nbcrusader
Blue Crack Addict
Irvine511 said:
Which you don't want when dealing with moral decisions that affect society.
Supreme Court Vacancy
- Thread starter Dreadsox
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Which you don't want when dealing with moral decisions that affect society.
MrsSpringsteen
Blue Crack Addict
Pick A Woman
By Tony Mauro Wed Jul 6
Sandra Day O'Connor will always be remembered for the remarkable distinction of being the first woman on the Supreme Court. But here is something else remarkable about her distinction: She had to wait a dozen years before a second woman joined her on the court.
"It was a happy day indeed" when Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was confirmed in 1993, O'Connor wrote in her 2003 book The Majesty of the Law. Their politics might have been different, but it was a relief, O'Connor said, to no longer shoulder the mantle of being the only woman on the highest court.
Now that O'Connor is retiring, Ginsburg should not have to wait a dozen years to be joined by another woman. She should not have to wait for a moment, in fact. It seems almost too obvious to say, but it apparently needs to be stated: President Bush ought to appoint a woman to succeed O'Connor.
Wrong message
In this day and age, it simply will not do for our nation's highest court to include only one woman out of nine. If Canada can have four women on its nine-member Supreme Court, then we can do better than one. Replacing O'Connor with a man would telegraph to the world, accurately or not, that in replacing a groundbreaking woman, we could only come up with a man.
Of course, it will be said - it is already being said - that naming someone to the Supreme Court is a matter of finding the most qualified person, not a question of gender politics or head-counting. That is true. But this is also certainly true: It simply cannot be the case that there is no woman available who is as qualified as any of the men whose names have been bandied about as possible replacements for O'Connor. It's just not possible.
When O'Connor was appointed in 1981, the legal profession's long history of sexism meant that the pool of qualified women was not huge - though I recall that there were quite a few women who seemed to be more logical choices than a mid-level appeals judge from Arizona (namely O'Connor.) But now, no such excuse is available. Thanks in part to O'Connor's trailblazing, an entire generation of women lawyers has matured and advanced into the upper echelons of the profession.
In addition to the two Ediths that seem to be toward the bottom of Bush's short list - Edith Jones and Edith Brown Clement, both judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit - smart people are also talking up these possibilities: Priscilla Owen of Austin, also on the 5th Circuit; Deanell Tacha, the able chief judge of the 10th Circuit; Alice Batchelder on the 6th Circuit; and Karen Williams on the 4th Circuit. And then there is Consuelo Callahan, a judge on the 9th Circuit who is both female and Hispanic, appointed by Bush two years ago. Many of the rest are appointees of the first President Bush.
Look at state level
State supreme courts, too, are full of able women, among them two state chief justices - Shirley Abrahamson of Wisconsin and Judith Kaye of New York - who are distinguished jurists.
Some of the judges mentioned may be viewed as too liberal, or too old for a Bush administration looking for longevity. The point is, there are dozens of qualified women.
For a court that honors precedent, there is ample precedent for replacing O'Connor with a woman. Thurgood Marshall, the first African-American on the court, was replaced by Clarence Thomas, its second. There has been, informally, more or less of a "Jewish seat" on the court as well, interrupted by the late Harry Blackmun but resumed when Stephen Breyer was appointed in 1994. Ginsburg is also Jewish, and when Breyer joined her on the court, there was immediate strength in numbers. Soon after, the court for the first time decided not to hold hearings on Jewish holy days.
Similarly, when Ginsburg joined O'Connor on the court, they conspired to make a small but symbolic change. For some unknown reason, the public ladies' room at the court had always opened later in the day than the men's room, inconveniencing women who got to the court early to stand in line to watch high-profile cases. With the power of two, O'Connor and Ginsburg fixed that inequity, and in 1996 Ginsburg proclaimed triumphantly, "The women's restroom, I have good reason to believe, will never again close while the men's room remains open."
