Ginsburg: Supreme Court Needs More Women

For Nearly A Year Now, She's Been The Only One

(AP)  U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg says she dislikes being "all alone on the court" nearly a year after the retirement of Sandra Day O'Connor.

Ginsburg, who spoke Friday to an assembly at Suffolk Law School, said she sees more women in law school, arguing before her court and sitting as federal judges. But there is not enough female perspective on the nine-member high court, she said.

"We have very different backgrounds," Ginsburg said of herself and O'Connor. "We divide on a lot of important questions, but we have had the experience of growing up women and we have certain sensitivities that our male colleagues lack."

Ginsburg, 73, did not take questions afterward to elaborate.

"It was good for the public to see that women come in all sizes and shapes, just as men do, and they don't necessarily look alike or think alike," she said.

O'Connor, a moderate who retired from the high court last January, became its first female justice when President Ronald Reagan appointed her in 1981.

Ginsburg was appointed by President Bill Clinton in 1993 and is among the court's liberal wing.

President Bush nominated White House counsel Harriet Miers in October 2005 to replace O'Connor, but Miers dropped out under fire from conservatives who questioned her qualifications. Mr. Bush then turned to Samuel Alito, a federal appeals court judge from New Jersey, who was ultimately confirmed.

Ginsburg, who in the early 1970s successfully argued gender-discrimination cases before the Supreme Court, said she is encouraged by the numbers of female judges on lower courts.

"My consolation is that if you look at the federal courts altogether, you get a much different picture than you do if you look only at the U.S. Supreme Court," she said.

Renee Landers, who teaches constitutional law at Suffolk and attended the speech, identified with Ginsburg's comments. "We've all had the experience, alas even now, of being the only woman in the room," she said.

[bluestardad]

Yes I agree and the Women Will be required to Register for the Draft TOO!

With the Selective Service System exercising its Compulsory National Selection System it is important to notice that almost half of the eligible people in the United States are not required to register for compulsory National Service because of an Unconstitutional Gender preference. This inequity is in direct contravention to the strides toward total gender equality within the Nations Education System with such programs as Title 9 that guarantees equity between genders in sports, and the reduction of programs of gender discrimination within the work force. All Americans must share equality the Responsibility of National Service. To ensure that all Americans earn their place within society there should be no preference or exclusion deferments from National Service Registration or Compulsory Service based on Race, Religion, Gender, Education, or Financial Status. Discrimination in the United States of America stands against the very foundation of the Constitution of this great nation. It is very important that All Americans share in the privilege and responsibility of registering for and serving our Nation by Compulsory National Service. It is our Responsibilities as American Citizens to contact our Elected Officials and Require them to guarantee All Americans and those who wish to be Americans this opportunity.

[bluestardad]

Saturday, May 1, 2004
Selective Service eyes women's draft
The proposal would also require registration of critical skills
By ERIC ROSENBERG
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER WASHINGTON BUREAU
WASHINGTON -- The chief of the Selective Service System has proposed registering women for the military draft and requiring that young Americans regularly inform the government about whether they have training in niche specialties needed in the armed services.

[adian1-2009]

I do not think that at the present stage of the political game, Judge Ginsburg should be publicly advancing the idea that there should be more women in the Supreme Court as well in other levels of the Judiciary, just because they are women. I am for Hillary, I am not less liberal than Justice Ginsburg, but at the same time I think that Judges should abstain from making public expressions --not in judicial opinions-- that kind of preferences or desirability, or whatever. Before making such expressions, Justice Ginsburg should have thought that it could be reasonable interpreted that she is telling us that we should vote for Hillary just because she is a woman. I will vote for Hillary, but not because she is a woman nor in spite of she being a woman. Gender should not be taken in consideration for appointing judges nor for electing politicians to office.

[oleander8]

To Adian1 :
I disagree. Justice Ginsburg is a citizen first - she is also an expert jurist and her opinion is valuable. Nowhere do I see her remarks regarding the Supreme Court suggestive of support of Hillary Clinton - her remarks were about the court.

[mareason]

"bluestardad", I'm a blue star mom of a daughter in the service. I agree that women should be included in a universal service system, and that we need another female voice in the Supreme Court. Women are over 50% of the adult population. We DO have a different perspective, especially after having borne children. I'm encouraged and pleased to see more women in politics. I was dismayed when Bush chose a female Supreme Court candidate who was a political toady, and fatuous follower, rather than one of the experienced female judges who are skilled and intelligent jurists. It's time to change the Good Old Boy Club of politics and government into a system that is more inclusive, and more responsive to the electorate. And it's time for the electorate to use their power to demand and effect these changes.

[dogsoul]

...it amazes me that even after Reagan appointed O'Connor & after Bush appoints a woman - not to mention Condi Rice or Clarence Thomas, liberals talk of the Republican good ol' boys club...

What I find MOST perplexing is how liberals can look you square in the face & state rather matter of factly that we should appoint women because they are women - even going so far as to expound upon how they think differently from men... What if a Republican were to state that we should be examine Presidential candidates on the basis of how women think differently than men? Isn't the point that liberals keep hammering home with political correctness that we should NOT judge a person based on gender? Shouldn't people be appointed on the basis of other things besides their ***, race, color, creed or sexual orientation? Seems to me that they don't mind sexism, racism, religious bigotry & the like so long as it's the "good kind" performed under the direction of liberals... Is this hypocrisy not apparent to everyone?

[randalds]

...it amazes me that even after Reagan appointed O'Connor & after Bush appoints a woman - not to mention Condi Rice or Clarence Thomas, liberals talk of the Republican good ol' boys club...

Posted by dogsoul at 11:23 AM : Jan 29, 2007

Reagen made a great appointment with O'Connor, but Bush jr's choice in Miers was laughable. Condi is Bush's mistress so she doesn't count and Clarence Thomas is the whitest, most redneck black man in America. I have no doubt that the first thing he does when he wakes up in the morning is to go to his bathroom and put on black face make-up like in the old minstrel shows. If a black family moved in next door to him he'd put up his house for sale so he doesn't have to live next to one of "them".

All of which actually proves your point, we shouldn't pick people because of their gender or race, because we could get fooled in both.

[randalds]

Nowhere do I see her remarks regarding the Supreme Court suggestive of support of Hillary Clinton - her remarks were about the court.

Posted by oleander8 at 08:35 AM : Jan 29, 2007

Couldn't agree more. Being a Supreme Court judge should not preclude her from expressing her opinion, esp on judicial matters, but also on none court business. As long, of course, as she prefaces it with some sort of statement saying she is speaking as a private citizen, not as a judge.