While Senators Clinton and Obama are struggling to reach the "little guys" in Indiana and North Carolina, an article by Ellen Goodman reminded me about some big guys who pose a danger to democracy.
Last year I wrote about the Supreme Court decision to make it impossible for women paid significantly less than men at their same level to do anything about it unless they notice the inequity within 180 days. That is ludicrous. People are still trying to stay beneath the radar at that point, not make "trouble". And few know their colleagues' salaries. In some companies sharing such information is explicitly banned -- a secrecy pact.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, outraged by the Supreme Court decision, appealed to Congress to "correct this court's parsimonious reading of Title VII." The House of Representatives promptly passed a bill to restore the rules allowing an employee to sue up to 180 days after the latest unequal paycheck. But when the Ledbetter bill reached the Senate, women were denied justice.
John McCain didn't show up to vote but opposed the bill claiming that it "opens us up to lawsuits for all kinds of problems." EXCUSE ME, but isn't that what courts handle and laws address - all kinds of problems?
When Justice Sandra Day O'Connor left the Supreme Court to care for her ailing husband, the only female voice left was, and still is, that of Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
Who will put a woman on the Supreme Court? There are a lot of us who want to know. My "steamed" mother-in-law, who is 83-years-old, wants to know whether her six granddaughters will be deprived of their rights by a Supreme Court with no clue how difficult it can be for women to obtain parity in pay and promotions - to say nothing of the other very important issues that intensely affect their lives.
The problem is not simply that there is such a striking absence of female SCOTUS justices. There are women who are oblivious to the challenges most women face. Who are, as Justice Ginsberg described it, "out of touch," but most women are familiar with the peculiar difficulties of others of their gender attempting to rise through the ranks of conservative organizations.
Justice Antonin Scalia told Leslie Stahl that a protestant, Hispanic woman would be "IN" if you could just find her. That's what we're told about so few women on corporate boards - "You just can't find them. We looked, and they're not there." Sure.
Democrats are supposed to be in favor of equal pay for the same work. While we're busy wondering who likes guns more, who has the most problematic pastor, we ought to put some thought into who will stand up for approximately half the U.S. population and change the absurd ratio of men to women on the Supreme Court to accurately reflect America.
Dr. Reardon also blogs at politicsdoc
P.S. Anyone who thinks the Constitution can be interpreted "accurately" without recourse to the lenses through which we see the world is unaware of how perceptions form, how our constructs derived from experience shape our thoughts and interpretations of "reality," including the biases from education whether via law school or not. People of different races and of the two genders bring a richness of interpretation to the Supreme Court. They may not represent everyone in their cohort, but they can't help but have a broader view than Justices whose experiences do not even connect with the issue at hand. It's easy to dismiss people as "feminists" or seeing the world only in terms of gender if they think this way about adding more women to the Supreme Court. That category of facile attack is what's really old! And rings of far right.
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Just for the record, in case you may have missed it...only one presidential candidate said that his first nominee for the SCOTUS would be a woman. Any guesses as to who would have been? Just wondering...
In the private sector, pay is a matter of contractual bargaining between the prospective employer and the prospective employee. The employee must do his/her research before that negotiation begins. If the employee does not get the same pay as other employees, shame on him/her for not negotiating hard enough. I don't blame the employer, as he/she is in a position that requires him/her to get the best deal for his/her company, not for the employee. I'm not a fan of equal pay laws!
Semper fi
The constitution can't be interpreted "accurately" at all, by anyone. And doing so isn't the function of the supreme court to begin with.
The supremes supply the flexibility that's absolutely essential for any institution with a hope to survive even a few decades, let alone centuries. In mathematical terms, the set of principles enumerated in the constitution are a fuzzy set, and furthermore MUST be a fuzzy set. A system of laws with no give will shatter.
Every interpretation of the constitution--no less so than of scripture--chooses some priorities to stress and others to ignore. Anyone who tells you they're obeying or interpreting the letter of the law and that alone is as big a liar as someone who tells you they're obeying the every command of the word of God. You can't; both documents contradict themselves, over and over.
I agree one hundred percent. Otherwise I don't think we can find a woman smart enough. We need to just put her on there for her gender and sexual preference, screw the intelligence. If you look at all the lefties on the appellate courts, they're not their because of their brains, they're making new laws as they go along anyway!!
