Check out this Truthdig article by Marie Cocco, about the significance of Justice Ginsburg’s surgery for pancreatic cancer and the possibility of her needing to step down from the Supreme Court in the near future.
The cheerless truth is that Ginsburg’s ill health brings to mind her unique position. She is the only female justice, and has been since Sandra Day O’Connor left the court in 2006.
Certainly if Ginsburg is forced to retire because of failing health, President Barack Obama would be under intense pressure to appoint another woman to fill her slot. With women voters having provided Obama’s margin of victory in last year’s election, there is little doubt that he would do so.
But what then? Would a second vacancy automatically go to a man?
That is how it usually works. This use of women as tokens must now be reversed.
Justice Clarence Thomas is the sole African-American sitting on the high court, and the only member of any racial minority group. All ethnic groups legitimately aspire to greater representation. But why set up a zero-sum game in which the advancement of one means the other must wait?
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.
I’ve thought a lot about this myself.
If Justice Ginsburg does end up stepping down, I think Obama is smart and sensitive enough that her position will almost certainly go to a woman. But that she’s already the only woman on the bench is a huge problem. That a woman of color has never served on the Supreme Court is a bigger problem.
If Obama gets to nominate more than one justice, is the second going to end up being a white dude? Wouldn’t Obama automatically get criticized wildly (and quite possibly successfully) by the right for even trying to nominate anyone else, especially a black man? (You know, “identity politics” and all.) And even if we assume that Obama’s first nomination is a woman, what are the chances that she’ll be white? Hell, what are the chances that even if he did get to nominate two justices, and they were both women, that both nominees would be white?
I don’t know. But I do know that representation matters, especially on a court that determines some of our most basic liberties. And it’s something that I hope Obama doesn’t back away from. We need more than one woman on the Supreme Court, and more than one person of color. And we need some of our justices to be both.
Hell, as long as he doesn’t name troglodytes who churn out ridiculous crap like the Ledbetter decision, I’m happy.
As much as I agree that the US- and the UK’s Law Lords for that matter- need greater representation of gender and ethnicity, the US Supreme Court does have Scalia, who (as much as I hate him), last time I checked, was a man of colour.
…Scalia is Italian.
i imagine that elena kaga, former hls dean and current solicitor general nominee, is the favorite to be obama’s first scotus pick.
oops, that should be Elena Kagan.
One of the Reagan team’s reasons for choosing Scalia originally was that they wanted to play the indentity politics card themselves-that he being the first Italian-American justice would make him less immune from criticism from the left.
There was also a “Catholic seat” on the Court for some time, though now I think at least 5 of the justices are Catholic.
Perhaps Kat meant Scalia-Lite?
scalia-lite = alito? because alito’s italian.
This is one of those things that can make you folks sound ridiculous. Do you really think the Republican party would protest the nomination of a black woman to the court simply because she was a black woman? Like if Obama nominated a black female Federalist the GOP would have a problem with that, but if they nominated a left-leaning white guy they’d be fine?
Any likely nominee will meet with resistance from the Republicans on ideological grounds. End of list. If there is anyplace in American society where color and gender shouldn’t matter even a little bit, it’s the Supreme Court. Republicans should be just fine with all black women, you should be equally fine with all white men. Anything else is tribal nonsense.
Yeah Henry, Rush Limbaugh and his buddies would never say X person is not qualified! (even when they are) they were just picked because they’re black! After all, if they did such things, they surely would have done them to Barack Obama himself. And god knows that never happened . . .
WOMEN LIVE LONGER. All progressive supreme court justices should be women!!!
*
Clarence Thomas is the most conservative member of the court. He rarely shows any interest in or sensitivity to the concerns of black americans. his rulings against rights for prisoners and working people affect everyone who is not wealthy, but falls harder on black people who already have an uphill fight against discrimination. i wish justice ginsberg a quick recovery, but i’d be just as happy if justice thomas, scalia and the rest of them decided to spend more time with their families.
I don’t think Kagan will be the next nominee. Apparently, she has limited courtroom experience, so I think her nomination to be Solicitor General is to groom her for a SCOTUS nomination one or two years from now. Besides Kagan, the women most often mentioned as possible nominees seem to be Diane Pamela Wood, Sonya Sotomayor, and Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm.
