home

Alone in a Room With 8 Men

By TChris, Section Supreme Court
Posted on Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 12:43:00 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

The Supreme Court is a lonely place for women ... or the woman, now that Justice O'Connor has been replaced by Justice Alito.

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said Friday that she dislikes being "all alone on the court" nearly a year after the retirement of Sandra Day O'Connor. Ginsburg, who spoke to an assembly at Suffolk University Law School, said she sees more women in law school, arguing before the court and sitting as federal judges.

"My consolation is that if you look at the federal courts altogether, you get a much different picture than you do if you look only at the U.S. Supreme Court," she said.

Justice Ginsburg noted that her male colleagues lack "certain sensitivities." Would anyone care to guess what they might be?

< McCain, Bush, and 2008 | Good Morning, Washington >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Alone in a Room With 8 Men | 67 comments (67 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    If she is like my (none / 0) (#1)
    by Wile ECoyote on Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 06:22:59 AM EST
    spouse, she would say farting and other bodily functions out loud.

    Inability (none / 0) (#2)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 10:07:03 AM EST

    Perhaps its the inability to make such a blatantly sexist statement with a straight face.

    Well, (none / 0) (#3)
    by Deconstructionist on Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 10:12:51 AM EST
     did she say all or most men lack certain sensitivities or that those 8 men lack them?

     

    Maybe Ginsberg needs a "speech code". (none / 0) (#4)
    by jondee on Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 10:31:27 AM EST
    She's talking about her male collegues; 8 men, not all men. You wingers are so P.C.

    Personally, I could see how the duo of Scalia and Thomas, in themselves, could function as a kind of emotional/spiritual black hole. Of course, later, they trickle that positive energy back down somewhere.

    Stereotype (none / 0) (#5)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 11:27:31 AM EST

    Would you say that the only white player on a baseball team was making a racist comment in describing the other eight black players as stupid, lazy, shuffle-butt, lay abouts?  Or a gentile describing the eight other Jews as money grubbing financial cheaters?  

    Just because you target the use of a racist or sexist stereotype to some members of a class does not make it any less racist or sexist.

    we're getting far afield... (none / 0) (#6)
    by Deconstructionist on Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 12:00:48 PM EST
     ...for a comment probably made half in jest, but ascribing to a limited number of people a characteristic that has been sterotypically applied to the larger class is not necessarily wrong or even unfair.

    Parent
    Hmm (none / 0) (#7)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 12:08:33 PM EST
    If the 8 (male) members of the court were to say that the 9th (female) member was hyper-sensitive in some areas, would we feel comfortable about their comment? And also feel comfortable in speculating what those ares were?

    Sarc, (none / 0) (#8)
    by Peaches on Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 12:24:12 PM EST
    Aren't all women hypersensitive? ;)

    Seriously, Women and Men are different. I don't see anything wrong with pointing out these difference. I am sure Ginsberg feels as out of place as the only women in a room full of eight other men, as I would feel as the only man in a room with other eight women.

    Parent

    depends (none / 0) (#9)
    by Deconstructionist on Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 12:25:05 PM EST
    .. if she had displayed behavior I consider "hyper-sensitive," I'd be comfortable and I'd probably speculate the other members were jokingly alluding to the same things I had observed.

      No different than how I assume most took her comments here -- but then again I DO LACK SENSITIVTY BECAUSE I'M A GUY.

    Parent

    Bad example (none / 0) (#11)
    by Dadler on Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 12:35:59 PM EST
    First, personally no, I wouldn't feel any hesitance about discussing those "sensitivities".  We all think certain things about women in general, we all think things about men in general.  We're all adults, we should be able to discuss things, including our own stereotypes and skewed paradigms, and how they effect our interaction with others in the workplace (and anywhere else).

    Second, on a tangent, I think your example was lacking in a key respect, that of the actual power dynamic at work in this case.  Were the majority to criticize the tiny minority in that fashion, it would mean nothing, it would not even need a free country in which to occur.  Whatever they believed were her incorrect sensitivities would have no effect on the court, that she is female is merely a token aspect of the men's outnumbering advantage.  Criticizing her would serve no rhetorical purpose, and raising things which serve no purpose, well, they tend to amount to zilch.  When a minority criticizes the majority as Ginsburg did, she is actually engaged in an act of freedom.  She is questioning and challenging the men on the court who far outnumber her.  That requires freedom and the ability/desire to use it.  The men getting on her about something would be seen as needless piling on.

