Is a 2 woman, 7 man Supreme court a good balance?

[Liberal_in_LA]

Seems like 2 women on the Supreme court is the max. Obama will most likely nominate another Justice in the future. Bet there won't be much pressure on him to appoint another woman.

[Dark]

1. Well, it worked pretty well for a while. I mean, other than Bush v.Gore, but it wasn't so bad, right

right?

Oh, wait..

[Skidmore]

2. I don't know but I daresay we need to have Asians, Native Americans,

and other groups represented as well--male or female.

[Mythsaje]

4. I'd love to see it too...

We could never have a complete mix (unless we instituted my friend's idea of a larger Supreme Court, a branch that deals with present cases and another that works retroactively, examining law already made) of every possible ethnic background represented, but some more variety would be nice.

[deaniac21]

89. Every Supreme Court case is about law already "made".

[Cid_B]

5. Here's an idea...

Lets not give a crap what anyone's ethnicity, gender, religion etc.. etc.. etc.. etc.. is and swear in the most qualified person. Otherwise we end up with "There's not enough left handed, red hair, diabetic presbyterians on the court!"

[canetoad]

6. Nope

That is the wrong starting point. First the court must reflect the gender balance of the nation. Only then should qualifications be considered.

And why stop there? Police, politicians, judges - as groups they must accurately reflect the gender balance of the people they serve. Anything less is more of the same old.

[Renew Deal]

21. I have an idea. Lets expand the court to 300 million people and then everyone will be covered.

:shrug:

[ejpoeta]

9. ooh!! i'm available!! LOL! jk. i am left handed, but don't have the rest. lol.

[seabeyond]

17. sounds of a white male. lets not give a crap if it is all white male, along as they are fair. n/t

[TCJ70]

94. Is fairness and being just not important to being a judge?

That's what I want in a supreme court justice! Whether they're white, black, hispanic, male, female, transgendered, gay, lesbian, three-headed five armed monkey or not!

[Rusty5329]

56. that's a great idea...

if only it weren't for that sign on the SC's court for 200 years that read "All but white men need not apply"

We have to intentionally correct for our past mistakes.

[northernlights]

66. show me a qualified man

and I'll show you two overqualified women.

Good balance would be 5 women and 4 men. But I'll settle for 4 women and 5 men, even though that wouldn't be a numerical reflection of our superior proportions. It's just possible that the more qualified woman isn't available at the moment. :evilgrin:

[cascadiance]

79. If we have 5 women and 4 men, then progressive men won't be represented...

Assuming that Thomas, Roberts, Scalia, and Alito are still on the court then...

I think ideally we'd have that ratio, but more importantly we shouldn't be just looking at their race and gender to decide whether the person's a good choice or not, but where they stand on the issues and their qualifications. Even though Sotomayor helps restore balance for the genders and for hispanics, some might argue (and oversimplify her "not being qualified") that she creates a greater imbalance with her religion as a catholic and gives catholics too much power on the court.

The key is where she stands on issues and what she's done on courts in the past. That for me is paramount. If we can bring a person to help restore more balance for gender, religion, and race, then all the better, but those shouldn't be the first and only things looked at.

Marjorie Cohn, head of the Lawyer's Guild, as a woman said it best for me on Democracy Now yesterday, when she said we need someone with the qualifications, etc. of Erwin Chemerinsky. Now if we can find a woman to equal his qualifications and positions on issues, GREAT! But folks like Mr. Chemerinsky shouldn't be excluded just because they are white males and we have the "primary goal" of restoring balance over how qualified they are.

[pnwmom]

14. Asians are only a few percent of the population. With only 9 justices,

how will we ever represent every group that "should" be represented?

Meanwhile, women comprise more than half of the population -- and we've only had two women in the history of the Court.

[Sebastian Doyle]

76. Are Catholics 67% of the population?

Because that's the percentage they'll have on the Supreme Court when Sotomayor is confirmed (6 Catholics, 2 Jews, and 1 Protestant)

I don't believe there should be a religious quota either, but I'd say the Catholics are way over-represented in that equation compared to the Protestants. Jews are approximately 5% of the population, but they make up 22% of the court.

Of course they're probably the only non-Christians who ever have a realistic shot at nomination though, so that's probably a good thing.

Quotas on the court are a bad thing, generally speaking. While I believe the Court should ultimately reflect a diverse population, we should probably remember that Clarence Thomas is on the court right now because someone told Poppy Bush he should "hire another black guy" to replace Thurgood Marshall.

Yeah, like those two have anything in common (apart from melanin level in their skin)

[pnwmom]

90. You're right. Catholics are way overrepresented -- at least male Catholics!

It was Bush's way of stacking the Court with likely abortion opponents.

But yeah -- in general, I don't see how quotas would work, when our society is so diverse. The situation with women is really egregious, however.