He doesn’t show “interest in or sensitivity to the concerns of black americans” as progressives understand those concerns. I disagree with Thomas generally, but I have no reason to doubt that he acts in what he believes to be the best interest of the American People and the Constitution.
It is bad faith to attack the motives of those with whom we disagree.
I must agree with Cara’s stance – to some degree. I know that Supreme Court appointments are a highly controversial, hotly contested, veritable field of politcal landmines. I do not envy the President’s precarious position in this situation by any means.
Yet (the inevitable, “yet”), the idealist in me wants to see Justices appointed not for their racial background, color, gender, or political agenda, but for “one and for all.” For the liberty of everyone and the privelege of no one. For true justice and the American dream, not for the petty self-interest groups and the endless “exceptions” we, as a nation, have come to expect. The idealist in me wants to search out these qualities in a potential Justice; I don’t want to view the candidates as potical stratagems of the current President’s political party.
The idealist in me wants the equality of all man(or woman)kind to remain the true goal of our nation’s courts. But the realist in me knows better.
Yeah, I guess Scalia-Lite doesn’t make sense since Thomas (whom I meant) isn’t exactly a lite version of Scalia.
Well obviously, no, Obama should not go out on the street, look around and say “hey look, there’s a black woman! I’ll appoint her!”
That’s appointing someone for their race/gender.
Saying “hey, there are an awful lot of people who are qualified to do this job, and yet we always seem to pick the white male ones — let’s not do that anymore” is not even remotely the same thing.
What is up with the assumption that Obama cannot pick someone because of their values, and the fact that they are female/of color/LGBT/etc.?
And if you want the goal of our courts to be equality for all people, why should their make up not reflect that?
I understand the importance of representation, but I’m more concerned with the individual appointee’s *actual politics* and legal record. I don’t think there’s anything essential about women that suggests they’ll necessarily act in my interests. It’s meaningful for women to be appointed, sure. But it’s the person’s approach to the constitution that will affect my life in a palpable way. That is to say… I’d be happy with a pro-choice dude too.
That said, I wish Ginsburg all the best and hope to see her return.
But given that two liberal-leaning judges will likely be the the next to leave, I’m *really* relieved that Obama is President.
“What is up with the assumption that Obama cannot pick someone because of their values, and the fact that they are female/of color/LGBT/etc.?”
Yeah, agree. It’s just that, well… You know… Given what I know about parliamentary quota systems for women (A lot of very *conservative* women often end up in these seats.) and the ascendancy of Sarah Palin, I don’t see any *inherent* value in having women in positions of power. Individual women in positions of power can–and sometimes do–adopt anti-feminist positions. Sure, I want women whose politics I support in positions of power, but after the past eight years… I’m thrilled to see *anyone* whose politics I can get behind be appointed for any powerful position at all.
“I don’t see any *inherent* value in having women in positions of power.”
Why are we all so ho-hum about the fact that white men have been artificially over-represented on the Supreme Court and all positions of power in society since 1776? Suddenly that doesn’t matter as we all scramble to prove how color and gender blind we are?
When we see one group over-represented on this vitally important court, we are seeing the results of institutional bias. There is inherent value in ending this institutional bias, regardless if we like the politics of the female and/or POC “beneficiaries.”
Christ.
“Suddenly that doesn’t matter as we all scramble to prove how color and gender blind we are?”
Um. No. I don’t think anyone is color blind or gender blind. But a conservative woman in a position of power does me no favors, and I don’t give a fuck about the “symbolic” importance of her ascendancy. Sarah Palin’s loss? Cry me a fucking river. Women can be just as woman-hating as men. They’re not immune to being assholes. This kind of essentialism about women (“Women are more peaceful. Women are kinder. Women are nicer…”) is, by the way, sexist.
Yep, it’s institutional bias. Yes, appoint more women with the kinds of views I agree with (as Carais suggesting). But, um, I wouldn’t shed a tear if Clarence Thomas decided to spend more time with his family.
Those of us who live, like, on the ground in the real world and who’ll never be privileged enough to seek this kind of position? We tend mostly to be worried about personal survival. And we want people in power who are going to make our lives easier. I’ll take a leftist dude over a right wing woman any day.