A small victory, but symbolic of how important it is to get beyond the tokenism of one. Just two years ago, the Supreme Court spoke of this tokenism in the context of race when it said the University of Michigan Law School was justified in seeking a "critical mass" of qualified minority students so that they "do not feel isolated or like spokespersons for their race."
O'Connor was the author of that opinion, and she has known for too long the burden of being expected to speak for her gender. One way to honor her legacy would be to make sure that as soon as possible - starting with her successor - women will have more than one voice on the Supreme Court.
Tony Mauro is the U.S. Supreme Court correspondent for American Lawyer Mediaand Legal Times. He also is a member of USA TODAY's board of contributors.
By Tony Mauro Wed Jul 6
Sandra Day O'Connor will always be remembered for the remarkable distinction of being the first woman on the Supreme Court. But here is something else remarkable about her distinction: She had to wait a dozen years before a second woman joined her on the court.
"It was a happy day indeed" when Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was confirmed in 1993, O'Connor wrote in her 2003 book The Majesty of the Law. Their politics might have been different, but it was a relief, O'Connor said, to no longer shoulder the mantle of being the only woman on the highest court.
Now that O'Connor is retiring, Ginsburg should not have to wait a dozen years to be joined by another woman. She should not have to wait for a moment, in fact. It seems almost too obvious to say, but it apparently needs to be stated: President Bush ought to appoint a woman to succeed O'Connor.
Wrong message
In this day and age, it simply will not do for our nation's highest court to include only one woman out of nine. If Canada can have four women on its nine-member Supreme Court, then we can do better than one. Replacing O'Connor with a man would telegraph to the world, accurately or not, that in replacing a groundbreaking woman, we could only come up with a man.
Of course, it will be said - it is already being said - that naming someone to the Supreme Court is a matter of finding the most qualified person, not a question of gender politics or head-counting. That is true. But this is also certainly true: It simply cannot be the case that there is no woman available who is as qualified as any of the men whose names have been bandied about as possible replacements for O'Connor. It's just not possible.
When O'Connor was appointed in 1981, the legal profession's long history of sexism meant that the pool of qualified women was not huge - though I recall that there were quite a few women who seemed to be more logical choices than a mid-level appeals judge from Arizona (namely O'Connor.) But now, no such excuse is available. Thanks in part to O'Connor's trailblazing, an entire generation of women lawyers has matured and advanced into the upper echelons of the profession.
In addition to the two Ediths that seem to be toward the bottom of Bush's short list - Edith Jones and Edith Brown Clement, both judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit - smart people are also talking up these possibilities: Priscilla Owen of Austin, also on the 5th Circuit; Deanell Tacha, the able chief judge of the 10th Circuit; Alice Batchelder on the 6th Circuit; and Karen Williams on the 4th Circuit. And then there is Consuelo Callahan, a judge on the 9th Circuit who is both female and Hispanic, appointed by Bush two years ago. Many of the rest are appointees of the first President Bush.
Look at state level
State supreme courts, too, are full of able women, among them two state chief justices - Shirley Abrahamson of Wisconsin and Judith Kaye of New York - who are distinguished jurists.
Some of the judges mentioned may be viewed as too liberal, or too old for a Bush administration looking for longevity. The point is, there are dozens of qualified women.
For a court that honors precedent, there is ample precedent for replacing O'Connor with a woman. Thurgood Marshall, the first African-American on the court, was replaced by Clarence Thomas, its second. There has been, informally, more or less of a "Jewish seat" on the court as well, interrupted by the late Harry Blackmun but resumed when Stephen Breyer was appointed in 1994. Ginsburg is also Jewish, and when Breyer joined her on the court, there was immediate strength in numbers. Soon after, the court for the first time decided not to hold hearings on Jewish holy days.
Similarly, when Ginsburg joined O'Connor on the court, they conspired to make a small but symbolic change. For some unknown reason, the public ladies' room at the court had always opened later in the day than the men's room, inconveniencing women who got to the court early to stand in line to watch high-profile cases. With the power of two, O'Connor and Ginsburg fixed that inequity, and in 1996 Ginsburg proclaimed triumphantly, "The women's restroom, I have good reason to believe, will never again close while the men's room remains open."