    Parent

    Fair enough, Dadler (none / 0) (#12)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 12:44:59 PM EST
    What if only one of the men commented that she exhibited hyper-sensitivities that the men did not, because she was not a man?

    Parent
    I'm fine with it (none / 0) (#22)
    by Dadler on Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 01:31:25 PM EST
    A genuine discussion about differences in the genders, I have no problem with.  And I fully realize going in, as with any issue, that a substantial segment of the room could well have views that, to say the least, contrast with mine.  

    And on the other hand, if some guy chooses to make an ass of himself on the gender issue, I'll pop some corn and pull up a chair.  And if vocal criticism is warranted beyond the laughs, I'll have at it.  

    Parent

    Farting? How about something serious? (none / 0) (#10)
    by Kitt on Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 12:32:00 PM EST
    Perhaps, it's this paragraph:

    Of herself and O'Connor, the court's first female justice, Ginsburg said: "We have very different backgrounds. We divide on a lot of important questions, but we have had the experience of growing up women and we have certain sensitivities that our male colleagues lack."
    Sexist (none / 0) (#14)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 12:54:06 PM EST

    That statement is sexist as can be.  Every one of those nine justices grew up having numerous experiences effecting outlook that none of the other eight shared.  

    Parent
    So? (none / 0) (#16)
    by Deconstructionist on Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 01:04:17 PM EST
      Does that mean if Thomas said he had a certain perspective because he grew up black and that the others,  no matter how they try, will always lack a certain sensitivity to certain issues that affect him in a certain way that he would be racist?

      The mere fact you evidently WOULD NOT take (feigned) offense if, for example a Justice said he had certain sensitivies others lacked because they did not grow up in the same circumstances with regard to things other than race or sex indermines your argument.

      I think and feel differently about some things  than he does because I'm a woman is really no different than we think and feel differently because i grew up in a small town and he grew up in the city, or I grew up as the son of an immigrant and he's descended from the Bradfords...

     

    Parent

    Those men (none / 0) (#18)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 01:15:49 PM EST
    What is sexist is elevating that difference over every other and implying that those men cannot empathize.

    Parent
    Abdul, now you're doing ... (none / 0) (#19)
    by Deconstructionist on Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 01:21:31 PM EST
    what the others here do. MISCHARACTERIZING a comment and then attacking the mischaracterizxation of your own devise than what was actually said.

      She didn't elevate it-- you did. she didn't say they can't empathize -- you did.

     

    Parent

    Clear (none / 0) (#23)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 01:36:48 PM EST

    That seemed to be the clear implication.  i.e. They can's feel what I feel because of there maleness.  I don't think that mischaracterizes in the least.  Kicking a straw persun was not my intention.  I'm sorry if I was not clear on that.

    Parent
    Identity (none / 0) (#20)
    by squeaky on Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 01:22:36 PM EST
    Obviously Ginsberg identity, in this quote, it that of being a woman. This is not a given. There are women who mainly identify with men, as they feel like men, and are prone to sexist locker room talk, kinda like female Archi Bunkers.

    Obviously Thomas identifies with being white. Some would call him an oreo.

    Parent

    Now, squeaky's comment is offensive ... (none / 0) (#21)
    by Deconstructionist on Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 01:26:32 PM EST
     and blatantly racist, but ginsburg's was not.

    Parent
    Not Much Worldly Experience Decon? (none / 0) (#24)
    by squeaky on Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 01:38:59 PM EST
     Really, racist? How?

    You may have some legal training, but as far as identity politics you are in the stoneage.

    Identity is not an external thing. Yes, looking at someone you can classify them along gender lines and arrange then by skin tone, facial characteristics, etc, but Ginsburg is not talking about external things. She is talking about identity and what it feels like to be a woman in a room full of people who are acting manly a lot of the time.

    She has no one to roll her eyes with now that O'Conner is gone. That is what her comment is about.

    Parent

    like this: (none / 0) (#25)
    by Deconstructionist on Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 01:43:08 PM EST
    "Thomas identifies with being white. Some would call him an oreo."

      You really don't know why it is is racist for you to say that?

    Parent

    No (none / 0) (#26)
    by squeaky on Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 01:45:14 PM EST
    I am asking you.

    Parent
    Dadler (none / 0) (#27)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 01:48:01 PM EST
    Pass the popcorn.