[canetoad]

86. It cannot be done.

But the biggest and most unjust imbalance can easily be redressed by equality of gender numbers on the bench.

It's all very well to talk about qualifications but until relatively recently women were just not able to access the means to gain the qualifications.

And besides that, the assessment criteria to bestow the qualifications were written by......you guessed it. White men.

[Mythsaje]

3. In short...

NO.

Ultimately a woman's role is protective rather than aggressive. Considering the level of "judicial activism" the Right perpetrates on a near-daily basis, we need someone on the court who understands what it's like to be one of the People, and has a vested interest in the welfare of the People. I personally love Obama's choice. Hispanics are all about family, and when they adopt you, you're family too.

It may sound silly, but that's how I see it.

[elleng]

7. Its no 'balance' at all

if you're balancing 'gender.' There are better scales.

[aquart]

8. It's a completely sexist "balance."

But well reflective of the balance of power in the United States.

[depakid]

10. Probably more reflective of historical practices

which have changed, but still lag behind at this level.

[pnwmom]

15. It's not reflective of the number of women in the legal profession.

We should start there.

[WeDidIt]

11. No

It needs to be a 5-4 break down between the sexes.

[The Hope Mobile]

47. 5 women/ 4 men. That would be an accurate reflection of our population. nt

[liberal N proud]

12. It does not represent American population

[ProgressiveProfessor]

28. In what way? There is no requirement for it to be representative and how would you measure it

Education?
Age?
Race?
Ethnicity?
Political leanings?
Citizenship?
Gender?
Sexual Orientation?
Height?
Weight?
Hair Length?

[liberal N proud]

39. I would limit it to the big three

Race/Ethnicity
Gender

[Xithras]

48. The Supreme Court isn't about representation.

That's what Congress is for. While it's wonderful to see women and minorities gaining a greater number of positions on the court, the reality is that any justice who bases a decision on their race or sex has NO business on the court. Gender and race should be irrelevant to a fair and impartial decision.

[liberal N proud]

63. OK, representation probably isn't the right term

And true it should be about impartial interpretation of the law, but how is an old white man (of which I am quickly becoming part of that demographic) make decisions about such things that they have become out of touch with. (Gay Rights and Immigration).

Granted it should only be about the law and how it was written but the court has been so politicized and will continue to be for many decades ahead even if Obama's selections can change that course.

[pnwmom]

13. Soon we'll be back to one woman.

Because Ginsberg is likely to leave this term, too.

[Mr. Ected]

16. Seems To Me We Need At Least 1 Openly Gay Justice

To offset some of the lunacy out there.

[JohnnyBoots]

38. Would be nice if they were an Atheist and a minority too. Three birds, one stone.

Could you imagine how many right wing heads would exlode if you put a gay, minority, atheist on the bench? Scalia would probably have a heart attack inside of a month. It is a win, win.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

18. Not if we want the SCOTUS to reflect the demographics of the nation

then 5 would be women.

[Orsino]

19. ...and perhaps only *one* token fascist. n/t

[La Lioness Priyanka]

20. lol

[lunatica]

22. Damn women! Give us an inch and we just want more

Times were much better when we were pregnant and barefoot and minorities knew their place which was in the servant class.

[bigwillq]

23. No.

But with life appointments it's tough to change the balance.

[jazzjunkysue]

24. It's more like, 2 women, 6 men, and Antonin Scalia. He defies classification.

On his home planet, he's probably a convicted criminal, or worse.

[shadowknows69]

25. Is a presumably all Christian court a good balance?

Pretty sure the answer is no on both counts. That said I don't think we should choose justices only on the basis of attaining balance. Frankly I'd prefer if we created some androgynous psychic clone organism that is fed nothing but pure law books since birth.

[Umbral]

26. 6 Catholic, 2 Jewish, 1 'Protestant'. Balanced?

or even a reflection of the US population as a whole?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

27. Irrelevant....few are practicing

[DaveinJapan]

29. Forget gender, where is the atheist judge in all of this?

After all, according to Scalia looking at things as anything but a Catholic is like "trying to step out of your skin".

Why not find some folks who don't buy into the god thing.

At least one of them.

(yeah, I'm holding my breath right now...)

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

58. Can You Name Any With The Credentials That Would Make Them Applicable?

If not, your point is moot.

[nolabels]

71. You make a good point and i will remember it if any law person try to arrest me

Classify me as someone who would appreciate people just shoving their religion up their own ass where it belongs. Never have been arrested but have enough disdain for religious bigots and chest thumping cops and judges to now understand why after all this time it was well founded. It's all about shit on other people so us rich people can have a comfortable life.


Sorry my smug seems to be moot :shrug:

[ProgressiveProfessor]

92. Most of them are not practicing any particular religion so claims that they are this or that

religion seem silly to me. Most of them would appear to be more of the agnostic or atheists variety that religious people, including Sotomayor.