A small victory, but symbolic of how important it is to get beyond the tokenism of one. Just two years ago, the Supreme Court spoke of this tokenism in the context of race when it said the University of Michigan Law School was justified in seeking a "critical mass" of qualified minority students so that they "do not feel isolated or like spokespersons for their race."
O'Connor was the author of that opinion, and she has known for too long the burden of being expected to speak for her gender. One way to honor her legacy would be to make sure that as soon as possible - starting with her successor - women will have more than one voice on the Supreme Court.
Tony Mauro is the U.S. Supreme Court correspondent for American Lawyer Mediaand Legal Times. He also is a member of USA TODAY's board of contributors.
nbcrusader
Blue Crack Addict
Unfortunately, I think we send the wrong message when individual seats are designated by sex/race etc.
But it will send our conventional politics into a tizzy when a pro-life women is nominated.
But it will send our conventional politics into a tizzy when a pro-life women is nominated.
80sU2isBest
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2000
- Messages
- 4,970
And you see, it is my belief that he'd be doing what's best for the country by oushing through a prolifer.BonoVoxSupastar said:
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
nbcrusader said:
how does a woman's choice to terminate her pregnancy affect society?
and what qualifies society to make moral decisions for the individual?
80sU2isBest
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2000
- Messages
- 4,970
Irvine511 said:
Believe me, I'm so sick of most of `em, Bush nominating a prochoicer just might be the thing that pushes me over the edge. But even if I do stop voting Republican, I won't be voting Democrat.
nbcrusader
Blue Crack Addict
Well, now we get back to the "is it murder of another person". If we decide to deem a certain class of persons "non-persons", then things like terminating their life is a little easier to do.
If we all get to set our moral compasses, irrespective of anyone else, I bet we end up with something we don't want.
If we all get to set our moral compasses, irrespective of anyone else, I bet we end up with something we don't want.
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
80sU2isBest said:
why wouldn't you vote Democrat?
other than the party being pro-choice, which i know you might find a deal breaker, what is it about Democrats that make them inferior to Republicans?
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
80sU2isBest said:
My point is that if he chooses someone based purely on pro-life and the rest of their stances are completely crazy, what good is he doing for this country? None. But if he chooses someone based on all merit and pro-life happens to not fall into this person's issues then he's doing what's best for this country, even if he has to make that sacrifice.
But this is really moot for I don't see Bush doing this.
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
nbcrusader said:
so if we can't determine if it is the murder of a person, or non-person, why not leave that decision up to the individual?
and most of us already do set our own moral compasses. they are just mediated by societal consequences for our actions.
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
nbcrusader said:
Well acutally it's not as easy as "setting our own moral compasses" for we do have science to show us it can't be murder.
nbcrusader
Blue Crack Addict
That is quite a trick!
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
nbcrusader said:
Well how can you "murder" something that wouldn't be able survive or live on it's own, for it's only 6 weeks of dividing cells?
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
eeeek! we've done so well discussiong the political impact of the abortion debate, can we please please please not get into the "is it murder or isn't it" part?
we've done it before, and we all know where the chips will fall.
we've done it before, and we all know where the chips will fall.
80sU2isBest
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2000
- Messages
- 4,970
Irvine511 said:
There are other Democrat-supported issues I don't agree with, but you're right, abortion is the big deal breaker for me. I've said it before and I will say it again; I will never cast a vote for a prochoice candidate.
80sU2isBest
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2000
- Messages
- 4,970
BonoVoxSupastar said:
A fetus will eventually be able to survive on its own, so its dependence on the mother's body is temporary.
Many people depend on oxygen machines and life support temporarily; wouldn't it be murder to kill them?
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
Irvine511 said:
Yeah my bad, I did the same exact thing that I've asked others not to.
My apologies...
VertigoGal
Rock n' Roll Doggie FOB
nbcrusader said:
I agree.
