyahoga County’s general division, there are 13 out of 34 judges who are female. On the appellate bench, 7 out of 12 are female. For the 11th District Court of Appeals (Trumbull, Ashtabula, Geauga, Portage, and Lake Counties), 4 of the 5 judges are female.
So, in Ohio, there are certainly plenty of female judges. Yet, when it comes to the federal nomination process, I think a lot of these women still lack connection to the old boys club (for example, I know there’s a study out there that shows the best way to get a federal judgeship is to have gone to law school with your state’s Senator(s)) and don’t get the same consideration for a federal appointment as their male counterparts do.
Just because women were historically kept from these jobs doesn’t mean that there aren’t thousands of women in the legal profession that are extremely qualified to serve in the judiciary. And just because they have been discriminated against in the past, doesn’t mean we should wait another 100 years for women to “work their way up.
I agree with Greg…this is all connected to the old boys club.
Jill,
I think Ginsburg and O’Connor agree with you.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-01-25-ginsburg-court_x.htm