Funny Valentine's Day Poems to Give Your Kids
Modamily Site Helps You Find Someone to Have a Baby With
Perfect Chocolate-Covered Strawberries
‘No Child Left Behind’ Screeches to a Halt
Brave Girl Won't Let Rare Disease Steal Her Childhood (VIDEO)
Pink Ribbons Hide the Real Truth About Breast Cancer
Would You Wear These Fang Shoes?!
Mom Delivers 15.5 Pound Baby Boy (VIDEO)
Heart Cookie Pops Perfect for Valentine's Day
Obama's Marshmallow Fight at the White House (VIDEO)
7 Things You Can Do Right Now to Prevent Cancer
Beyonce Trademarks 'Blue Ivy' & Starts a Celebrity Trend
5 Great Gifts for Your Techie Valentine
Angelina & Brad Are Letting Maddox Do What?!
Should the Department of Education Be Abolished?
Solicitor General Elena Kagan is busy this week being grilled by Senators in confirmation hearings before being rubber-stamped into the United States Supreme Court. With the majority being held by the Democrats, President Obama's pick is practically a shoo-in.
Ms. Kagen will be the second justice nominated to the highest bench in the land by President Obama; the first was "wise Latina" Sonia Sotomayor. Side note: Sotomayor is extremely fun to say out loud. Try it. Super-fun, isn't it?
Back to the topic at hand -- Elena Kagan. More specifically, the fact that she's a woman. The second woman appointed by the first black president. Extra points for Sotomayor though, since she has the whole Latina factor too. Although, if you believe the rumors, Kagan has the gay thing going for her.
All of which I really don't care about. I don't care that there's a Latina on the Supreme Court. I don't care about a woman taking John Paul Stevens's place on the bench. I don't care that there's a black man in the White House.
What I care about is that we have the most liberal President in our history so busy trying to spread our wealth around that he can't be bothered to lift the Jones Act so that we can get some international help in the Gulf of Mexico.
It concerns me that we have a supremacist sitting on the Supreme Court. Sonia Sotomayor has said on multiple occasions that her upbringing as an Hispanic woman would cause her to come to better conclusions than those of white males. She believes that she's better than someone else, based on the color of her skin. That's brown supremacy, and it has no place in today's United States, let alone on the Supreme Court.
I care that Kagan participated in the distortion of scientific facts in order to make sure that women would have the right to kill their wriggly, squirmy fetuses in the 8th month of pregnancy. Believe what you want about abortion, but don't make up your own facts to support your positions.
Even if these were people whose ideologies I supported, I don't like the big fuss over labels like Latina, woman, black, gay, or insert-historically-repressed-group-of-choice-here. To celebrate a woman coming onto the Supreme Court simply because she's a woman implies that women are still oppressed.
For a society that's supposed to represent equal opportunity, we sure spend a lot of time focusing on what doesn't matter (skin color and gender) and not enough time on things that do -- experience and ideology.
Comments (17)
That's the thing - it's what they are NOT focusing on that concerns me. Being a so-called "minority" or "historically disadvantaged" gives you a free pass. This is the result of the PC pendulum swinging too far. Here's hoping it starts swinging back soon.
If all that matters is skin color, gender, and historical disadvantage, then my daughters will have lots of free passes throughout life. That actually bothers me. My daughters should have to prove themselves just like everyone else. I am bringing them up to be the best they can be, not make the best excuses.
Here's why having a woman on the bench matters: because the Supreme Court is supposed to be representative of the American population. And with only two currently on the bench, it does not well represent the make-up of the population.
As for the oppression of women: have you worked in corporate America recently? I can readily tell you that I made less than some male co-workers despite earning significantly more awards for the work done . . . because I was missing a certain piece of anatomy between my legs. Yes, women ARE still oppressed.
Just hit up a breastfeeding in public or breastfeeding in the workplace forum, and try to tell me women aren't still oppressed.
Oh, please. Sotomayor never said she'd make better decisions. Yes, her life experiences will impact her decisiions -- just as it does with everyone else in the world, including Supreme Court justices. And you really don't think it was important to have women on SCOTUS for the strip search case of the 13-year-old girl? When all the men on the court said they couldn't understand what the problem was because people get naked in school locker rooms so this was the same thing? And it took a LOT of discussion and convincing by Justice Ginsburg (which some of the male justices have admitted) so they could understand why that was NOT the same thing?
Having women on SCOTUS, in Congress, in the White House, and every other place is important because without that view, we DO end up with distorted policies.
It does matter and it bothers me that women who think they've never been the victim of discrimination because of their gender (when odds are they have and they just don't know it) keep fighting against other women.
*sigh* I hope I live long enough to see that change.
Also: making fun of Sotomayor's last name = not cool.
PunditMom, you don't understand. I am a woman who has dealt with a great deal of discrimination. But the answer to that is not to focus MORE or almost exclusively on superficial differences. That does more harm than good.
If my daughter hears something about "poor her" (regardless of the reason), you can see her internalize it right away, start feeling sorry for herself and changing her behavior to incorporate the "excuse" for not being at her personal best. She's 3 years old and does not yet know that her lovely brown skin and black eyes will offend someone someday. But when she does understand that, I'm not going to encourage the "poor me" attitude. I have seen the negative results of that all around.
If you want to fight a stereotype, beat it with excellence. Don't focus (publicly) on $$. I always made far less $ for doing far more. (Interestingly, I now have more $ than men who were paid more than me.) It used to eat at me. Ultimately I had a choice: stop slaving for cheaters, or put up and shut up. I gave my notice and got a huge raise.
If young people are encouraged to focus on discrimination, they will not rise to their personal best, and will not have the opportunity to bust those stereotypes.
Don't forget her policy on military recruiters on Harvard campuses. Earlier this week, when questioned about this policy that flip-flopped back and forth, she created a packet of imaginary ideas (hhmmmph bordering on lies) that they STILL had access .
I do not want a justice that does NOT respect our military which allows us to protect our country SO WE HAVE a Supreme Court in the first place. This one hits close to home as a prior military officer with a husband who also was a prior military officer who has my military friends still on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan. Our forces are worn thin and to have promoted a policy to not allow recruiting for reinforcements from one of our finest American universities is just rotten.
I also have a real problem with her lack of trial experience. Academia often teach because they can't do.
I do think a women, and possible a gay woman, is a refreshing change, but it is the VERY last on my list of priorities of what a justice should have on his or her resume.
~Scout
For a society that's supposed to represent equal opportunity, we sure spend a lot of time focusing on what doesn't matter (skin color and gender) and not enough time on things that do -- experience and ideology. (From the OP)
This can't be said enough! And the same for what Scout said, too:
I also have a real problem with her lack of trial experience. Academia often teach because they can't do.
I do think a women, and possible a gay woman, is a refreshing change, but it is the VERY last on my list of priorities of what a justice should have on his or her resume.
(I was going to say the same thing that Scout did, but she said it so well, I thought it better to just repost what she said, rather than mangle the idea with my own ramblings!)
jeannesager, Jews make up just 2 percent of the population in the United States. Should they be excluded from serving on the Supreme Court because they're not "representative of the American population"? African Americans make up 14 percent of the population. In the interest of being "representative," should we only allow one black person to serve at a time? These are the questions that are raised when we make decisions based on identity politics instead of experience and character.
Jenny hit the nail on the head: it's all about experience, ideology, and character. Whatever sexual organs the Justices are hiding under their robes shouldn't matter one bit.
Whoa, the only thing I want to address is the accusation that I was making fun of Sotomayor's name. I absolutely was not. I love it. I wish I liked her, so I could say it all the time. It is just plain fun to say.