New Woman U.s. Supreme Court Nominee

[sbk]

And all they can fixate on is her marital status! An interesting topic, not so much the part about her or her opinions but about us and the things we fixate on and why

http://www.slate.com/id/2254407?wpisrc=newsletter

But Enough About Me: What Do You Think of Me?

By Dahlia Lithwick

Every few years, history throws us a fresh, new Supreme Court nominee who—both by design and temperament—is completely unknowable. This forces the country into a brief round of political speed-dating, wherein we try to fall in love with a nominee just as that nominee attempts to float in the ether above us. And as is often the case when you are speed-dating someone who will not speak, the only option is to spend most of the time talking about yourself. So, "Is Kagan an Ivy League elitist" may actually mean "Am I an Ivy League elitist?" "Is Kagan a soulless careerist?" may be read as "Am I a soulless careerist?" and "Hey! Why isn't Kagan

Now you'd think that with the dumping last night of tens of thousands of pages of Kagan's professional writings, we would be able to lay aside this game of dressing her up as the Choose-Your-Own-Anxiety Barbie. Yet we remain fixated on Kagan's looks, her sexuality, her gender, her single-ness, her hotness, her not-ness, and her personal ambition. Who cares what she really thinks about the merits of the exclusionary rule? This is not the stuff of which TV talk shows are made

and

Let's begin where we inevitably must: with the fact that Kagan is unmarried. Maureen Dowd, having just skewered the White House for painting Kagan as a Girls Gone Wild party girl, is certain that Kagan's single-ness has been spun by the White House as pathetic spinsterish loneliness. Really? I haven't seen much evidence of the White House spinning Kagan as lonely or too hardworking to marry. Maybe I just get the wrong press releases. It seems to me that a few of Kagan's friends talked about how she dated when she was younger but just didn't get hitched, and the choice to freak out about her unmarried status was ours. This was a proxy for the awkward conversation we're having about (or really around) sexual orientation. But it's also a proxy for how being unmarried still freaks Americans right out.

What I see in the national obsession over Kagan's unmarried status is precisely the same thing I saw in the national obsession over David Souter's: We want Supreme Court nominees who are diverse and interesting, but as soon as we get one, we treat their unique qualities like hideous communicable diseases. Sonia Sotomayor was the first Latina. So we called her a racist. Ruth Bader Ginsburg was a feminist legal pioneer. So we called her a radical. And we thought David Souter (mother, farmhouse, perennially unplugged TV) was just so much tragic marital roadkill.

Is there a double standard when it comes to unmarried women versus unmarried men and the Supreme Court? I really don't think so. I think we're so in love with marriage in this country that we refuse to accept that not everybody does it. We prefer a four-times-married William O. Douglas to a celibate David Souter.*

and finally

I confess that I'm as apt as the next guy to project my deepest anxieties onto the blank slate that is Elena Kagan. It's just that I chiefly do it by anguishing about her lack of a coherent constitutional philosophy as opposed to sex. And yeah, that makes me a hoot at the parties. But given that the next few weeks are guaranteed to reveal nothing new or deeply personal about Solicitor General Kagan, agonizing publicly about her deeply personal qualities seems rather pointless. If we're going to talk about Kagan, let's stick to her record, her writings, and her speeches. And if you want to talk about your love life, looks, academic anxieties, ambition, dreams of marriage, or dating history, I'm also all ears. But maybe let's just leave her out of it?

[WaatWang]

Maybe they are secretly worried she's a lesbian and would be an advocate for gay marriage if it came before the supreme court in the future - ? Nice the article doesn't mention this, but I can't imagine why else this would be such a big issue Gay marriage has been a hot topic in the US for a long time now though.

Personally, I hope she gets in!

[tonititan]

I think that there are a lot of people in the States (both men and women) who are still uncomfortable about a strong, successful woman who chooses to remain unmarried. I don't get it, but I think that attitude persists. Maybe people have feelings of being threatened, or maybe it's jealousy, pity, or something else. Maybe it's just that being unmarried seems "unnatural" to some people. There are a lot of people who still think that getting married and having children is the "right thing to do." It's a shame that anyone ever felt the need to bring her marital status into the debate.

[Gaccha]

I think most of the press are concerned that she plays softball.

[GrahamF]

It seems that Kagan is well qualified and I hope she is confirmed. As a single male in my mid-forties, I actually feel more of an affinity to her than many of the current Justices and I think that she would bring a fresh perspective to the Supreme Court. There have also been speculations that she may be gay, if so, so what, again I feel it would bring a broader perspective to the court.

The most ludicrous thing I have heard, said by Pat Buchanan and some other hard line right wingers, is that her appointment would increase the percentage of Jewish justices in the court. They feel that since Jews are only 2% (that's their figures) of the population in the USA that Jews are already fairly represented in the Supreme Court and that a Protestant candidate should be nominated instead. Can you say anti-semitic, I know you can!

Anyhow, if she is gay, Jewish and single, then I really welcome her perspective and I hope she is confirmed forthwith!

[Carib]

It just shows the retarded way these subjects are looked upon. It says something about the sheer stupidity, political correctness and the christian fundamentalism going on.

[WaatWang]

Then again maybe they are just digging up anything, so they can talk on the news about something other than than the oil leak...?

