For the first time in Supreme Court history, three women serve on the court at the same time: newcomer Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor with one year experience on the court, and Ruth Bader Ginsberg, who joined the court in 1993.
In the court's history, the vast majority of the 112 Supreme Court justices -- 95 percent -- have been white men. But that's starting to change.
Thurgood Marshall, the first African-American justice, was appointed in 1967 by President Lyndon B. Johnson. Sandra Day O'Connor was the first woman justice; she was nominated to the court by President Ronald Reagan in 1981. Ruth Bader Ginsberg was appointed by President Bill Clinton. And the two most recent appointees to the court, Sotomayor (2009) and Kagan (2010), were both appointed by President Barack Obama.
I read an interesting commentary that appeared on Slate.com that addresses the question of what impact three women (as opposed to two or one) may have on the Supreme Court. Click here to read the article.
After you read the article, post a comment about what you think. Do you agree or disagree? Or, what's your reaction to the commentary? Rather than just say yes or no, please support your answer with why you think that. You may also comment generally on the article and the composition of the court.
37 comments:
I think it is great that there are now 3 women justices because I think that having the opinions of women in the Supreme Court is extremely important. Women have never before have had such a voice before in the Supreme Court and I am sure adding one more woman to the group will undoubtedly change the dynamic. Women and men can have very different perspectives on certain topics so I think it is important that women have a strong prescence in the government in general.
I don't think one more woman in the Supreme Court is going to make a big difference. At the end of the article, it states the idea that the justices continue to decide the cases that affect the ways in which women in America are educated, hired, compensated, etc. I think women have accomplished being "equal" with men for the most part. I can't imagine any big changes are in store.
It is very interesting that social scientist think 3 is the magic number for having an impact in a group. Why 3? Maybe they need to talk things out with more than just one other person? Women do think differently than men. I guess we'll have the opportunity to see what happens!
I think it's great that three women are now able to speak their opinions and be heard by the public. It's kind of like Obama being elected for president, it's definitely a change for our society and I believe this is also a big change for us. Women have never had the authority to voice their opinions and be considered 'appropriate' for such a high role in the court system. This just shows that our society is making different changes and hopefully will succeed and follow through with their goals.
Kaitlin W.
T-Th, 9:30 a.m.
I find it very refreshing and empowering to have female perspective evident in the Supreme Court. While I'm not here to play the sexist card, women tend to have more sympathetic morals than men (especially in the case involving a strip search of a 13-year-old girl). I agree with the critic's argument that each person has a slight bias, whether it has been proved evident or not. Gender variety helps maintain a well-balanced opinion in the court room, whether it's male v. female, male v. male, or female v. female.
Kristina Kenney
T-TH 9:30
I definitely think it is not only important, but absolutely necessary to have a larger presence of women on the Supreme Court so I'm glad there are now three.
In order for the court to represent and make rulings in an unbiased and fair way, obviously diversity is key. As the article points out, women make up half the population and those individuals need their views represented within the court.
Justice Ginsburg made a great point when she used the 2009 case about a 13-year-old girl who was strip-searched by school officials as an example, and said that her colleagues "have never been a 13-year-old girl."
love&respect is Lindsey Milward. Username is messed up, fyi?
I think that some people might feel that the increasing number of women in the Supreme Court might lead to bias, but I feel that it provides insight into matters that otherwise wouldn't be considered.
"Women claim they are finally able to speak openly when they don't feel their own voice is meant to be the voice of all women." I'm sure that this responsibility of representing all women can be daunting, but I'm glad that with an increased number of women in the Supreme Court, they can now provide a voice for a huge part of our population.
Justin Buchanan T-TH 2 p.m.
I agree that it can only be a good thing that the Supreme Court is getting more diverse. I think that the ability to decide the constitutional rights of our society is a responsibility that should fall on very broad, ethnically diverse shoulders; because America is extremely broad and diverse. Women make up over half of our population so the ratio of Justices should represent that. We need our justice system to represent the common area of society, which is a mega conglomeration of people from all walks of life; their interests should be represented in the highest courts of the United States.
I think that the study taken makes sense. Three might be the magic number for a minority, in this case women, to feel at ease when discussing or making decisions. I think that it is accurate in the article that if there are only one or two women in a group, they may feel as if their decision is the decision of ALL women. It may also be perceived that way. If a judge rules one way, people may think all women think that way. I also agree that it will bring another point of view to the Court. I think that adding different perspectives is always a good idea in collaboration, specifically pertaining to law. I enjoyed learning of this study.
No doubt, added diversity in the Supreme Court is great for the judicial system. The power of three could hold true I suppose, especially when it means that one-third of the court's seats are now held by women. Also, the need for just four of nine justices voting to hear a case and we could see a change in what cases are heard by the court.
On the other hand, I don't think there will be earth shattering changes because I agree with the article's other assertion that there is probably not a lot of fundamental difference in how men and women think about law.
