Do People Who Have Kids Deserve Special Treatment?
Controversy: Gwen Stefani Bleaches Her Son's Hair
A '50 Shades of Grey' Shortcut for Busy Moms
Latest on Baby in Washing Machine Case (VIDEO)
Are People Who Eat Organic Judgy & Mean?
A Dad's Perspective on Playdates
Bagged Salad Recall Sparks New Fears
Help Dying 4-Year-Old Fulfill His Bucket List (VIDEO)
Melissa McCarthy & Sandra Bullock's Buddy Cop Movie
Do Working Moms Have It Easy?
Your Morning Coffee Could Save Your Life
Join the Fight Against Toxic Kids' Products
8 Summery Sweet Popsicles You Can Make at Home
Guy Gets Chest Waxed on National TV (VIDEO)
14 Ways to Be a Happier Mom
Joanne Bamberger, The Stir's Speaker of the House columnist, appeared on Fox & Friends this weekend to debate a point she first brought up here in The Supreme Court Needs Another Mom.
Check out the Mother Knows Best debate at Fox & Friends.
Do you think the Supreme Court needs another mom?
Emma Lives with Severe Food Allergies
How to Pack a No-Waste Lunch
Memorial Day Survival Guide
Backstage at Mamma Mia! with Irene Bunis
Comments (13)
No, I don't agree at all. There are so many viewpoints that are not able to be present on the court at the same time. SCOTUS would have to be a half million people in order to adequately represent the amount of diversity present in the US.
I did think punditmom looked great, tho, and her opinions were smart and well spoken, I just don't agree.
Well, some diversity is better than none, I think! Especially when most of the views at the moment are from conservative men! ;)
I agree. We need a mom on the court. Way to go PunditMom!!!
But, there IS diversity on the SC already! There is diversity in gender, religion, race, and political party. How diversified can 9 people be? I do agree with Betsy, though, on the point that justice is blind, so it should not matter what your background is. The laws should be interpreted the way they are meant to be interpreted. If you don't know what the Contitution means, then how can your interpretation of it be valid?
btw, why the smirk about Betsy being a single mom with 4 kids? That was a little much....
29again -- if the diversity of gender, religion, race and political party are important . . . then why NOT the importance of motherhood vs. nonmotherhood? Would you not say that being a parent has made your sense of justice and your interpretation of the laws change?
Justice is blind, yes, but the reason any of us have opinions on the Supreme Court nominations is because laws were written by man . . . and hence open to the interpretation of man (HU-man I mean).
That's pretty cool! I don't think it matters too much about having a 'mom' on the SC......there's too many other issues of concern
Great debate! Glad you were there to represent!
jeanne, I don't mean to belittle moms. However, I do think that sometimes we can go too far in our search for diversity. There are only 9 justices. We just cannot represent all the diversity present among the citizens of our country! It seems to me that when we would try to deliberately represent all the kinds of diversity, we are coming close to enacting a form of affirmative action on the Supreme Court, having a quota of sorts. And that is not what I want on the SC. I am happy that we have women on the Court. Whether they are moms or not is not as important to me. (And doesn't every one of the justices HAVE a mom?) But my point is that if justice is truly blind, then the issue of whether you are a mom or not is irrelevant to interpreting the Constitution.
And I don't think the fact that it was written by men (as opposed to women) really comes into it, either. Our Constitution is based on judeo-christian beliefs, which do not diminish the role of women. And I would venture to say that the men of the Revolutionary time had a whole lot more respect for women than men do today. Being a wife and mother then had value, moreso than today.
It was a great debate, but I agree with Betsy Hart's view on this issue.
29Again -- I meant written by man as in HUMAN, not written by man as in gender. I thought I addressed that.
yes, you did. But the question is about moms on the court. That brings gender into the argument.