    Parent
    OK (none / 0) (#28)
    by Deconstructionist on Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 01:53:56 PM EST
      By that comment YOU are suggesting that race is something which goes far beyond skin color. YOU are suggesting that the color of one skin should define the person's sense of identity for himself and for you. YOU are suggesting that a person of a certain color of skin should have a certain "self-identity" and also that YOU use the degree to which that person's actual self-identity differs from your prejudice as to what it should be to judge him.

      I could go on but it isn't necessary.

    Parent

    Race (none / 0) (#29)
    by squeaky on Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 02:16:25 PM EST
    By that comment YOU are suggesting that race is something which goes far beyond skin color. YOU are suggesting that the color of one skin should define the person's sense of identity for himself and for you.

    No, I am suggesting none of that. Race is largely a fake construct that is used by those with power to oppress those without power.

    Identity is another thing altogether and that is what I thought the discussion was about.

    You brought up the analogy regarding external characteristics of Thomas (skin color) and Ginsburg  (gender). And implied that since Thomas doesn't feel out of place with others who have lighter skin than his, Ginsburg shouldn't feel out of place with men.

    As far as I understand, Ginsburg's remark had little to do with her gender, but much to do with the fact that she identifies with the cultural construct of woman. So your analogy is silly.

    The Oreo analogy was invented by me, sorry to say as it is quite succinct. Especially apt though when speaking of Thomas the first dark skinned reactionary to sit on the SC.

    BTW- your use of caps is rather HS, grow up pal.

    Parent

    Correction (none / 0) (#30)
    by squeaky on Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 02:18:37 PM EST
    Sorry a bit of wishful thinking. The Oreo analogy was not invented by me.

    Parent
    simply beyond belief! (none / 0) (#32)
    by Deconstructionist on Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 02:32:47 PM EST
    You really just don't have any ability to think do you? You really think that using social-science jargon is a substitute for thought.

    you say:

    "Race is largely a fake construct that is used by those with power to oppress those without power."

     Then how do you justify your approving of people calling Thomas an "Oreo?" If race is a "fake construct" how can one be critical of one for not being on the inside as you think he should be based on the way he is on the outside?  Aren't YOU the one approving of ther "construct" that a person of a certain skin color should have certain beliefs, attitudes and opinions because of that skin color and that he is somehow disloyal if he doesn't? how is one disloyal to a a "fake construct?"

    "Identity is another thing altogether and that is what I thought the discussion was about."

      but, YOU seem to be the one suggesting that skin color should define that identity and approving of people attacking thomas for not sharing the identity YOU think he should have.

    "You brought up the analogy regarding external characteristics of Thomas (skin color) and Ginsburg  (gender)."

      Yes, I did, because it was appropriate and instructive to those capable of following a simple line of reasoning. Evidently, you are not in that group.

     "And implied that since Thomas doesn't feel out of place with others who have lighter skin than his, Ginsburg shouldn't feel out of place with men."

     No, I implied no such thing. I implied that if Thomas stated that his experience of growing up black colored his world view in some ways and that people who did not grow up black could never totally appreciate the ways in which his experience affected him that he would not fairly be accused of racism. the point being that Ginsburg should not be accused of sexism for her remark.

    "As far as I understand, Ginsburg's remark had little to do with her gender, but much to do with the fact that she identifies with the cultural construct of woman. So your analogy is silly."

      you write "little to do with her gender, but much to do with the fact that she identifies with the cultural construct of woman" and you have the balls to call someone else silly? (My use of "balls" has nothing to do with gender and much to with the cultural construct of foolishness hiding behind absurd jargon and thinking it bold and profound.)

    "The Oreo analogy was invented by me, sorry to say as it is quite succinct. Especially apt though when speaking of Thomas the first dark skinned reactionary to sit on the SC."

      Yes, and it categorizes you beyond rational dispute as an avowed racist.


    Parent

    Mudslinging again Decon? (none / 0) (#39)
    by squeaky on Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 04:07:31 PM EST
    Ah, Decon, not living up to your moniker again. Real life is contradictory, not a simple story line as you would have it.
    "Race is largely a fake construct that is used by those with power to oppress those without power."

     Then how do you justify your approving of people calling Thomas an "Oreo?" If race is a "fake construct" how can one be critical of one for not being on the inside as you think he should be based on the way he is on the outside?