So I guess it'll be Gonzales then. I see FOX is already using the moderate-by-comparison angle (just as I predicted
), talking about how he's not conservative enough so when he's appointed it will look like Bush chose him solely on his merits. Maybe I have too much faith, but I don't think the American public would stand for a real far-right nutcase.If abortion was made legal, I don't think it wouldn't bring back back-alley abortions, at least not on the scale some people are saying . It would just mean a huge black market for the abortion pill.
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
80sU2isBest said:
wow.
i can't think of a single issue i'd be able to make that claim over.
are fetues more important than breathing children?
80sU2isBest
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2000
- Messages
- 4,970
Irvine511 said:
Nope.
But what are you saying, that by voting prolife, I am voting anti-breathing children?
MrsSpringsteen
Blue Crack Addict
I think there's something to be said for having women in the highest court-no one is saying they should be there if they're not qualified. The same is true for minorities..it only seems right
I think this article makes some good points
Will Bush nominate a woman?
Interest groups opt for ideology over gender.
By Linda Feldmann and Warren Richey | Staff writers of The Christian Science Monitor
WASHINGTON - "Wise old men and wise old women usually decide cases the same way," Sandra Day O'Connor is fond of saying.
Indeed, as America's first female Supreme Court justice, now retiring from the bench, she is known for playing down the impact of her "femaleness" in her approach to work.
But as President Bush considers Justice O'Connor's replacement, gender is very much an issue. If he replaces O'Connor with a man, the high court goes back to eight men and one woman, hardly a balance that looks like America.
Ironically, though, Bush faces little outside pressure to replace O'Connor with another woman - largely because the most vocal interest groups, from both the left and the right, are focused on how the nominee might rule on various hot-button issues. "I think ideology for them trumps gender," says Linda Fowler, a political scientist at Dartmouth College in Hanover, N.H.
Still, as soon as O'Connor announced her resignation, the White House made clear it would consider women nominees. The Bush administration has also floated the name of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, raising expectations of a historic nomination of the first Hispanic to the high court.
"I suppose he can get away with not selecting a woman if he selects a Hispanic," says John Zogby, an independent pollster. "That's the only scenario, though. .. White guys need not apply this time."
For this White House, placing women and minorities in high-level appointments is not a matter of political correctness. It is the way Mr. Bush has operated throughout his political life - often counting women and minorities among his most trusted advisers, and openly admiring the battles they have faced to get where they are.
Strong women are at the center of his life, starting with his mother and wife, and extending to many political appointments, including Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and political adviser Karen Hughes.
"In theory, the administration is opposed to affirmative action, but in practice they have been following it in true form, searching out well-qualified women and minorities," says Sheldon Goldman, an expert on judicial selection at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. "From their perspective, if you share our philosophy, we bring you in under our tent, and if you don't, goodbye and good luck."
Bush faces demands from numerous constituencies that matter to him - including the social conservatives who were key to his election and Hispanics, now the largest minority in America and a voting bloc the Republican Party has vigorously sought. So far, no Hispanic females have emerged in public speculation for the Supreme Court vacancy. The list of women being mentioned includes several white females and one African American, Janice Rogers Brown, who was recently confirmed to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals and who is seen as a strong conservative.
Bush's religious-conservative backers play down the importance of gender. "I don't believe it's a big deal to most Americans, but he may decide to select a woman," says Andrea Lafferty of the Traditional Values Coalition. "The most important issue is, will this person faithfully interpret the Constitution."
Some analysts have suggested that Bush could save a female and/or Hispanic selection for his next Supreme Court vacancy, but in the world of interest groups, waiting for "next time" won't wash, analysts say. Bush won 40 percent of the Hispanic vote in 2004, up from 32 percent in 2000. He also shrank the gender gap that has dogged Republican presidential candidates since the Reagan years, another trend the GOP hopes to continue in the 2006 and 2008 elections.
For liberal activist groups, if Bush were to select a woman who is clearly or even possibly hostile to abortion rights and other civil liberties, opposing her would be an easy call. But opposing a female nominee would make their task - raising alarm among the public - a bit more difficult.
