The nomination of Solicitor General Elena Kagan to replace Justice John Paul Stevens as an Associate Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court is historic. Never before have three women Justices sat on the Court at the same time, although it's been nearly thirty years since the now-retired Justice Sandra Day O'Connor broke through the glass ceiling to become the first woman Justice.
The great thing about a historic first is that it begins the process of transforming what came before into an outdated anachronism. For the Supreme Court, it means reaching a time when women Justices will no longer be viewed as tokens, even as interchangeable. When Justice O'Connor and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg served together on the Court, it was remarkable how often lawyers arguing cases before them confused the two and called each by the other's name -- even though they look nothing alike.
A third woman on the bench helps to change the equation even more. Having more women on the Court makes women's meaningful representation part of the normal routine -- rather than the exception to the rule.
Once confirmed, Elena Kagan will make history on the Court, as she has in other ways already. In 2003, she became the first woman to be named dean of Harvard Law School, and in 2009, she became the first woman confirmed as Solicitor General of the United States.
It's remarkable that these barriers were broken so recently. But each broken barrier demonstrates how much the country and its institutions, whether universities, government or the courts, gain from excellence and diversity. Justices O'Connor, Ginsburg and now Sotomayor on the Supreme Court have shown that the country is the better for having a Court that includes the best minds, both women and men, bringing their varied backgrounds and experiences to bear. Elena Kagan proved the same in the various positions she has held.
Elena Kagan's stellar track record as an academic, dean of one of the foremost law schools in the country, public servant, and now Supreme Court advocate for the nation, is impressive. Her tenure as Solicitor General has showcased her command of the law, formidable intellect and persuasive skills. These are qualities of great importance to a Justice on the Supreme Court. As Justice Ginsburg put it, women belong wherever decisions are being made -- in numbers that go beyond the first, the second, or the third -- and we all are the better for it.
Trailblazers like Elena Kagan open doors and change the equation. When Elena Kagan left her post as the first woman dean of Harvard Law School, Martha Minow was selected to take her place. These women are creating the new normal.
I especially enjoyed your use of the quote from Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg that women
no longer belong in the first, second, or third positions of appointments to high government
office. (I know that my paraphrase extended the original quote, but I hope that's forgiven.)
The quote made me recall the appointment of Justice Ginsberg and the lamentations about
her "extreme liberalism." As she's demonstrated excellence in her conduct on the Court,
we've learned that more anxieties have resulted from decisions imposed by the conservative
positions. Life is full of surprises!
We need 50% and not one less. In my county, women have been 18-24% of the judges for decades. It's like the white male power structure has decided that's "enough." It isn't enough. 50% is enough, and not one less.
The percentage of lawyers who are women. should increase rapidly, since in 1954 when Justice Ginsburg entered law school only 3.9% of first year law students were women and in 2007 it had increased to 47.4%.
Unfortunately, the percentage of equity partners who are women is much less than 20%. According to the National Association of Women Lawyers in 2009 fewer than 16% of equity partners were women and only 6% of firms had a women managing partner.
Judge Diane Wood would make a significantly better Supreme Court Justice on the basis of her judicial decisions and her ability to form a majority with the inclusion of conservative justices.
And, she would also be the third woman on the SCOTUS.
Every time someone writes in favor of Kagan, the articles get thinner and thinner. Articles in her favor are as vapid as her confirmation hearings now portend. There's a reason for that. Kagan has published so little that there is little left to discuss.
And, what does come out from the Clinton papers gives everyone pause that Kagan is not a liberal. She's a self-serving careerist that puts politics over principles, and, will sacrifice other peoples rights for the chimera of political gain.
So, now we are down to a historic first. This is pathetic.
What little we know about Kagan is not encouraging, and the hype about her personal life is obscuring the few truths we have; the fact that she had said gay marriage is unconstitutional is rarely brought up in this debate about her sexuality, for example.
What is the Obama administration looking for with this nomination? I admire the efforts to appease both/all parties, but at what cost?
She's in a category of her own; right wrong or indifferent.
based on your name, as well as on your reminder about the Harriet Miers debacle.
Hope for a return fan so we can be mutually informative about life in the Ozarks
as well as on the Supreme Court!