    Because Thomas and his WH pals want it both ways and milk his skin color as a defense that they have nothing against dark skinned people.  Equal Opportunity was fine when he was a beneficiary, but now that he is in with the elites, he turns his back on the concept. That makes Thomas an Oreo.

    Thomas has distanced himself from his cultural roots. He identifies with Scalia. Upward mobility?

    Yes, I did, because it was appropriate and instructive to those capable of following a simple line of reasoning. Evidently, you are not in that group.

    hahahaha

    Simple is as simple does, but not applicable here.

    Parent

    Identity Politics (none / 0) (#31)
    by Gabriel Malor on Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 02:30:20 PM EST
    It is the identity politics of the Left that keep me from voting Democrat. Well, one of the reasons I cannot vote Democrat.

    The need to slot everyone into a group according to arbitrary factors like skin color or gender and then evaluate each invididual by how well they conform to the group model. Rather than treat everyone with proper dignity and respect as an individual, we end up perpetuating the differences between people. Like, for example, creating special categories of crimes for special categories of people.

    It leads to such intellectually deficient notions as the special powers of Jews to read the Old Testament. It has led to the excoriation of Justice Thomas for not "acting black." You've determined just what it is to be a black man and decided blacks which don't fit the mold are fair game for insults. How repulsive.

    Parent

    Wrong (none / 0) (#33)
    by squeaky on Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 02:35:52 PM EST
    You've determined just what it is to be a black man and decided blacks which don't fit the mold are fair game for insults.
    Learn to read Gabe, your baggage is clouding your eyes. And don't even pretend to have a gimmer of understanding about the Identity Politics of the Left, because quite obviously you don't have the faintest idea.

    Parent
    Squaky, you know better (none / 0) (#49)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 05:03:15 PM EST
    Squeaky, each and every black that has been appointed by Bush has been attacked. You know that to be true, I know it to be true and the world knows it to be true.

    It is what Demos do to those who don't the line and stay on the reservation.

    I give you Powell, Rice, and Brown.

    They do this because it is easier to control the "leaders" of a group rather than the individuals.

    Upon meeting me, white liberals take one look at my skin and presume I'm a left-leaning, Congressional Black Caucus-supporting, racial preference-loving, pro-infanticide crony. They condescendingly offer opinions about "diversity and multicultural" this or "Democratic fundraiser" that. I usually excuse such transgressions because it's natural to quickly size up people based on information readily available. When I rebut these presumptions and share my deeply held conservative beliefs, however, I get open-mouthed stares.

    With 90 percent of the black vote locked down tight, Democrats don't quite know what to do with the other 10 percent, so they pull the old plantation routine by turning blacks against each other. While the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) shamelessly attacks California Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown, a black conservative nominated by President George W. Bush for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, white liberals sit back and gaze upon their handiwork. It's life as usual on the old plantation.

    Link

    BTW - As you know, I consider myself a social liberal greatly at odds with the Repubs social issues. I think it a shame that the Left has stolen the name, "liberal."


    Parent

    trusim (none / 0) (#51)
    by squeaky on Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 05:07:54 PM EST
    Squeaky, each and every black that has been appointed by Bush has been attacked. You know that to be true, I know it to be true and the world knows it to be true.

    Yes, it is tough being in power. You could extend your truism to: each and every person that has been appointed to the Bush administration....Or the Clinton administration..has been attacked.

    Parent

    squeaky (none / 0) (#53)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 05:12:33 PM EST
    Well, since you brought it up, how many white appointees of either administration have been attacked for not being "white" enough?

    Parent
    Clinton (none / 0) (#55)
    by squeaky on Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 05:25:59 PM EST
    If by white enough, you mean waspy enough, there are many, many.

    Race is a construct. When people are criticized for not being___ it is their cultural identity that is being criticised. Clinton was marganalized by the press and DC establishment for having no class. In other words he did not grow up with the silver spoon in his mouth and did not try to pretend that he did.

    Parent

    Nope (none / 0) (#56)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 05:38:52 PM EST
    I meant how many people attacked white appointees of either administration for not being "white" enough. Just like I said the first time.

    Parent
    Define your terms (none / 0) (#59)
    by squeaky on Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 06:02:40 PM EST
    Well sarc, if my above response did not answer your question, you have to define what you mean by being "white enough". Usually it is a class thing (manners, etc) but obviously you have something else in mind.