[sbk]

nah, they like to dish the dirt on all the justice nominations... I mean, why look at their decisions and judicial opinions that reflect on how they interpret the law, what possible relevance could that have!

[witold]

Just because some second rate columnist says it's an issue doesn't mean it's true.

Sure, water cooler conversations often turn stupid and artificial. That is what people who don't know much about a given topic do.

But in the circles where it matters, the biggest concern is her professional past. Every SC nominee receives this scrutiny. Everything they have ever written is examined. Every decision, stand, affiliation is reviewed. This time, the complaints center around any possible liberal bias she might have. Very standard - conservatives complaining about liberal bias, and liberals complaining about conservative bias - depending on the nominee at hand.

[mark45y]

All that stuff about sex and religion is absolute nonsense. She is applying for the job of the highest judge in the land and she should be judged on her judicial record alone!

Oh wait, she has never been a judge, oops.

[sbk]

Perhaps you are unaware that many Supreme Court Justices never sat as a judge? A knowledge of the Constitution and of precedents is more important than ruling on drunk driving cases when it comes to sitting on the Supreme Court.

But then maybe you would have to be aware of Constitutional law, US history and the role of Supreme Court Justices when making such pronouncements.

The following list includes only US Supreme Court justices who were NEVER judges prior to being nominated to the US Supreme Court. The occupation listed is the last position held before nomination.

Chief Justices

John Jay..........................(1789 - 1798)....Washington.............Envoy, Ambassador

John Marshall...................(1801 - 1835)....Adams....................Secretary of State

Roger Taney.....................(1836 - 1864)....Jackson..................Secretary of the Treasury

Salmon Chase..................(1864 - 1873)....Lincoln....................Secretary of the Treasury

Morrison Waite.................(1873 - 1888)....Grant......................Pres, OH Constitutional Convention

Melville Fuller...................(1888 - 1910).....Cleveland...............Lawyer

Charles Hughes................(1930 - 1941).....Hoover...................US delegate, Perm Court of Arbitration (The Hague)

Harlan Stone....................(1941 - 1946).....Roosevelt, F...........Associate Justice, US Supreme Court

Earl Warren......................(1953 - 1969)....Eisenhower.............Governor, California

William H. Rehnquist.........(1986 - 2005)....Reagan..................Associate Justice, US Supreme Court

Associate Justices

James Wilson...................(1789 - 1798)....Washington............Member, Continental Congress

Bushrod Washington.........(1799 - 1829).....Adams..................Lawyer

Joseph Story....................(1812 - 1845).....Madison................Speaker, MA Lower House

Henry Baldwin..................(1830 - 1844).....Jackson................Lawyer

John McKinley..................(1838 - 1852).....Van Buren.............House of Representatives

Benjamin Curtis...............(1851 - 1857)......Fillmore...............MA State Legislature

John Campbell.................(1853 - 1861)......Pierce..................Lawyer

Nathan Clifford.................(1858 - 1881).....Buchanan.............Lawyer

Noah Swayne...................(1862 - 1881).....Lincoln.................Lawyer

Samuel Miller...................(1862 - 1890)......Lincoln.................Lawyer

Joseph Bradley.................(1870 - 1892)......Grant..................Lawyer

Lucius Lamar....................(1888 - 1893).....Cleveland.............Secretary of the Interior

George Shiras, Jr..............(1892 - 1903)......Harrison..............Lawyer

William Henry Moody.........(1906 - 1910).....Roosevelt, T..........US Attorney General

James McReynolds............(1914 - 1941).....Wilson..................US Attorney General

Louis Brandeis..................(1916 - 1939).....Wilson.................Lawyer

George Sutherland............(1922 - 1938).....Harding...............US Consul at The Hague

Pierce Butler.....................(1923 - 1939).....Harding...............Regent, University of Minnesota

Owen Roberts...................(1930 - 1945).....Hoover.................Special US Attorney

Stanley Forman Reed.........(1938 - 1945).....Roosevelt, F.........Solicitor General

Felix Frankfurter................(1939 - 1962).....Roosevelt, F..........Law Professor, Harvard

William O. Douglas............(1939 - 1974).....Roosevelt, F..........Chairman of SEC

James Francis Byrnes.........(1941 - 1942).....Roosevelt, F..........Senator

Robert H. Jackson.............(1941 - 1954).....Roosevelt, F..........US Attorney General

Harold Hitz Burton.............(1945 - 1958).....Truman................Senator

Tom C. Clark.....................(1949 - 1967).....Truman................US Attorney General

Byron White......................(1962 - 1993).....Kennedy..............Deputy Attorney General

Arthur J. Goldberg.............(1962 - 1965).....Kennedy...............Secretary of Labor

Abe Fortas........................(1965 - 1969).....Johnson...............Lawyer

Lewis F. Powell..................(1972 - 1987)......Nixon..................Lawyer

[sbk]

Oh, and just as an FYI, she clerked for the great Thurgood Marshall. If you recognize that name or what that job entails.

Or that she is the current Solicitor General for the United States? Perhaps you need to look up that role as well

[mark45y]

Oh, and just as an FYI, she clerked for the great Thurgood Marshall. If you recognize that name or what that job entails.

Or that she is the current Solicitor General for the United States? Perhaps you need to look up that role as well

Touché