Skip to main content

View Diary: John Roberts should be Opposed for being MALE (53 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  "Bean counting" (none)
    It is fine to want to be represented by people who look like yourself and who has lived at least some of your problems, but saying things like this really goes quite close to the line of being sexist.

    So would it be fair to say you wouldn't be the slightest bit uncomfortable if eight of the justices were female?  

    •  I would like (none)
      to see a Supreme Court of the US that represents the US. It does not now but it should and it could.

      Every society honors its live conformists and its dead troublemakers. - Mignon McLaughlin

      by sassy texan on Thu Jul 21, 2005 at 03:43:26 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  oops (none)
        you weren't talking to me. In case you ever ask me that question, that would be my answer. Sorry.

        It's a good point though, thank you for asking it (of someone else).

        Every society honors its live conformists and its dead troublemakers. - Mignon McLaughlin

        by sassy texan on Thu Jul 21, 2005 at 03:44:39 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Yes it would (none)
      At my University, easily 60% of my students are female.

      This may be demographically important in some way but it does not BOTHER me.

      The gender makeup of the SCOTUS doesn't bother me either.

      I understand thinking that a woman might be a better advocate for Roe than a man, but that doesn't seem to be obviously true, does it?

      It's the Dishonesty, Stupid!

      by dabize on Thu Jul 21, 2005 at 03:45:57 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  it's not about Roe (none)
        it's about 1/2 of this population being represented. Why did women fight so hard to have access to everything else? Why stop fighting when it comes to the highest court in the land?

        Every society honors its live conformists and its dead troublemakers. - Mignon McLaughlin

        by sassy texan on Thu Jul 21, 2005 at 03:48:21 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I agree (none)
          It's not just about Roe, although Roe is a part of it.  It's a question of representation.  I'm skeptical when people say gender doesn't matter because almost always when they say that they are talking about situations where men have all the control.  
      •  could always (none)
        replace Souter with Brown, and Kennedy with Owens, and what the heck toss in an Edith for Stevens. I bet the diarist would much rather see the current make-up rahter than the hypothetical I listed.

        "They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."- Benjamin Franklin

        by bluestateLIBertarian on Thu Jul 21, 2005 at 03:58:28 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  it's not either/or (none)
          it's a discussion about the importance of women on the Supreme Court. A discussion that has apparently upset a lot of people, but I am ok with that because I too am pissed. I am pissed that the court that rules over me has only 1 woman on it. Fortunately, I am not alone in that. Not everyone agrees - that's why we discuss.

          Every society honors its live conformists and its dead troublemakers. - Mignon McLaughlin

          by sassy texan on Thu Jul 21, 2005 at 04:01:44 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  it is an either or (none)
            The court is dominated by Republican appointees. A Republican is in the White House. I don't think the women that could be nominated to fill O'Conners seat would bring you joy because gender balance didn't change for the worse.

            "They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."- Benjamin Franklin

            by bluestateLIBertarian on Thu Jul 21, 2005 at 04:07:39 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  it may not be about the decision (none)
              but about the representation. I know a lot of women are anti-choice (most of the women I know). I don't believe that just because a judge is a woman she will support my causes. I just think that the SC should represent the population - as best as it can. One woman is not the best we can do.

              Every society honors its live conformists and its dead troublemakers. - Mignon McLaughlin

              by sassy texan on Thu Jul 21, 2005 at 04:10:33 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  1 out of 8 isn't 40% (none)
        At my University, easily 60% of my students are female.

        This may be demographically important in some way but it does not BOTHER me.

        The gender makeup of the SCOTUS doesn't bother me either.

        It doesn't suprise me that being in a 60% female environment doesn't bother you.

        But what about an environment that was 90% female? That would be a noticeably different environment than one that was 60% female.

        Specifically, what if that 90% female group was supposed to represent you, and make decisions that would affect you?  

        In that situation would you prefer that there be more than 10% men?  Or would you be gender-blind, and say it didn't matter?

        For me (I'm female) there's a big difference between being represented by a group that is 60% male, which would be ok, and being represented by a group that is 90% male, which is not.

        And I think that many people (men, especially) are so used to representative groups being 90% male that that's seen as just normal -- to the point where even talking about it is seen as an exercise in trivia.

        But would the situation really be the same if there were only one man on the Supreme Court?  Would it be trivial to say that it would be good if there were two, rather than only one, men on the Court?  What about saying there should be four or five men?  Would that be a sexist thing to wish for?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site