By the way, this has long been my position on representation. It has nothing to do with the idiots who’ve decided that Obama signifies something “post racial.” I don’t think race and gender don’t matter. I don’t share YouGoGirl’s privilege-blind perspective. But I don’t think it’s helpful to suggest that women–*any* women–in power are necessarily good for us. They’re not. Sarah Palin would not have been good for women. And given the severely anti-woman positions she adpoted, I’m not all that touched by the “symbolic” importance of her run for VP.
In any case, it’s… Honestly? I haven’t got a whole lot of use for this kind of Privilege Feminism. You know, the kind that wants me to be Symbolically Happy for any woman’s success? No matter that she’s a homophobic, antifeminist… Gah. Sorry, Cara, not meaning to derail. It’s just… There’s nothing *essential* about women that suggests they’re more feminist-friendly than men. Nothing. And I just want someone who supports substantive judicial decisions that I can get behind, damnit. Sure, representation is important. It’s not insignificant. But compared to *actual political positions*? I mean, I could kind of care less.
The problem isn’t necessarily that white males are overrepresented on the Supreme Court, the problem is that amongst those qualified to be on the Supreme Court the field is disproportionately white and male. That is the problem that should be addressed first, and it is somewhere Obama will have a chance to make a difference. The Supreme Court gets all the attention, but where a president can really leave a legacy is with appointments to the lower federal courts, which are obviously much more numerous in 4-8 years than appointments to the Supreme Court. Obama should make it a goal of his presidency to make sure vacancies of those courts are filled with as many qualified women and minorities as possible. Then down the road when people are turning to the circuit courts for potential Supreme Court justices, the field won’t be so monochromatic.
I don’t think anyone suggested that Sarah Palin should be nominated to the Supreme Court to replace Ginsburg.
Given that we want Obama to nominate qualified justices who favor the Constitutional values of equality for all, the right to privacy, and who see the law as existing, in part, to equalize the power differentials between, say, giant corporations and individual citizens, I want Obama to nominate someone with those qualities who is a woman. And preferably, who is also black, Latino, Asian, gay, openly atheist, or some other minority with disproportionately low or no representation in the Supremes. (In terms of proportions, one black person is actually about right for the Supremes, but I don’t think we can really say Clarence Thomas is a good representative for black people when 95% of black people tend to disagree with him.)
Women are perfectly capable of being sexist. But between progressive men and progressive women, progressive women are a lot more likely to normalize the concerns of women in comparison to the concerns of men. Our society works hard to make sure men are incapable of empathizing with women, and while it doesn’t always work, it *does* create this incredible background noise that artificially lowers the value of anything that is of primary concern to women until it is of less concern than anything that is of primary concern to men. Progressive women are much, much more likely than progressive men to perceive the concerns of women to be equal to the concerns of men. Thus for the sake of fairness, given that Obama will nominate a progressive justice, it should be a woman, and in fact if we could find enough qualified people, realistically 5 of the 9 should be women, given our proportions in the population…
*No* one here has suggested that Obama should nominate Harriet Miers or any other conservative, anti-equality, pro-powerful female justice. So arguing that it wouldn’t be a good idea to do so is having an argument with someone who isn’t here and never posted to this thread.
“I don’t think anyone suggested that Sarah Palin should be nominated to the Supreme Court to replace Ginsburg.”
I was responding to some of the commenters, who seem to be suggesting that it’s meaningful to have some woman–any woman–appointed to a position of power. I think this is a wrong headed assumption. For the record, I don’t see Cara suggesting this at all.
Mostly, though, I’ve just never thought that representation was nearly as important as substance.
I think people are a bit too quick to attack Thomas as malicious or indifferent to the concerns and interests of black people–he’s written some very powerful stuff in a few of the race cases (his dissent arguing that cross-burning is never free speech comes to mind). He comes from a pretty severely disadvantaged background (he grew up in poverty in the Deep South during the apartheid era) and it’s clear he’s thought about race and poverty and sincerely believes he is doing the right thing. He’s just wrong.
I am also really sick of racist criticisms from “progressives” like Kat that he’s a clone or puppet of Salia. Because, of course, black people are too dumb to think for themselves–they need white people to do their thinking for them! It’s bullshit–Thomas is considerably more principled than Scalia, for example.
Of course, none of this makes the substance of his decisions any better. I won’t be crying if he decides to spend more time with his family either.