Skip to main content

View Diary: SCOTUS: Actually, We've Already Won (350 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  FEMALE justice - a key issue is being overlooked (4.00)
    Excuse me, but why are we allowing another MAN to be nominated to the High Court when we will be going from 2/9 to 1/9 female on the most important legal body in the land?

    30 years ago, one could honestly say that there were not enough women with the qualifications to be a Justice.  Heck, even Justice O'Connor was only an Arizona state legislator and state judge (although she was a Stanford Law grad and near the top of her class).

    Today, there are hundreds of women with the credentials and life experience to be Justices (SCOTUS former clerks, arguments before the SCOTUS, top law school credentials, work as judges in lower courts).

    We have had more than enough affirmative action for white men on the SCOTUS.  They have held positions far out of proportion to their numbers in the population.  Starting now, we should have three women take the next three seats on the SCOTUS, and then alternate it so that we are 5-4 men and then 5-4 women in the future.

    Mr. Roberts has good credentials and enough appropriate experience.  He can wait his turn until a few more women have had their chance, just as many qualified women have had to wait over the centuries.

    If we don't make this an issue, Bush will nominate another man with his next appointment, and we will regress to the bad old days when "Father Knows Best."

    •  absolutely (4.00)
      It's a point worth hammering him with.

      "Any content-based regulation of the Internet, no matter how benign the purpose, could burn the global village to roast the pig." -- ACLU v Reno (E.D. Pa. 1996)

      by Adam B on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 07:35:57 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  But... (none)
        it's not exactly something Judge Roberts can do anything about.  "He's not a woman!" doesn't strike me as a particularly strong ground for either rejection or a fillibuster.
      •  Especially since a recent poll (4.00)
        showed that something like 60% wanted to see a woman fill the spot.

        I'm not sure if you could label this pick a victory, but I completely agree with your premise that the confirmation hearings present the ideal time for the Democrats to begin to disseminate their two or three bullet phrases, or "narrative arc," for the 2006 elections. Why they haven't begun using them before now is beyond me, but, as you say, here is the perfect high-profile occasion for Democrats to label the Republicans as the party of intrusive government, and to ask Americans if they really want one-party government.

        •  "Where are the GOP women?" - new frame (4.00)
          We must frame this as "another well-qualified man has been nominated, but the hundreds of comparably qualified GOP women have been overlooked."

          Bush has made inroads into the female vote which he does not deserve through the same high-profile appointment and tokenism strategies he has used for minorities.

          Hammer home the "couldn't the GOP find a qualified woman?" meme and we have an issue in 2006.

          •  Be careful (none)
            what you wish for, you might get it.

            July 10, 2031

            Washington (AP)- Chief Justice Janice Rogers Brown has announced her retirement from the Supreme Court. Her reign was marked by social and economic conservatism. Along with Justices Roberts and Thomas, she led the fight against government regulation of polluters, protection of individual and workers' rights, and various government efforts to help the less fortunate.

            Also note that Edith Jones was the runner-up to Souter in 1992. Most Democrats prefer Souter, I imagine.

    •  Not overlooked in THIS household (none)
      Hope the Shrub's wife is giving him hell over this one. He deserves it.

      I don't think that there are any Russians, and there ain't no Yanks... just corporate criminals playing with tanks. - Michael Been

      by gp39m on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 07:44:30 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  No way (4.00)
        Sadly, that whole thing with Laura Bush was scripted.  There's nothing this WH does that's not scripted.  Clement was floated to send a signal that the Shrub is responsive to and considerate of women's issues in general, and of his wife's in particular.

        Floating Clement let them say that this wasn't just Laura's suggestion, it was something that the Shrub took seriously.

        Of course, what it also means is that they probably were never intending to nominate a woman (or, per Gonzales, a Latino) anyway, and had all the press speculation focus on Gonzales and then Clement to give an aura that they weren't set all along on another Fido-faithful, inside-the-Beltway, privileged white conservative Protestant male.

    •  Genitalia are not an important qualification... (3.50)
      Excuse me, but why are we allowing another MAN to be nominated to the High Court when we will be going from 2/9 to 1/9 female on the most important legal body in the land?

      While I'd abstractly like to see more women, (and blacks and hispanics and...) on the Court, I think ideology, judicial philosophy, and character are more important features of a judicial nominee than race or sex.

      Would you rather have Priscilla Owen?

      •  Easy for you to say... (4.00)
        so I propose that we go to 9 women justices for the second 200 years of our country, and then we can be "gender-blind."  

        We should be about social change, not only minor personnel changes.  The message Bush's nomination of another man sends to our daughters by going BACK to one female justice is extremely negative.

        Not only is this an issue of the MOST FUNDAMENTAL  FAIRNESS, it is also a great frame to address the GOP hypocrisy and tokenism.  Our frame should be:  "Where are the qualified GOP women?"