    Parent
    Nope (none / 0) (#60)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 06:17:25 PM EST
    As he-who-shall-not-be-named points out, those three black appointees have been attacked for being too "white," ie., not "black" enough.

    Considering the hue of their skins, I suspect those attacks were not concerning their actual skin tone, but rather their beliefs, actions, etc.

    You, truthfully enough, tried to say all appointees have been attacked. However, hwsnbn was speaking specifically of black appointees attacked for not being "black" enough and you, disingenuously imo, tried to sidestep that issue.

    So, how many white appointees have been attacked for not being "white" enough, or, if you prefer, being too "black?" Or, as you would probably say, for being a "wigger," considering your comfortableness with it's opposite, the term "oreo."

    Parent

    As I said (none / 0) (#61)
    by squeaky on Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 06:41:39 PM EST
    Many have been accused for not being white enough and I think Clinton is a good example.

    Since I have not ever said that someone was not black enough, you should ask them what they mean.

    My guess is that it has to do with the fact that they were so busy moving up the ladder that they forgot about their friends in the process. Friends that they percieved, if embraced or supported, would limit their race toward upward mobility.

    Clarence Thomas seems to me one of those. Another description of his behavior is Uncle Tom, Oreo is a recent update.

    If you mean by "white enough" purely the color of skin there are still some in NO who are considered not "white enough". They are classified by those that believe themselves "white enough" Octoroons

    Parent

    Good night (none / 0) (#62)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 07:00:23 PM EST
    sqeaky.

    Parent
    Thanks Sarc (none / 0) (#63)
    by squeaky on Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 07:02:41 PM EST
    And sweet dreams.

    Parent
    gabe, your deficiencies are continually on display (none / 0) (#64)
    by cpinva on Tue Jan 30, 2007 at 05:57:08 AM EST
    here, and probably anywhere else you decide to leave a hot, steamin' pile of what passes for analytical thought, in your bizarre universe.

    the old testament IS the jewish bible, period, end of discussion. unless you have concrete evidence to the contrary, you've merely displayed, yet again, your total ignorance of history. congratulations on your boring consistency.

    since it IS the jewish bible, that a rabbi, and not a priest, or other christian minister, would be the best person to interpret it should come as no surprise, it would only be logical.

    what about that don't you understand?

    Parent

    You find my statement sexist or Ginsberg's? (none / 0) (#34)
    by Kitt on Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 03:11:50 PM EST
    No more sexist or bordering on stupid than some of the comments prior to my comment.

    Every one of those nine justices grew up having numerous experiences effecting outlook that none of the other eight shared.  

    Certainly, but only one who is a woman. Regardless of the other's experiences none of them have the insight Ginsberg has had as a woman. Other than, Thomas, who would have a unique perspective if he were really black.


    Parent

    Does that mean (none / 0) (#35)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 03:15:37 PM EST
    Ginsburg is lacking the insight the others have had as men?

    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#36)
    by Deconstructionist on Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 03:28:26 PM EST
    but I think we can all agree that there is no history of men being under-represented in the supreme court or in any other forum with power world-wide.

    Parent
    Decon (none / 0) (#37)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 03:37:17 PM EST
    I certainly agree. But I think one of the core questions of this entire thread is: "Is a woman's "difference of insight" a requirement for fairness/validity/whatever on our Supreme Court?

    Parent
    no (none / 0) (#38)
    by Deconstructionist on Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 03:45:34 PM EST
    I don't want a quota system with seats "reserved" on the basis of sex, race, religion, geography or anything else. In a perfect world, I'd rather have the smartest, wisest, fairest... 9 than a demographically diverse 9. I live in this world and since we're not going to get the former, I think diversity of background and experience somwewhat improves a group which is selected on other criteria 9 diverse politicians put more of a check on each other than 9 very similar ones.

    Parent
    Sounds (none / 0) (#40)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 04:08:16 PM EST
    about right to me.

    Parent
    You can have both (none / 0) (#43)
    by squeaky on Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 04:26:39 PM EST
    I'd rather have the smartest, wisest, fairest... 9 than a demographically diverse 9.
    Yes racist have been arguing that for a long time.

    Hate to break it to you but the two are not mutually exclusive. Quotas would never be an issue if people who have power were not so afraid of including other smartest, wisest and fairest people who are culturally lower on the totem pole than they perceive themselves to be.

    Parent

    In case you didn't notice (none / 0) (#44)
    by Peaches on Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 04:37:31 PM EST
    Decon was making an argument for diversification of the supreme court.