I enjoyed the simple but applicable comparison made in the commentary that read: "My experience is that when there is a mixed group at a meeting, everyone behaves better." There really isn't much else to add to that. Now that we are starting to lean towards an improved Supreme Court in terms of representation, I definitely see change a-coming, no matter how minuscule it may be.
^9:30 a.m. class
I think the article was well-written and makes some solid points. I don't personally expect to see huge swings in the way the Court handles cases or decides on them - but I am much more content with the idea that there is diversity and multiple point-of-views that need to be discussed en route to making a decision. Not only do we have three women but one of them is Latina! For a country with such a wide array of races/cultures, we deserve a Supreme Court that represents that diversity.
Kendra Garcia 9:30
After reading this article I was torn in between swelling with pride and being saddened. Yes, its amazing that women are finally getting the recognition we deserve; that we are being looked at as assests as opposed to a problem, however let's think about what were celebrating. Sufferage happened in the 1920's and we are just now at a point, 90 years later, where our country is allowing 3 women in the court. If we think about how many justices there actually are women are still extremely disadvantaged. So while I am excited that we have this now, I just hope it doesnt take another 90 years for the next three women to be appointed.
Kim Landry 9:30
The points of the article that I found most interesting didn’t have to do with the authors opinions about how three women may change the influence on the Supreme Court. What I found most interesting was the Wellesley study that stated that the number of women it takes to influence a corporate boardroom was three. It makes sense that three women would make more of an influence than two but it is interesting to me that three is the magic number where a woman’s voice is heard as equally as a man’s. I also agree with the commenter above. It has been 90 years since women won the right to vote, this change has been a long time coming and it’s a little sad that it has taken this long.
I agree with what is being said because, as they haeve pointed out, bringing three women to the table balances everything out. Not all women are raging feminists and soft.
We must also remember that half of the population is--like the article mentioned--is female. Why would having three women serving be a disater? We want everything as fair as possible and I think the women will bring a different angle to issues that the men would not think about. The example of the 13-year-old girl being strip searched is a good example of this. Of course most men wouldn't understand what is wrong with that because they have never been a 13-year-old girl.
Molly B--9:30am class
I agree with the general point of the article, diversity will promote a well rounded court.
But I do not believe three women on the court will drastically alter the decisions of the court. In the case of the little girl being strip searched, a female's opinion did bring a drastically different position to the table, but not all cases that come to the Supreme Court will have to do with gender or something like strip search.
I believe the background of each judge and the president they were appointed by is much more significant than their gender. Don't get me wrong, it's amazing the demographic changes I'm getting to witness in the government in my lifetime, but I'm not putting all my money on three women drastically altering the decisions of the Supreme Court.
Kim G. TTh 2-3:15
Baylie Cannon- 2 p.m.
I think it's great that there are 3 women on the Supreme Court. It will bring more diversity to the Court and other views to cases as well. I think some people think that all 3 women are going to have the same views but thats not true, just because they are women doesn't mean they are all going to have the same opnions. However in other matters like the case of the 13-year-old girl being strip-searched, Justice Ginsberg was the only one who knew what it was like to be a 13-year-old girl once and she said her colleagues couldn't understand that. If there had been 2 other women on the court it might have helped bring more persepctive into the case.
I think added diversity in the judicial system is a step in the right direction, as long as the job and title doesn't keep the judges from raising a good home. I believe a woman is quite capable of tending a good home and family while nurturing a career in the high court. However, a woman's natural job is to take care of a children. Without good mothers as role models to our youth, our country can sink quickly. If our children were raised by good mothers we wouldn't have as many cases in the first place.
Clarisa Gonzalez
T/Th - 2:00-3:20 p.m.
While having a third woman on the high court gives women the opportunity to become a step closer to becoming equal to men (in government), I do not think that Elena Kagan's presence on the court will necessarily bring about any significant change to the court itself. Her presence will bring a diverse set of ideals to the court, but gender differences will not be considered when the court is making decisions.
A third woman on the high court means one thing - women are becoming sharper players at the political game and are overcoming the stereotypes that held them back in the past. Bravo for another woman in charge. Will 3 women judges give the court a more "woman's perspective"? On what cases would that be? Lady Justice is blind. No doubt growing up as a girl gives you a different perspective than a man, but I would argue that the law is already very protective of women. Within the past decade we have seen laws passed about sexual harassment - protecting women in the workplace. Strong penalties for women abusers have been set in place - protecting women at home. Strong gender discrimination rules have been placed on businesses - protecting women's right to power. They deserve it. In the name of democracy they do. But those laws were set by a high court of men, and men are usually sympathetic to women. Will the women in the court be less sympathetic?
Haley H. T-Th 2 p.m.
I think the article was very well written. The study it mentioned was interesting. That having 3 women, rather than 1 or 2, changes the dynamic on a corporate board. I think the word 'equal' is more appropriate than 'diverse' to describe the change in the Supreme Court.