[WI_DEM]

30. Actually I think there is room for another woman. It would be a historic first too, 3 women have

never served at one time together. Actually too, if Justice Ginsberg retires, there would be only one woman, so there would be pressure to replace her with another woman.

[ensho]

31. there should be 4 women - the 9th person can be either

actually it should be 5 women. there are more women in the US then men.

[rvablue]

40. I'd settle for 4.

Some of the other responses on this thread are really sad.

But they also serve as a good reminder that liberal, progressive men still have a ways to go.....

[Mr. Blonde]

43. How many are in the law profession?

Seems like the test should be the pool you are drawing the candidates from and not the public at large.

Women may hold the advantage in the law profession as well too, I don't know, but it seems like the more correct scale.

[seabeyond]

45. per the male responses on this thread, i say we should 8 or 9 women

cause it doesnt matter as far as they are concerned

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

59. What The Heck Does That Have To Do With Interpreting Law?

:shrug:

Demographics mean squat as it relates to the SC.

[meow2u3]

84. What about 4 women, 4 men, and 1 hermaphrodite

Perfect balance, I say. :rofl:

[ensho]

95. seriously, it would be a good idea because

with all the man made hormones in everything rearranging human sexuality. someone's viewpoint from there would be a benefit to us all.

[cbdo2007]

32. I don't think it's relevant as long as their rulings are upholding the laws.

Let's try to move past this and just see people as equal.

[seabeyond]

34. would that be while some obama male worker puts hand on hillary poster

to demean, or could that be the male that sculpts a naked michelle obama and tells her to chill, or maybe that would be the male that creates a porn movie of palin, or all the other demeaning offensive sexual reference to belittle palin, or the whole damn male repug party that reduced palin to a thing. or compare number 3, educated, powerful, pelosi to pussy galore so all these retarded men can go around saying the word pussy

because some male is going to be sensitive to a 15 yr old girl being stripped searched. or women being photographed intrusively on airport scanners, understanding the history and domination

a male today would think these things thru, the history of our world

and conclude,

lets get past it. doesnt matter. all is good and forgotten. we will see each other equally, need no controls.

WHEN we start seeing men actually creating an even playing field is when i might actually agree with you

[cbdo2007]

77. Wow...so you think the worst men in society are the best representation of all men?

I think your issues with men are a lot deeper than Supreme Court equality, and I'm guessing even if women ruled everything and even they elected a woman Pope, you'd still blame men for everything.

[seabeyond]

81. hm

so the evidence at hand, .... the example of how even today there is not a level field, that from examples of today, male is not representative of female it is my fault, my problem and no thought or consideration on your part.

this is why i am not willing to say that i think a court of nine male will merely look at the law and make ruling without any other factors being a part of any given decision especially when it pertains to females. look how receptive you are with information given.

[TCJ70]

33. Better question:

Are the judges qualified for their positions. I don't care so much about the ethnic/gender make up of the court as long as they are all qualified for the positions.

[seabeyond]

35. what a surprise. every person that doesnt seem to think gender matters is male.

go figure.

hurlin

[rvablue]

36. No kidding.

Sad, on a liberal, progressive message board.

But not surprising, really....

[seabeyond]

41. not surprising at all. last decade males have been ecstatic

with the acceptance and free for all sexism and not even having to think twice.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

61. Nothing Sad About It.

Progressives are generally intelligent. The ones claiming that their ability to practice law is what matters (including myself) are absolutely correct. So that has nothing to do with 'sexism' at all, and more to deal with simple logical fact. Deal with it.

[rvablue]

65. Well, given your argument here, then you are fine with an all white, all male court as

long as they are the "best" qualified.

There is a huge pool of female judges at this point who would be just as qualified or better qualified than some of the Justices who now sit on the court. And while it might be to a lesser degree, there are many judges of various ethnic minorities who would fit the same bill.

Sotomayor's record 17 years on the bench is proof of that.

Therefore, there is no reason not to make a concerted effort to have the SCOTUS reflect our population at large.

That is my simple, factual logic. Deal with it.

[TCJ70]

69. As long as everyone approaches supreme court nominees...

...from a qualification standpoint instead of a representation standpoint, I think we'll be fine. There's only 9 spots, let's just get the best people in there possible.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

60. Guess We're Smarter, More Objective, OR More Apt To Answer From Our Heads Than Our Hearts

on this issue.

Go figure.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

74. you forgot the sarcasm icon

surely you don't believe in that stereotypical nonsense.

[seabeyond]

75. he does. the thing about being clueless, they really THINK they are smarter

objective and all the other crap cause they dont have the info in their head to battle with

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

88. My husband says that he comes from the heart and not the head

In fact, I know a number of fellows who are more heart oriented. I guess that is why I felt it was repeating a stereotype that I know is not true for the subset of males I know.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

82. As It Relates To The Responses In This Thread?

I was dead serious.