    Determining the smartest, wisest and fairest judges is not something that any group is afraid of, it is something that no one is ever going to get all groupd and individuals to agree upon. Therefore Decon said:

    I think diversity of background and experience somwewhat improves a group which is selected on other criteria 9 diverse politicians put more of a check on each other than 9 very similar ones.

    He didn't mention quotas. I doubt if it is something he would defend though, since it would lead to appointments of judges who might be judged as not among the most wise, smart and fair such as Judge Thomas. But, I could be wrong.

    Parent

    What? (none / 0) (#47)
    by squeaky on Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 04:49:37 PM EST
    Peaches-

    Are we reading the same comment?

    Decon:

    In a perfect world, I'd rather have the smartest, wisest, fairest... 9 than a demographically diverse 9. I live in this world and since we're not going to get the former....

    then diversity as second best since it "somewhat" improves....

    Not a big cheerleader for diversity.

    And as to quotas:

    I don't want a quota system....

    My point is that diversity of experience and quality of mind are in no way mutually exclusive.
    The only reason we do not see more diversity in the towers of power is diversity is really scary to some...the some that pull the strings.

    Parent

    Empathy (none / 0) (#42)
    by squeaky on Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 04:18:48 PM EST
    Having people, who are qualified, smart, etc, is only one part of the puzzle. Variety of experience can only add to the wisdom of a group that has to not only rule on law but be able to see things from a many perspectives.

    So yes, Ginsburg's ID with being a woman, is a big asset to the SC. Thomas on the other hand seems to have contempt for his cultural roots and shows no sign of having empathy for those less fortunate than himself.

    Parent

    Squeaky (none / 0) (#45)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 04:41:20 PM EST
    While having a diverse group is good for any number of organizations and/or activities.....

    I see no reason to have one in which sex is not supposed to play a role. The constitution supposedly is for everyone equally.....

    Parent

    Agreed (none / 0) (#50)
    by squeaky on Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 05:03:39 PM EST
    I see no reason to have one in which sex is not supposed to play a role.

    Can't have enough of that.

    Parent

    Thats the rub (none / 0) (#52)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 05:09:16 PM EST

    The real question is which will be the favored catagories to include in this diversity calculation.  Why limit this to race and sex?  Why not include:

    Handedness,
    Handicap,
    Sexual appetite,
    Religion,
    Height,
    Weight,
    Education,
    Age,
    Literacy,
    Vegans,
    Cannibals
    Allergies,
    Etc?

    Parent

    Representative Courts (none / 0) (#54)
    by canuck eh on Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 05:24:43 PM EST
    Considering that this body is charged with making decisions for the entire populace it seems to me that it should be representative of the populace.

    The last time I looked, America was not 8/9 male, nor was it 8/9 white. (I find characterizations of Thomas as not being black highly offensive, I don't care what neighbourhood he grew up in or how much money he has, I can guarantee that he has been referred to as a ni**er and felt the pain of prejudice)

    Of course a woman's 'difference of insight' is a requirement, as is a black person's 'difference of insight', and a hispanic person's 'difference of insight', and a jewish person's 'difference of insight' etc.

    Hopefully one day this will be a reality, and the court will be a far more judicious body as a result.

    Parent

    This debate gets heavy.... (none / 0) (#57)
    by kdog on Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 06:01:23 PM EST
    A partisan president could find 9 people of different races, genders, and religions who all share the same political philosophy or the same interpretation of the Constitution.  Who does that serve?  

    Parent
    canuck eh (none / 0) (#58)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 06:02:19 PM EST
    Which part of the constitution would you consider it necessary to have a woman's (etc) "difference of insight" for a fair/valid/whatever opinion?

    Parent
    This is what I mean. (none / 0) (#46)
    by Gabriel Malor on Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 04:47:32 PM EST
    Other than, Thomas, who would have a unique perspective if he were really black.

    First, what do you really mean when you say "if he were really black"? I mean, Justice Thomas is black, if you hadn't noticed. He just doesn't fit into the nice little hole that some people have created for his, eh, "type of folk" (ifyouknowwhatImeanandIthinkyoudo). For the audacity to not conform to the type of behavior that has been assigned to his skin color, he is rejected.