Jeremy C. 2:00 T-Th
It is an important step for our society to have three women on the Supreme Court. Women make up roughly half of the population and they can offer viewpoints a man may not have or consider. It should be our goal to have everyone living in the United States represented in a fair and just manner. We have it with our elected officials to a certain degree. There is no question this should be the same with the Judicial branch of government. Now, if we can do something about the lack of diversity of our Senators.....
I think it's awesome that we are finally able to have women in the high court, especially 3. I think that the article brings up a good point that women can bring a different view or opinion to a case that some men may not be able to see on their own. I just hope that it doesn't turn into a gender war. I think that men and women should be treated equally. Men do some things better, women do some things better. That's just the way it is. If men and women just work together I think everything will turn out better.
As many have said, I think it's a good thing to have a female perspective.
While the article noted that in terms of law, men and women don't think much differently, there are certain situations in which it's necessary to have a gender-specific point of view. The situation the article mentioned about the young girl being strip-searched is a good example. While the male members of the Court compared it to "locker-room high jinks," only a female justice could really relate and give a feminine perspective.
If three female justices is the magical number it takes to get the group collaborative and open to differing perspectives, then I think it's great.
Shannyn B
TTh 9:30am
With women rising in the corporate world, I fully support these three women. I'm sure they get a lot of criticism but must remain strong. Also, I think it's a good thing because it does add another perspective that people don't always think about. Three always seems to be a lucky number in things as well.
Kristen T
TTH 2:00p
as they say three is a crowd. i liked the comment in the article about how the magic number of three having no small role in the way corporate boards function after a third woman is added. the entire dynamic will change. does this mean that now a final and definitive judgment will be made on the abortion stance in america? it will be interesting to see.
i can say that watching the next round of Supreme Court rulings will be highly aniticipated.
I totally agree with the article. The Supreme Court is going to see a big change come Oct. 1 when the term begins and the court starts hearing cases. The article mentioned a speculation that there is power in the number 3 (three women), and I agree because now, there's an uneven number when it comes to decisions among them. Two are going to agree or disagree while the other in going to be the opposite.
Additionally, three women on the court will now sort of "round out" the men that have preceeded them. Not only are we going to have a better balanced supreme court, but we will also have a better representation of the United States. Sorry, boys. We have just as much to say as you do.
Megan Holt, 2 p.m. Tues./Thurs.
Katinka Dufour 9 a.m
I think it is exciting to see three women serve at the same time on the Supreme Court. It will bring some change to past experiences. Thinking that in the court's history 95 percent of Supreme Court justices have been white men calls for some changes and we are seeing some now. I think men and women have different ways of reacting to situations instinctively so it is important to have both sides especially in something as imoportant as the Supreme Court.
Jessica G. (#4) - 2pm
I do believe the justices have a lot to learn from each other. It's great to have more women on board because at the end of the day, men and women still communicate differently. I think the example of the 13-year-old strip search situation (between the justice's opinions) reflects how important it is to have people from different experiences and backgrounds. It's not about who is right or wrong. I think it's about coming together and embracing their individual experiences to better serve everyone. I also agree that having three women together versus just one or two does make a bold statement. Women are stepping up. I can understand how yet feel bad that the female justice's names (Ginsburg and O'Connor) were confused before Sotomayor came into the picture. We'll see what happens... (:
Diversity is essential to almost every organization because it gives several different perspectives. I say let's not only have diversity in genders, but also races, sexual orientation, and regionality (6 justices are from NY or NJ and 2 from CA).
But we are definitely making progress. Of course, it'll be hard to be totally representative of the nation with only 9 people, but we are moving away from the traditional "good ole boys club" that existed before.
I wonder how the dynamics would change if we had a couple of middle-aged justices also? Hmmm. And yes Mr. Martinez, that is a question lol. =)
I think that having a third woman on the court will have that predicted corporate board room effect and better represent the viewpoint and perspectives of the American population.
As one of the only female members of a volunteer fire department, I have experienced the invisible divide between the opinions of the sexes and the willingness to hear a minority. I think that there can be no negative consequences to making the court a more balanced opinion not only sex wise but gender, race, ethnicity, and age as well.
Jessica Buck (2pm)
I think that having three women on the court is a sign of the times. Women are moving up in the work force and political business. I think that each time there is a change of justices, male or female, is good for the court because each individual adds a new perspective to the court. I feel like the gender and/or ethnic background only matters to a certain extent and then it is irrelevant. We as the public make it more than it is sometimes.
It only makes sense that a committee appointed to interpreting the law of the land should be representative of our population. Every justice brings her/his own opinion, viewpoint, and perspective to the courtroom. Every justice is looking at the foundation of our constitution from a different angle. Other than bringing more perspective to the courtroom, women also enhance the group dynamic. It doesn't make sense to have nine old white men on the Supreme Court. We need a varied, yet representative, set of supreme court justices.
Post a Comment