So says Huffington Post and NPR.
Souter was appointed by Pres. George H.W. Bush, but he has been unexpectedly moderate-t0-liberal. Pres. Obama most likely will choose a woman for his first appointment to the Supreme Court. That last link suggests women look at justice differently than do men.
Not that you asked, but there is Biblical precedent: Deborah the judge.
Advertisement
When you feminists start arguing for a woman appointee (which would be a good thing) on the basis of representativeness, ask yourself this question:
How many justices are Catholic? Is that representative?
Oooh, stirring the pot so early in the a.m. Five. Five justices are Catholic, two are Jewish, one is Episcopalian, and one — John Paul Stevens — is listed as Protestant, which we Protestants know can mean anything. Where is the church of Christ in this august body, I ask you! By my reading, Catholics make up the largest religious group in the U.S. — 22 percent by one count. Do you think the Catholics have a stranglehold on the court?
Not a stranglehold…just viewed as reliable prolife votes.
No atheists either. Or Muslims. Or Hindus. Or Buddhists.
Good point. And I get your point of representation for the sake of representation. At least, I think I do.
I’m all for tossing out the labels of gender, religious affiliation, race etc. when it comes to this sort of decision, and focusing on where a person stands on real life issues. I am a little bothered by reducing a person to their church or gender or race or even political party. I think we’d be much better off if Obama doesn’t consider those things and instead, focuses purely on a candidate’s interpretation of law, past rulings, and where the person stands on key issues. Would I like to see a woman added? Sure, but only if she happens to be the strongest candidate based on more important things. Unfortunately, appearances seem to matter more than they should in politics. It’ll be interesting to see how this goes.