        Frankly, I would rather have a woman, even if Owen.  I was there when O'Connor was nominated, and she was seen as being far more conservative than she ended up being.

        •  I'm not hammering them at all for choosing (none)
          a man, and I have good reason for this. Many of the women who are prime candidates are much scarier than some of the men, like McConnell especially. For women's sakes, let's not put pressure on Bush to nominate Owen, Brown or Jones when Rehnquist retires.

          Don't think that the White House isn't already set up for this line of reasoning. You wanted a woman, here you got one: Priscilla Owen. Now stop complaining.

          "If cows and horses had hands, they would depict their gods as cows and horses." Xenophanes

          by upstate NY on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 08:01:12 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Exactly (none)
            We'll probably get our women when Rehnquist takes his powder, anyway.

            "The American people will trust the Democratic Party to defend America when they believe that Democrats will defend other Democrats." Wesley Clark

            by The Termite on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 08:05:07 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Look at history (none)
            In the short term, you are right.  Some of the women waiting in the wings make Justice Thomas look liberal.

            But we must be about social change rather than just personnel changes when it comes to the High Court.  What message are we sending to our daughters when we cannot find a single qualified woman to assume the robes of the SCOTUS?

            I'm not saying that Owen or anyone should get a free pass.  All should be challenged using the appropriate "advise and consent" protocols of the Senate.

            But we are in the historical equivalent of a burning building at the Supreme Court (and frankly, in the Congress as well).  To have such pathetic numbers of women in the highest levels of our governing system is a travesty.  That should be our highest concern in this historical moment.

            •  I think you are right (none)
              When a Democrat is in office, I'd like to see nothing but women nominated.

              I just don't think you're making a good political argument right now.

              "If cows and horses had hands, they would depict their gods as cows and horses." Xenophanes

              by upstate NY on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 08:20:52 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Oh good god (none)
              Do you not realize they already know this line of attack?

              Look at the filibuster fight... The opposition to the female nominations was because we hated women.  The opposition to the hispanic nominations is because we hate minorities.

              You demand a woman... you are going to get Janice Brown.  guaranteed.

              This whole line of thinking has already become a parody of it's ownself.

              •  Yes, we should demand a woman (none)
                This is not a parody.  This is about fairness and common sense.

                If men were kept to 1/9 of jobs with greater pay and prestige they would protest mightily.

                We must demand that the GOP come forth with a female candidate.  We are on winning ground on this one, because we are replacing a woman.

                I am not asking to move forward with gender equity under Bush.  I am just asking to not go back.

                This is a winning issue.  Even if Roberts gets in, we have recaptured the "Dems are for women" position that is crucial to stopping Bush and the GOP's grabbing of the female vote.

    •  Just what do you have (none)
      against rich, white, land-holding males, anyways?

      But seriously, the fact that Bush didn't nominate a woman was most shocking to me as well.

      •  It was another (none)
        'no retreat no surrender' signal to the hard right.

        The wingnuts I know are thrilled with this.  It signals Bush's 'resolve' to do right regardless of "PC" pressures.  

        The dominionists are ecstatic.  A white man is going to return America to what it should be, Bush is doing God's work.

    •  We could build a strong coalition against him (none)
      If we wanted.

      Women, labor, blacks, the disabled, conservationist, Iraqi War Vets, and kids who like McDonalds.  Yet everyone is talking about fucking rolling over.  (And people still wonder why the American people think we stand for nothing!)

      The first ads cut should be of the Iraqi War vets who got shafted by the guy.  Run those damn ads until we all know them by heart.  On the talking head shows our people need to link it to body armor and unarmed humvees.  It's the larger issue of the president saying he supports the troops before the cameras while pissing down their legs behind closed doors.

      Buck up you weak-kneed sorry excuses for a movement!

      DON'T BLAME ME; I VOTED FOR CLARK

      by DWCG on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 08:25:13 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Quotas are wrong (none)
      They're wrong for school admissions, they're wrong for employment, and they're sure as hell wrong for the most important judicial positions in the land.

      Nominate a woman over a man if they're equally well qualified; don't nominate a woman over a man because she's a woman.

      I'd be more worried about regression because of the people Bush appoints than regression due to their gender.

      I agree with Spider's assessment of voting.

      by sub version on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 11:04:37 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (146)
  • Community (56)
  • Baltimore (38)
  • Civil Rights (36)
  • Bernie Sanders (33)
  • Culture (28)
  • Elections (28)
  • Economy (27)
  • Law (24)
  • Texas (23)
  • 2016 (21)
  • Rescued (20)
  • Environment (19)
  • Labor (19)
  • Hillary Clinton (18)
  • Education (18)
  • Freddie Gray (16)
  • Media (16)
  • Barack Obama (16)
  • Racism (16)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site