Skip to main content

The best defense is a good offense.  Instead of fighting on their turf, we could be fighting on our turf.  I'm not sure how many other cliches I can think of, but the point of what I'm trying to say is that there is a war on women, women's health, autonomy and reproductive freedom.  Forced ultrasounds, no exceptions at all for abortions, continued pay inequity, and a Congress where women are chronically under-represented. Rather than sit back and allow these attacks on women's rights and health, we should be pushing back not only on these invasive laws, but also launching our own counter-offensives that take resources away from the war on women and offer a possible long-term solution to impede their progress.

Wouldn't it be great to have something even close to having equal representation for women in Congress while these issues are debated instead of the just 17% in the current Senate?  But how do you make something like that happen?  Even if you wrote a constitutional amendment, what could it possibly say when there are 400+ districts and 50 state electorates responsible for selecting their own legislators.  If there is a way to get equal representation of women in the Congress, well, I don't know of an easy way to do that.

However, there is another branch of the government that has changed in size and requirements over time. The US Supreme Court justices are selected by the President and confirmed by the US Senate.  The size of the court has changed over the years in numbers of justices.  Currently it is at 9 justices, and as we have all seen, has been making some quite foolish decisions in the last dozen years or so.  What's to say the number of justices on the court couldn't be changed again?  It can be done with an act of Congress, as the number of justices is not defined in the Constitution.  We could reduce the influence of the few, and expand the court back out to 11 justices with a simple act of reform.  I seem to recall a certain Democratic Presidential candidate who campaigned on changing business as usual in Washington, and this would certainly fit that bill.

And at the same time as the court expands, how about something new and exciting? Gender equity!  Require Presidents to keep a balance of gender on the court.  If there are 9 justices, there must be no more than 5 of any one gender.  If there are 11 justices, there must be no more than 6 of either gender.

Women have shown through the millenia their ability to show empathy for others and to prioritize the best interests of families and children.  No, I am not trying to stereotype.  Just stating an opinion, which I do believe is widely shared.  Even if I was, hopefully women don't mind being stereotyped as wise leaders.  

Wouldn't it be reassuring to know that when the next abortion issue is in front of the court, that it would not be 6 men and only 3 women making the rulings?  Wouldn't this be the ultimate way to make sure it is not just a group of male legislators deciding for the lady folk what they can do with their bodies?  

I, for one, think it would have a profound impact on both the decisions of the Supremes and even for the restrictions that states and Congress attempt to pass.

President Obama, something new for your reelection campaign to consider.


The Supreme Court should be

10%1 votes
20%2 votes
30%3 votes
30%3 votes
10%1 votes

| 10 votes | Vote | Results

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Carol in San Antonio

    ~ Nothing insightful to say ~

    by EagleOfFreedom on Tue Aug 28, 2012 at 08:20:01 AM PDT

  •  Mandated Quotas? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MrJersey, FG, valion

    Why not racial quotas?  Or Hetero-Homosexual balance in proportion to US population?

    Well intentioned, but I'll pass...

    Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

    by Wisper on Tue Aug 28, 2012 at 08:57:09 AM PDT

  •  This would that a Constitutional amendment that (0+ / 0-)

    would never have a chance of getting out of any Congressional committee.

    And it feels like I'm livin'in the wasteland of the free ~ Iris DeMent, 1996

    by MrJersey on Tue Aug 28, 2012 at 09:31:49 AM PDT

  •  Put Hilary Clinton on the S.C. (0+ / 0-)
  •  Possible constitutional amendments (0+ / 0-)

    If you want to make minimal changes to the existing system, have each Congressional district return two members, one of each gender. A state with an odd number of House seats would have to have one seat open to candidates of either gender.

    An alternative approach would be to use some form of proportional representation. Depending upon the exact rules used, the desired mix of races and genders could be compelled by the system or parties would find it advantageous to voluntarily offer a more balanced ticket than they probably would with a system of single member districts.

    There is no man alive who is sufficiently good to rule the life of the man next door to him. Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris, M.P.

    by Gary J on Tue Aug 28, 2012 at 11:55:23 AM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site