At the heart of the matter, though, remains the question of how a justice's gender informs his or her approach to the law. O'Connor always demurred when asked directly about this, but in fact, in numerous cases her decisions did seem to be informed by a sensitivity to the kind of discrimination that she faced as a young lawyer. Shortly after joining the court, she wrote the majority 5-to-4 opinion in a 1982 decision opening a Mississippi nursing school to male applicants. Later the court used that precedent to open the Virginia Military Institute to female cadets.
The view of one O'Connor clerk
One of O'Connor's recent clerks, RonNell Andersen Jones, says that during her time at the court, during the 2003-04 term, she didn't feel there was anybody - least of all O'Connor - who was thinking of her as a woman on the court. "She was a justice on the court," says Ms. Jones.
Still, "I think Justice O'Connor's life as a woman and her life as a woman in [a male-dominated legal culture] couldn't help but have an effect on her views in cases involving women," says Jones. "That said, I'm not certain that impacted her any more strongly than having been a state legislator, or having grown up on a rural ranch in Arizona, or having been a Westerner, or having been a mother of three children, or any other life experiences. They were all a piece. She is who she is."
I think this article makes some good points
Will Bush nominate a woman?
Interest groups opt for ideology over gender.
By Linda Feldmann and Warren Richey | Staff writers of The Christian Science Monitor
WASHINGTON - "Wise old men and wise old women usually decide cases the same way," Sandra Day O'Connor is fond of saying.
Indeed, as America's first female Supreme Court justice, now retiring from the bench, she is known for playing down the impact of her "femaleness" in her approach to work.
But as President Bush considers Justice O'Connor's replacement, gender is very much an issue. If he replaces O'Connor with a man, the high court goes back to eight men and one woman, hardly a balance that looks like America.
Ironically, though, Bush faces little outside pressure to replace O'Connor with another woman - largely because the most vocal interest groups, from both the left and the right, are focused on how the nominee might rule on various hot-button issues. "I think ideology for them trumps gender," says Linda Fowler, a political scientist at Dartmouth College in Hanover, N.H.
Still, as soon as O'Connor announced her resignation, the White House made clear it would consider women nominees. The Bush administration has also floated the name of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, raising expectations of a historic nomination of the first Hispanic to the high court.
"I suppose he can get away with not selecting a woman if he selects a Hispanic," says John Zogby, an independent pollster. "That's the only scenario, though. .. White guys need not apply this time."
For this White House, placing women and minorities in high-level appointments is not a matter of political correctness. It is the way Mr. Bush has operated throughout his political life - often counting women and minorities among his most trusted advisers, and openly admiring the battles they have faced to get where they are.
Strong women are at the center of his life, starting with his mother and wife, and extending to many political appointments, including Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and political adviser Karen Hughes.
"In theory, the administration is opposed to affirmative action, but in practice they have been following it in true form, searching out well-qualified women and minorities," says Sheldon Goldman, an expert on judicial selection at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. "From their perspective, if you share our philosophy, we bring you in under our tent, and if you don't, goodbye and good luck."
Bush faces demands from numerous constituencies that matter to him - including the social conservatives who were key to his election and Hispanics, now the largest minority in America and a voting bloc the Republican Party has vigorously sought. So far, no Hispanic females have emerged in public speculation for the Supreme Court vacancy. The list of women being mentioned includes several white females and one African American, Janice Rogers Brown, who was recently confirmed to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals and who is seen as a strong conservative.
Bush's religious-conservative backers play down the importance of gender. "I don't believe it's a big deal to most Americans, but he may decide to select a woman," says Andrea Lafferty of the Traditional Values Coalition. "The most important issue is, will this person faithfully interpret the Constitution."
Some analysts have suggested that Bush could save a female and/or Hispanic selection for his next Supreme Court vacancy, but in the world of interest groups, waiting for "next time" won't wash, analysts say. Bush won 40 percent of the Hispanic vote in 2004, up from 32 percent in 2000. He also shrank the gender gap that has dogged Republican presidential candidates since the Reagan years, another trend the GOP hopes to continue in the 2006 and 2008 elections.