President Obama should appoint a black lesbian to the court. That would seriously up the representation of many groups that have been left off the court for the last 200+ years, and it would be hard to find one who is conservative.
Kathleen Reardon: People of different races and of the two genders bring a richness of interpretation to the Supreme Court. They may not represent everyone in their cohort, but they can't help but have a broader view than Justices whose experiences do not even connect with the issue at hand.
===
Hooray for Clarence Thomas!
Personally, I would prefer that a potential judge be "judged" based on the content of their character than the color of their skin, or what lies between their legs. I want a person who has demonstrated competence, who will abide by the constitution, and uphold human rights. The SCOTUS has seriously tipped to the conservative side and that desperately needs to be balanced back to center.
Dr. Reardon, I applaud you for this article. You are absolutely right. And please keep commenting on this terrible Supreme Court we seem to have in place right now. Thanks.
Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton will....and JFK will be shot.
You're right, Prof. Reardon, that a judge's experiences will influence his or her interpretation of the law. You're wrong, however, if you assume that a woman will *necessarily* be more receptive to ensuring that women's issues get a fair hearing from the U.S. Supreme Court. The Republicans have installed plenty of extremely conservative female judges in the federal judiciary, and they don't seem particularly sympathetic to women's complaints about gender inequality. So be careful what you wish for. It's not enough that the justice appointed be a woman. She has to be the *right* woman.
Correct. And this court will almost inevitably side with any employer against any employee, regardless of gender, race or the merits of the case.
.
Who will nominate a qualified judge to the supreme Court?
Exactly. Who needs another right-winger like Sandra Day O'Connor. Or the other right-wing buffoons disguising their meanness with robes and ceremony?
Yes, absolutely. We can see what a champion for civil rights Clarence Thomas has been!
Who will nominate a woman to the US Supreme Court? Ronald Reagan did, and look where the so-called O'Connor swing-vote got us in Bush v. Gore. John McCain might very well, given the chance. Pres. Obama certainly would, if he found the best person for the job happened to be a woman. Who is least likely to make that kind of move, were she to get the chance, when she no longer needs the demographic, when she needs more to declare her independence from it? You know who.
Please Ms. Reardon, you and the candidate you support are insulting the intelligience of the American public by continually pushing the gender card as the sole means of intelligent leadership. You do yourself and women in general a great disservice.
Actually, the question should be 'Who will nominate a HUMAN to the court'? Someone with compassion instead of belly fat.
So your litmus test is gender? Instead of focusing on gender, or race for that matter, how bout looking at the person? When Thurgood Marshall retired, we got another black judge to replace him. Unfortunately, he's a conservative who never talks. We don't want just any woman on the bench. We want one who'll make a good judge. Same thing with President. We don't want just any woman in charge. We want one who'll be a good President and help us get back on track. That person isn't Hillary.
I guess this has to be spelled out again for the elitists - WE ARE IN A CLASS WAR!! Most Americans don't give a rat's-ass if the Neoliberal judge that's oppressing us is a man or a woman.
Enough of the Feminist Cause already!!! Toss out the Neoliberals, bring back labor and consumer protections and get back some balance of class power in this country,....THEN address the gender issues.
The only thing you are accomplishing in your article is driving a ill-timed divisive wedge in the middle of the American people when they should be working together (black, white, man, woman, gay, straight) to fight a common enemy - Corporate Fascism.
Get on the page.
Point well taken! Enough of the politics of tribalism and gender opposing the pursuit of the common good.
We need to elect a government that will take steps to empower the middle and lower classes,
raise the standard of living, and restore a government of, by and for the people.
As you say, it doesn't matter if the corporate CEO, political hack or judge is a man, or a woman, black , white, hispanic or asian. What matters is restoring the constitution, bill of rights, the idea of the sovereign citizen.
Most likely President Barack Obama IF he can find an excellent woman for the job.
Who will nominate a woman??????
Why not nominate the best person for the job?
You question is what is wrong with feminism.... It embarrasses me as a woman.
Agreed !
I once thought it important to have an American of African descent however the reality that, taught me the truth that any minority who makes through the process of being considered for the supreme court, will have gone through a molding process that squeezes them into a shapeless mass with no arms, legs or will of their own, only there not to upset the status quo and fill a seat.
Neither Ruth Ginsburg or Clarence Thomas have made an impact,.. and their seats would be better served by people with individual strength and character...
This seems to be the rule for any major office, that only Obama has been able to overcome..
