In case you haven't heard, Justice John Paul Stevens is retiring from the Supreme Court. at the end of this term. Nominated by Ford, a Republican, in 1975, Stevens became one of the leading liberals on the Court. Earlier this week, Obama announced his pick to replace Stevens: Elena Kagan. Kagan is currently the Solicitor General (first female to hold that post) and is the former dean of the Harvard Law School (first female to do that too). If confirmed, Kagan would be the 3rd woman on the Supreme Court, and the 4th woman ever to be to a Supreme Court justice.
Some commentators have pointed out that when Stevens leaves, there will be no Protestants or veterans on the Court. Now, I'm all for diversity, but let's not forget that there were no women on the Supreme Court until 1981. And women are about half the U.S. population. Currently, there are 2 women on the Supreme Court, which is about 22%. Women are better represented on the highest court in the land than in Congress, where there are 17 female Senators and 76 female Representatives (out of 100 senators and 435 house reps).
The commentary on diversity is especially interesting. It appears that a diverse Supreme Court (or any other branch) is important because it suggests that it will be a representative body. People are concerned with not only the gender diversity of the Court but also the religious diversity as well. We're not concerned with only gender and religion; a collection of op eds in the New York Times made a case for other kinds of diversity: age, sexual orientation, race, atheism, military background, etc. This concern with diversity and representation seems counterintuitive; after all, aren't judges supposed to be neutral? Shouldn't they check their backgrounds, experiences, and ideologies at the door? It's an interesting notion. If they are supposed to be neutral and impartial, is diversity then relatively unimportant?
Some commentators have pointed out that when Stevens leaves, there will be no Protestants or veterans on the Court. Now, I'm all for diversity, but let's not forget that there were no women on the Supreme Court until 1981. And women are about half the U.S. population. Currently, there are 2 women on the Supreme Court, which is about 22%. Women are better represented on the highest court in the land than in Congress, where there are 17 female Senators and 76 female Representatives (out of 100 senators and 435 house reps).
The commentary on diversity is especially interesting. It appears that a diverse Supreme Court (or any other branch) is important because it suggests that it will be a representative body. People are concerned with not only the gender diversity of the Court but also the religious diversity as well. We're not concerned with only gender and religion; a collection of op eds in the New York Times made a case for other kinds of diversity: age, sexual orientation, race, atheism, military background, etc. This concern with diversity and representation seems counterintuitive; after all, aren't judges supposed to be neutral? Shouldn't they check their backgrounds, experiences, and ideologies at the door? It's an interesting notion. If they are supposed to be neutral and impartial, is diversity then relatively unimportant?
No comments:
Post a Comment