Is it good for the SCOTUS not to have a womens perspective?

[MissCatholic]

Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, Blanche Lincoln and Mary Landrieu have congratulated John Roberts for receiving the nomination on the SCOTUS. But they are all disappointed that President Bush didn't select a women.

Is it good for the SCOTUS not to have a women as one of the nine judges?

[??????????]

Ruth Bader Ginsburg?

[MODU]

It doesn't matter.  Being a man, woman, black, white, gay, straight . . . it doesn't change what the Constitution says.

[ATFFL]

Ruth Bader Ginsburg?

She's a man!

[John Dibble]

It doesn't matter.  Being a man, woman, black, white, gay, straight . . . it doesn't change what the Constitution says.

[??????????]

Ruth Bader Ginsburg?

She's a man!

Yeah, you're right!

[MissCatholic]

It doesn't matter.  Being a man, woman, black, white, gay, straight . . . it doesn't change what the Constitution says.

Abortion is the most explosive issue of our time. The far right and the far left just go nuts. With this in mind i think it would have been nice had Edith Clement got the nomination.

She is a Conservative but Bush has the right to elect who he choses. My real fear is that he will replace the real Conservative with Edith Jones - who has said some very 'Rick Santorum' things on abortion. Then the country will blow up.

[MODU]

Abortion is the most explosive issue of our time.

I thought it was :
1) Iraq
2) Patriot Act
3) Gay marriage
4) Embrionic stemcell research
5) National Debt

Oh, I'm sure I'm missing some.    Abortion is just another key debate, but I wouldn't say it's the most explosive.  What we need is the moderates to get involve and push the populist view on abortion:  "Legal in cases of rape, incest, or threatens the life of the mother."  The only other addition is in regards to the welfare of a minor:   "Children under the age of 18 may have an abortion in any case, but must have parental consent before a procedure is performed."

[Emsworth]

No, it is not good to have a "woman's perspective." Judges should make decisions based on the basis of the Constitution and the law, not on the basis of their femininity (or lack thereof).

[The Duke]

As Emsworth said, they shouldn't bring a gender specific perspective, they should bring a judges perspective and anyone who writes decisions that are derived from their gender isn't fit for the court.

[minionofmidas]

Is it good for the SCOTUS to have a mens perspective then?

[Emsworth]

Is it good for the SCOTUS to have a mens perspective then?

No, by the same reasoning.

[AuH2O]

Don't worry. Within a year there will be another woman on the court.

But I don't think you'll be too happy even so. Unless you want a Justice Janice Rogers Brown...

[Richard]

Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, Blanche Lincoln and Mary Landrieu have congratulated John Roberts for receiving the nomination on the SCOTUS. But they are all disappointed that President Bush didn't select a women.

Is it good for the SCOTUS not to have a women as one of the nine judges?

I would like to see Janice Rogers-Brown on the Supreme Court as Chief Justice.  You would, of course, approve of another woman such as herself, right?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

With Rhenquist being unlikely to continue serving past the end of Bush's term, Bush should get at least one more nomination to make.  From a practical point of view,  now if you are Bush and in your view Roberts and a second person who is a female and/or a minority are the two most qualified people for the job of Supreme Court Justice, which would you pick to be the next Chief Justice?  I think Roberts' nomination means that there is no chance that Bush will pick a sitting Associate Justice to be the next Chief Justice.

[opebo]

The number of female justices should be about four or five, obviously.

[AuH2O]

The number of female justices should be about four or five, obviously.

I agree. Janice Rogers Brown, Priscilla Owen, Edith Jones, Mary Ann Glendon.

[dazzleman]

It doesn't matter.  The court could be all-female, all-male, or anything in between for all I care.

Nobody should be excluded from the court because of their gender (or ethnicity).  But that doesn't mean that they should be included because of it either.

There is no male or female interpretation of the law and constitution.

I think Bush was smart not to make the O'Connor seat a "women's seat."  His dad made the Thurgood Marshall seat a "black seat."  He can appoint a woman next time around and nobody can say that he is simply beancounting.  And there are bound to be two or more vacancies on the court during the remainder of Bush's term.

[Gabu]

If having a male-dominated SCOTUS makes the court biased against women, that is the fault of the individual judges for not doing their job, not something that can be remedied by appointing women biased against men to "even things out".

[Lunar]

The number of female justices should be about four or five, obviously.

I agree. Janice Rogers Brown, Priscilla Owen, Edith Jones, Mary Ann Glendon.

I've read an entire book written by Glendon, I think I'd confirm her, but it'd be a hard decision.  She'd be a scary judge, but would be extremely independent, bringing an important dissenting voice.

Ideally, 4-5 women would be present on the bench.  However, the way to fix any gender inequalities that exist is not to pick someone Bush feels to be less qualified in order to placate the masses.  Also, it's important to note that women are less likely to meet Bush's qualifications simply due to demographics (they're more likely to be liberal and pro-abortion), which really isn't Bush's fault.

[opebo]

The number of female justices should be about four or five, obviously.

I agree. Janice Rogers Brown, Priscilla Owen, Edith Jones, Mary Ann Glendon.

I've read an entire book written by Glendon, I think I'd confirm her, but it'd be a hard decision.  She'd be a scary judge, but would be extremely independent, bringing an important dissenting voice.

Ideally, 4-5 women would be present on the bench.  However, the way to fix any gender inequalities that exist is not to pick someone Bush feels to be less qualified in order to placate the masses.  Also, it's important to note that women are less likely to meet Bush's qualifications simply due to demographics (they're more likely to be liberal and pro-abortion), which really isn't Bush's fault.

I don't see why everyone keeps harping on 'qualifications'.  What do those matter?  I prefer a focus on ideology.

[Jake]

A solid reason why the Democratic Party, or more specifically, liberals, should not be placed in charge of the country.

[opebo]

A solid reason why the Democratic Party, or more specifically, liberals, should not be placed in charge of the country.

How ridiculous.  Your side focuses only upon ideology, not 'qualifications'.  Chats about the latter are just sanctimonious nonsense.

[Jake]

Which is why Bush appointed the Chairman of the NRLC instead of a federal judge. Oh wait...

[Gabu]

A solid reason why the Democratic Party, or more specifically, liberals, should not be placed in charge of the country.

Hello, Jake, meet Hasty Generalization Fallacy; I'm sure you two will get along.