There's a MAN On The Shortlist???

Who says?

By: Queen Alli | Thu, 05/14/2009 - 22:56

Who said this was Obama's shortlist? Was this list sent from the WH or is this from the Liberal blogosphere. You see the way they pushed out Sotomayer's name.

Yes,

By: Beet | Thu, 05/14/2009 - 22:02

Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a second wave feminist if there ever was one, has said that women bring unique perspectives to the issues, and that was one reason for having women on the Court.

While in a perfect world men would completely understand womens' experiences and vice versa, just as white would understand black, black understand Latino, and so on, in the real world the vast majority of people have special insights into their own background that others, no matter how educated or well intentioned, wouldn't have. The same could be said about a person who's run a business, a person who's experienced poverty, a lawyer who's spent most of his or her life outside of law, or living abroad. Everyone's experience brings diversity. Gender is a pretty huge variable though in life, and having a couple women on the court would be an asset.

I expect that the decision in

By: Drew | Thu, 05/14/2009 - 21:51

I expect that the decision in Redding will be exactly as explosive as you predict. The oral arguments for that case were a real low point for the court, where it was clear that the men on the court, particularly the men of a generation completely out of touch, were simply not understanding the issues on the case.

And that sort of underscores the whole relevance of the "empathy" issue. The oral arguments made it very clear that the Justices do, in fact, employ their own cultural understandings in order to guide their decision on what is or isn't rational/common sense. If Justices are going to consult their own personal feelings about what is or isn't invasive (done by the government sans parents, remember) based on an understanding of what was the norm amongst boys in the locker room more than half a century ago, then it becomes very hard to argue that it's merely some coldly logical reading of Constitutional principles is really all that matters.

I’m glad there is a male on the “shortlist”

By: Femme Fatale | Thu, 05/14/2009 - 17:48

I’m glad there is a male on the “shortlist.” Although I recognize the necessity of a woman’s viewpoint on the court and do personally hope that another female will join Justice Ginsberg, I agree with Sharon that I would not want a candidate to be chosen simply because she is a woman. Obama should review all options equally. Plus, the ultimate nomination should not be haunted by the fact that she was chosen based on her gender. Whether the list is a PR project or not, including a male in the discourse helps.

Polling on the subject of the Supreme Court

By: lawyer-mom | Thu, 05/14/2009 - 15:52

I hope that President Obama does not pay attention to the polls on whether it is essential to appoint another woman to the Supreme Court. Most people are not familiar with the Court's composition or the cases that come before it. The poll that I'd be interested in seeing is this: what percentage of the people who know (1) that there is only one woman on the Supreme Court, and (2) the issues presented in the Reddding case, think that it's essential to have a woman on the Supreme Court. I bet the numbers would be quite different.

Oh, c'mon

By: Vanessa | Thu, 05/14/2009 - 15:41

Aren't these sorts of leaked shortlists all about PR, not actual information? By my reckoning if they were gonna leak a list there had to be one lone dude on there (with no chance whatever of becoming The One) so he can say "I considered male and female candidates". Similarly, lesbians on list provide nice PR, good feelings with the gay community, chances? slim to none.

Reverse Gender Bias

By: sharongracepjs | Thu, 05/14/2009 - 14:42

While I understand the contentious history of women's rights that influences this issue, I find it just as offensive to choose a candidate *because* she is a woman as to not choose her for that reason.

Giving me preferential consideration based on my gender is patronizing and does little to advance the status of women in comparison to men - I want equal opportunity to earn my achievements, not special treatment to ensure that I receive a certain outcome.

As I see it, the only legitimate reason to ensure a particular proportion of women on the Court is in acknowledging that women have certain perspectives and mental acuities that are unique to them alone, an admission that most vocal/radical feminists, in my experience, are not willing to make. Any other justification for singling out gender as a prime qualification is unfair to women, unfair to men and especially unfair to our struggling nation.