Notice how Clinton, who many of us thought would bring a woman's humanity into the white house has been reformed as a beer drinking tee shirt, tattered baseball cap wearing bar room brawler, who, between gulps of budweiser, casually shouts nuclear genocide threats towards a country who we want to prevent from obtaining the same nuclear weapons we threaten them with...
I think a lot of you are missing the point, it is not about just putting any woman in the position, but rather than the fact that there are many women who are more than qualified to fill the role to ensure women receive equal pay standards and not have to rely on men who have no way of understanding the issues involved in being a woman. Just because some of you want to point the obvious women in power who have not provided exemplary examples of women in power does not mean that they are representative of women who serve and want to this country in a positive manner.
Isn't it the Supreme Court's job to interpret the laws as written, and to check to make sure that they are compatable with the Constitution? The 180 day limitation that everyone is focussed on is in the original Title VII wording, and I think the original intent of that limit was as the Court decided. Justice Guinsburg is giving you good advice - if you want to change how that time limit is applied, you need to change the law through Congress. Congress wrote it originally, and there's nothing inherently unconstitutional about setting time limits on when claims/lawsuits can be filed. If Congress has addressed the matter, and still won't change the law, by what legal theory can the courts read into the law something that is pretty clearly not there?
Shouldn't the most qualified people regardless of sex, be put on the court?
Sure, and, of course, the most qualified people are ALL men!!!! Because there's no women out there who qualify as "most qualified", of course!!!
To all men, I say, get off your butt and open your eyes, and you'll find plenty of qualified women for any post you might imagine. Stop using such lame excuses to keep parity from happening!
Take a deep breath!
Talk like that is part of the reason you fail
Half the judges at all levels should be women. Women in law are still largely excluded from equal participation at the level of judge, partner in law firms, and tenured spots in law school. This will not change as long as men continue to exclude women largely because these desirable positions pay very well, and they want to keep the money for themselves.
The issue is much broader than the Supreme Court, which currently is packed with Bush-appointed neocons and idiots, who should be removed from their position because of their refusal to follow the law. The recent decision overturning Brown vs. Bd of Ed. is a good example of judges ignoring stare decisis and just implementing the policies of Dick Cheney. Who died and made him king?
We need a demand on both major parties to get women in equal positions in all spots of the government. Let's start with Congress, which has a firm barrier keeping women out of most positions, allowing just a token few to enter the job. Women could demand both parties run only women candidates for certain positions, so that the voters are not swayed by sexist arguments, since both candidates are women. The issue of continued exclusion of women is one that should unite women across party lines for their mutual benefit.
By your same logic they should be black instead
Nominate a woman? Like Condi Rice? NO THANKS.
Condi Rice is not the only prominent woman whose name can be suggested. You should know that!
You name Justices O'Connor and Ginsburg, two women who have little in common apart from the fact that both are women & both were appointed by men who married strong women. What you seem to be suggesting is tokenism, as though gender (or ethnic background), alone is determinant of judicial decisions.
O'Connor spent most of her time on the court placing the fig leaf of respectability over the reactionary decisions of her Republican colleagues. While I understand that it became fashionable to pretend that she was a moderate, she was more accurately a rural-Western, libertarian-lite Republican (not unlike Lynne Cheney), as opposed to an urban-Eastern Republican like Scalia, who struggles with the language of populism. Nevertheless, O'Connor was unquestionably a Republican.
Are you suggesting that Harriet Miers would have been "better" than Alito because of her gender, or are you suggesting that the ideology and methodology of Justices are less important than achieving gender balance? This is the same sort of logic that brought us Clarence Thomas, after all. The experience of being a woman can lead to progressivism, but it can also lead to Margaret Thatcher or Phyllis Schlafly.
As an African-American woman, I prefer progressive ideology & methodology to tokenism. Of course, in my ideal world, the court would be stocked for the foreseeable future with radical left, non-religious, working-class, butch lesbians & drag queens of mixed ethnicity, just to make up for the last three hundred or so years.
Before the largest crowd of his campaign, Democratic presidential contender Barack...
**UPDATE 7/25** ThinkProgress now reports that the bar...
John McCain's famously cozy relationship with the press is getting a bit testy. Taking questions in...
There is one more John McCain gaffe that...
As we have observed throughout the last several years,...
In a flagrant political act, the State Department has...
Loading comments…
Posted May 6, 2008 | 10:02 AM (EST)