For liberal activist groups, if Bush were to select a woman who is clearly or even possibly hostile to abortion rights and other civil liberties, opposing her would be an easy call. But opposing a female nominee would make their task - raising alarm among the public - a bit more difficult.
At the heart of the matter, though, remains the question of how a justice's gender informs his or her approach to the law. O'Connor always demurred when asked directly about this, but in fact, in numerous cases her decisions did seem to be informed by a sensitivity to the kind of discrimination that she faced as a young lawyer. Shortly after joining the court, she wrote the majority 5-to-4 opinion in a 1982 decision opening a Mississippi nursing school to male applicants. Later the court used that precedent to open the Virginia Military Institute to female cadets.
The view of one O'Connor clerk
One of O'Connor's recent clerks, RonNell Andersen Jones, says that during her time at the court, during the 2003-04 term, she didn't feel there was anybody - least of all O'Connor - who was thinking of her as a woman on the court. "She was a justice on the court," says Ms. Jones.
Still, "I think Justice O'Connor's life as a woman and her life as a woman in [a male-dominated legal culture] couldn't help but have an effect on her views in cases involving women," says Jones. "That said, I'm not certain that impacted her any more strongly than having been a state legislator, or having grown up on a rural ranch in Arizona, or having been a Westerner, or having been a mother of three children, or any other life experiences. They were all a piece. She is who she is."
joyfulgirl
Blue Crack Addict
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2001
- Messages
- 16,690
80sU2isBest said:
So how do you feel about the fact that the abortion rate has risen significantly under Bush's presidency for the first time in a decade?
VertigoGal
Rock n' Roll Doggie FOB
VertigoGal said:
I agree.
So I guess it'll be Gonzales then. I see FOX is already using the moderate-by-comparison angle (just as I predicted
If abortion was made legal, I don't think it wouldn't bring back back-alley abortions, at least not on the scale some people are saying . It would just mean a huge black market for the abortion pill.
It's too late to edit it apparently, but I (obviously) meant if abortion were made *illegal*
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
Irvine511 said:
I'm with you. I can't imagine one single issue making or breaking my vote.
pax
ONE love, blood, life
BonoVoxSupastar said:
I was about to disagree with you, until I remembered that I'm hoping for Pat Casey (pro-life Democrat) to beat the pants off Rick Santorum ("pro-life" Republican...and all-around vile excuse for a legislator) next year in PA.
joyfulgirl
Blue Crack Addict
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2001
- Messages
- 16,690
BonoVoxSupastar said:
Same here. I've voted for Democrats, Independents, Greens and the occasional Republican (like NM's Senator Domenici who is very good for this state). There are too many important issues to vote based on just one issue. He is anti-abortion, I'm pro-choice.
Last edited:
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
80sU2isBest said:
no. this is not an either/or question. however, i think it's fair to point out that some people are less pro-life, and more pro-birth.
once born, children must be fed, cared for, educated, and given proper health care.
but i am saying that programs and services for living, breathing children are, for me, far more important than a fetus.
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
joyfulgirl said:
i'd vote for Republicans from New England. like Nancy Johnson, who has been my Congresswoman since i became a voter (and until i relinquished my CT statehood for VA ... which is stupid, since VA actively assaults gay people)
MissMoo
Acrobat
I just wanted to back up what joyfulgirl was saying about the abortion rate by posting this link to an article in Sojourners. The author is basically saying that abortion rates have gone up because there are more poor people and that if people are prolife they need to work on changing Bush's tax reforms and getting people jobs.
http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=news.display_article&mode=C&NewsID=4864
http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=news.display_article&mode=C&NewsID=4864
joyfulgirl
Blue Crack Addict
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2001
- Messages
- 16,690
MissMoo said:
and medical insurance
Similar threads
- Locked
- Sticky
