Women make up 51% of our nation's population.
Yet only 17% of the seats in Congress are held by women. Only 3% of corporate CEOs are women. And just one out of nine Supreme Court justices is a woman.
President Obama can change that.
Since Sandra Day O'Connor's retirement from the Supreme Court four years ago, Ruth Bader Ginsburg has been the sole female Justice.
Now, with Justice Souter's recent retirement announcement, President Obama has a chance to nominate an intelligent, well-qualified person to the Supreme Court -- and I believe that person should be a woman.
We need a Supreme Court that is more representative of all Americans, so that its decisions better reflect the diversity of life experiences and points-of-view in America.
Many pundits have warned President Obama to make his choice based on merit -- and I agree. In fact, there are many highly qualified women to choose from.
When 96 percent of all Supreme Court Justices throughout our history have been men, clearly it is evident that we need another woman on the Court.
It's time to change that.
President Obama may select his Supreme Court nominee in a matter of days -- so it's critical that you join me and make your voice heard now. Please forward an email to the White House now -- and urge President Obama to nominate a woman to the U.S. Supreme Court! Then invite your friends and family to email the White House as well!
-America is 49% male yet most nurses and teachers --those who care for our injured and dying and those who shape the minds off ALL of our future citizens--are female.
-The majority of Americans are caucasian. Yet, in professional sports, white males are disturbingly underrepresented.
Nominate a white man.
It's disturbing that this kind of sexism is not only tolerated widely, it is celebrated.
After all, we just tried that with Harriet Miers.
Bad title is bad title.
None of these male justices could understand the issue. She, by the way, was being searched for possession of ibuprofen...get this, ON THE TIP FROM A CLASSMATE! Which she could have needed at the time for menstrual pain..or not. That isn't made public, thank God, because she's suffered enough in violation of her privacy.
I can imagine when I was that age..what that would have done to me. I was extremely sensitive and also an extremely obedient and good student. The ridicule would have tormented me. The shame would have crushed me. I'm sorry..many callous and hardened people just don't understand.
Now..to go to the Supreme Court case. In discussing this..the male justices describe their experience of the male rite of passage in America of being nude in P.E...and laugh about it. They see nothing wrong with the strip search. They justify it by saying well we need to not have privacy laws for a greater good....what if this 13 year old girl had meth on her. She's automatically put into the position of an criminal..she's not a person. She's a "carrier" who could bring down the entire school..if her drug of choice had not been ibuprofen.
Justice Breyer makes a joke about sticking things in underwear during his days in junior high.
I WANT A FEMALE ON THE COURT.
Pick a great justice and you'll get great justice.
It's not sexist, it is sexist to not have the view of the opposite sex, it's about the whole picture.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/13/palestinian-woman-judge-t_n_203162.html
Specifically chosing the best qualified woman is no different than choosing the most qualified person, she would no doubt be as qualified as the men around her. And at the same time, choosing a woman intentionally helps change the embarrassing mono-cultural image we portray to the nation and the world.
Our rich and fruitful cultural diversity is poorly dislayed at every level of our white-male dominated government. If not for Obama in the White House and Pelosi at the helm of the House, our government would look a lot like South Africa's government during aparthied, as it did under the Republican majority years of the Cheney/Bush administration.
Now, I realize that SCOTUS picks are always political (whether it be ideology, background, religion, region, etc) but to blatantly call for a woman is no different than calling for a white male.
I haven't seen this mono-cultural image you speak of. Have you seen the cabinet and president lately?
I don't believe the SCOTUS is supposed to be reflective of our society. We ostensibly nominate people who are both more politically adept and smarter than us so they can handle the day to day responsibilities of the governement so we can go about our lives.
If it were a true mirror, the court would consist of only about 25% college grads, would have less Catholics, and half would be divorced.
If they HAPPEN to be a woman, then fair enough.
But don't nominate them simply because they are female.