The sexist and ignorant reply was the one I responded to.

Fact is, those saying gender ratio doesn't matter on the SC; but that experience, objectivity, ideology, etc does, are 100% correct. They are thinking with their heads not their hearts. I doubt they are all male, like the poster said. If they are, it is by coincidence. But as it relates to this thread, my original response was dead on.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

87. As relates to a general assessment of individuals

You have stereotyped both genders. If you are referring only to responses to this thread, I don't know. I don't think all the posters' genders are obvious by their usernames, and I don't think everyone marks their gender on their profile.

[lumberjack_jeff]

68. My governor, both of my senators, and my state representative are all women.

I don't think gender matters much at all.

[TCJ70]

83. God forbid we should want the...

...best people in the positions based on qualifications and not simply representative quantities...

[Badgerman]

37. Is Thomas enough Blacks? Would a Gonzalez or two be better?

Anyone advocating for any kind of 'balance' on the Supreme Court is a danger to this country, PERIOD! Think about bubbas' if you had equal representation on the Court it would mean that every single person in the US would have a seat if the logic or 'balance' were applied. Because those same arguers also argue the uniqueness of each individual. I have news for them, a mob is made of identical organisms, if only for the lifespan of the riot.

ONE, thing is required to sustain this system, nine RATIONAL, intelligent human beings! Keep your goddam Thomases, and Scalias at home...in the basement...chained!

[seabeyond]

42. so what the fuck.... lets just have white male FAIRLY rule us all. n/t

[Badgerman]

50. missed the whole point! n/t

[seabeyond]

53. no, i didnt. i simply do not agree. n/t

[ismnotwasm]

44. No n/t

[Echo In Light]

46. No

[brendan120678]

49. Does it matter what the "balance" is?

The SCOTUS is not meant to be a representative body. It's purpose is to interpret the law.

[ensho]

51. to interpret the law for ALL of us - hard to do from a males only point of view

nt

[Badgerman]

52. good luck with that, the maroons cannot fathom the concept.

[seabeyond]

54. yes. take seperate but equal. one who hasnt experienced the seperate has no clue

about whether equal or not

take same sex marriage. to a bunch of heterosexuals who enjoy the right to marry, saying civil unions affording them all in marriage is the same. whereas someone who experiences seperate knows it isnt equal.

do these men have the brain for law in front of them, sure. is there interpretation limited, yes.

[Zodiak]

55. I unfortunately do not see representation as a male/female thing.

When you have nine justices, there is probably only one makeup that is perfectly representative (two white men, two white women, one black man, one black woman, one latino of each sex, and the last must be all of the omitted races mixed together and a hermaphrodite to boot), but then it would make the supreme bench a quota system and not a judicial body.

I seriously do not understand why people get so much into identity politics. One's sex, race, sexual orientation etc. means nothing compared to ideology. We should have learned that long ago.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

64. ...

:thumbsup:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

57. Why Not?

Their political ideology, knowledge of law, education, ability to be objective, empathetic and overall logical in making decisions of law is what matters most. That by far transcends any gender issues.

Am thrilled his nominee was a woman though.

[spanone]

62. better than eight men and one woman

[calico1]

67. If we had a court that had representation from

every ethnic, economic, religious, social and cultural group in our country we'd need a bigger court.

[Stinky The Clown]

70. No, it is not balance. 5 women and 4 men would be a better, more representative mix.

[Bill McBlueState]

72. I like this thread,

because it gives the reader a notion of the extent to which DUers (and presumably Democrats at large) "get" the concept of diversity.

I can only conclude that work remains to be done.

[leftofthedial]

73. how many kitchens do they have?

just kidding!

Of course it's not a good balance. It should be 5 women and 4 men if anything.

Plus, no more than 4 should be white.

But then, the real differences in America are between economic classes and all 9 of them are rich.

[yy4me]

78. 50/50 would be good. Enough with the men in the majority for

all these years. They have shown a strong lack of decision making skills. There needs to be a greater balance of women to keep the guys in line. We need the type of person like Barbara Jordan. Smart, articulate, good natured and fair.

When the next opportunity comes up, I hope the President picks another woman.

[L0oniX]

80. NO! We need more Martians.

[Romulox]

85. Not one SCOTUS Justice represents my economic, ethnic, religious or social background.

Who decided that the only characteristics that mattered were gender and race? :wtf:

[Warren Stupidity]

91. I think quota systems are stupid.

How about we get this very qualified non-theofascist person on to the court, and then when the time arises, get another very qualified non-theofascist person on the court, and meanwhile not get played by the theo-fascists into fighting each other over which exact flavor of very qualified non-theofascist has been nominated.

Yes of course the court should reflect the diversity of the people.

[BlooInBloo]

93. It's a start.