Wednesday, July 20, 2005

why John is better than Janice

After last night's nomination of John Roberts to fill the eighth seat on the Supreme Court, I admit I was disappointed it wasn't a woman. Then I got to thinking about it, and I was relieved it wasn't a woman.

Politically, I'd much prefer Janice Rogers Brown to John Roberts, Sandra Day O'Connor to them, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg or Stephen Breyer to all three. But in terms of women's rights (the ugly and all-important Roe vs. Wade precedent aside), I don't want O'Connor's seat on the bench to be known as "the woman's seat." Sadly, that's exactly how Ronald Reagan got her there in the first place.

Appointing another woman to fill her place could, at worst, send the message that the U.S. can wait until that woman retires before needing to appoint another. The Supreme Court shouldn't have a quota; it should have equality.

Obviously, the next Chief Justice should be a woman.


Blogger Balloon Pirate said...

I'm hoping he turns out to be a David Souter: quiet, reflective, and of his own mind.

I've always felt that inscrutibility is a good trait for a judge to have.


10:59 AM  
Blogger mal said...

Thinking back on some of our more memorable justices, it seems they are the ones that no one expects. Earl Warren comes to mind as does Sandra O Connor, people who strive for intellectual honesty and leave the ideology at the door to the court. They seem to help the lesser Justices be more than they might have other wise

I have hopes for Roberts

3:57 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home