    Second, assuming for a minute that you're right and that Justice Thomas is not "really black," doesn't that mean he's more likely to actually have a "unique perspective" than if he conformed to your expectations for what a black man should be? I mean, if he's not "really black" and he's embraced his "white identiy", doesn't that make him the first and only Supreme Court Justice to do so. That makes him pretty unique.

    Parent

    Race (none / 0) (#48)
    by squeaky on Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 04:56:54 PM EST
    I mean, Justice Thomas is black, if you hadn't noticed.

    Dark skin but light cuture.

    Gabriel-
    Do you really believe that if someone has dark skin that they are a different race than you?

    Does that mean that some are pure and some are mixed race?

    How do you determine the purity?

    And what race does the mixed belong to?

    Eugenics?

    Is purity only visual or is it a family tree sort of thing?

    Are you part of a race?

    If so, how far back can you trace your purity?

    Not science, that is for sure.

    Parent

    hmmmmmmmmmmmmm (none / 0) (#13)
    by cpinva on Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 12:50:26 PM EST
    perhaps they were gauche enough to comment on the pastel blue, taffeta A-line skirt not going well with the black flats? you know how sensitive some women can be about those sorts of things.

    seriously, is this all she has to whine about? the lack of certain "sensitivities" in her male colleagues? geez, hasn't she been working with most of these guys for years now? what, did she and O'Connor go off to the "crying room" when one of the guys made a bad joke? probably not.

    she and O'Connor "had the experience of growing up women". well, yeah, i hope so, otherwise this has all been a bad hoax.

    probably the reason justice ginsburg didn't elaborate was because, at that very moment, she realized what an idiotic thing she'd just said, and was hoping to snuff it.

    yes, i have had the experience of being the only male, in a room full of women. oddly enough, i didn't have a problem with it. i can't comment for the women.

    cpin (none / 0) (#15)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 12:58:15 PM EST
    What's a "taffeta a-line skirt?" Maybe Ginsberg's onto something...

    Parent
    CP (none / 0) (#17)
    by Peaches on Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 01:05:33 PM EST
    Are you Gay? Just kidding. Uncalled for. I just couldn't help myself.

    Seriously, observe a any social gathering and watch the men all cluster around each other and the women do the same. It is not a matter of feeling comfortable, it is a matter of what you feel most comfortable with. Why shouldn't Ginsberg feel that the retirement of O'connor has made the dynamics of the group change for the worse in terms of her comfort level? I agree, it probably was something she regretted saying almost as soon as she said it, because it is difficult to point to exactly why we all want to be surrounded by people who share similar experiences with us.

    Parent

    lack "certain sensitivities" (none / 0) (#41)
    by ding7777 on Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 04:11:49 PM EST
    Rape and the fear of an unwanted pregnancy, is my guess

    peaches (none / 0) (#65)
    by cpinva on Tue Jan 30, 2007 at 06:11:55 AM EST
    Are you Gay?

    nope, but i'm pretty happy most of the time. if it will make you feel better, i'll get out my "gay dictionary", and look it up.

    we all want to be surrounded by others exactly like us, because then we don't have to think, we know exactly what to expect.

    in a world before easy transportation, most of us lived in exactly that type of environment, all our lives. of course, that was over a hundred years ago, you'd think ginsburg would have gotten over it by now.

    on the other hand, having to put up with scalia every day at work would probably drive any reasonable person off the deep end, regardless of gender.

    Rape and the fear of an unwanted pregnancy, is my guess

    i'm guessing these are not two issues that compel justice ginsburg, on a personal level. on a universal level, they probably factor in, just as they do for any other woman, SC justice or laundress.

    How is her comment (none / 0) (#66)
    by Pancho on Wed Jan 31, 2007 at 12:36:43 AM EST
    any different than that of Lawrence Summers who was run out of town for suggesting that there may be subtle differences in genders?

    sex matters? (none / 0) (#67)
    by windmiller04 on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 04:42:01 AM EST
    In the case against VMI, all that was necessary for the female cadets to fit in and not feel alone in that big Corps of men was that they were capable of doing all the activities required of a VMI cadet.  On the bench, Ginsburg doesn't have to do pushups, and the uniform she wears is more identical to her fellow justices than the female VMI cadets' uniforms are to their brother rats'.   Maybe now she's changed her mind and thinks that sex matters when it comes to fitting in.  Too late though to stop the 1000 awkward moments a day she helped create at VMI.

    Alone in a Room With 8 Men | 67 comments (67 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment