Is That Legal?

How is his gender relevant?

How is his far-right, out-of-the-mainstream thinking not relevant?

Since when is being a man disqualification for serving on the Supreme Court? I have not found anything "far right" or out of the mainstream about Alito. But I am open to hearing about it. So far the arguments against him are lame, but it is early.

eric -- if miers was the best woman they could find to fit their criteria, i can't complain that they've now nominated a male.

Right on, biology is destiny.

I'm disappointed too. There were plenty of well-qualified conservative women: Maureen Mahoney, Deanne Tacha, Alice Batchelder, Consuelo Callahan, Maura Corrigan, Karen Williams, Edith Joy Clement, etc.

In a perfect world there would be more women on SCOTUS. But I'd be OK with qualified, fair-minded, mainstream male candidates.

Unfortunately we're not getting even that.

This nomination does not reflect at all well on American progress towards the eradication of gender discrimination.

So, requiring the justice have a vagina is not gender discriminitation, but selecting a justice packing wedding tackle is?

You people are a parody of yourselves.

In case the irony escapes you...

Merit does not have a gender.

I'm really surprised at you.

Fifty percent of the population, roughly, is female.

Why is that percentage not naturally reflected in the composition of the Supreme Court? Congress? The executive branch?

"Naturally reflected"...?

Why isn't it naturally reflected on professional football teams? Because most women aren't interested in playing professional football.

Merit does not have a gender.

But gender equality does have merit.

I'm a little torn on this. Certainly further reducing female representation in the court is a step in the wrong direction, but I'm uncomfortable with rejecting certain candidates solely on the basis of gender. I think there is inherent harm in discriminating based on sex, race religion, etc. In some cases, this harm may be outweighed by the benefits (e.g. achieving diversity, or in this case, as Eric notes, giving women a voice in deciding issues of government control over women's bodies), but we shouldn't ignore it entirely.

Women are half the nation's law students? How on earth is that relevant? Law students aren't generally nominated even to a state trial court, let alone the U.S. Supreme Court. A more relevant figure would be the number of female law students 35 years ago. Or the number of conservative female 55-year-olds who have spent 10-15 years on the federal bench, graduated from a top law school, spent some time in high positions in DOJ or the SG's office, etc. That pool is a lot smaller.

Beth wrote, ...giving women a voice in deciding issues of government control over women's bodies...

I have to disagree with this notion that for someone to reach policy or legal conclusions about class X (here, X = "women," but the point applies more generally), they must belong to class X.

While one cannot argue a priori that such a viewpoint is counter to Enlightenment principles regarding the role of reason, I think one can make that argument based on empirical evidence.

As for a voice, women have the vote, just like men do.

In a "perfect world," gender wouldn't even be an issue in selecting justices. Artificial picking of genders is reverse sexism, just as affirmative action is reverse racism.

I'm sure the comment above realizes when it comes to "voices" equality ... putting aside the SC ... means more than the right to vote. Come on now.

As to the anti-affirmative action theme, is it also wrong then when you have a hiring committee to have a diverse amount of views, including those of various backgrounds, including that of half of the population? Also, stepping beyond gender, are white conservative leaning prosecutors who served on Eastern federal appellate courts not a tad bit overrepresented these days too?

To fill the seat vacated by O'Connor, President Bush has nominated two men and one woman. How much more diversity can he acheive?!

I have to disagree with this notion that for someone to reach policy or legal conclusions about class X..., they must belong to class X.

That's not what I was saying. If it were, I would have said that all nine Justices would have to be women or that the men would have to recuse themselves on abortion issues. But it's only human nature to more jealously guard the rights of class X when you're a member of that class yourself. Virtually all women, whether they've ever been pregnant or not, have had to at least acknowledge that possibility (birth control fails and rape happens). There's simply no real anologue in the male experience.

Men can, with at least some degree of success, imagine themselves in that situation, and any Justice worthy of the name will make a good faith attempt to give other groups the same protection they'd give their own. Still, I think there's a lot of truth to that old saw that if men got pregnant, abortion would be treated as an inalienable right.

Beth wrote, But it's only human nature to more jealously guard the rights of class X when you're a member of that class yourself.

That might apply to, say, civil rights for African-Americans, though Clarence Thomas would appear to be a strong counterexample (as would Ward Connelly). It certainly doesn't apply to abortion, as evidenced by the fraction of women who are explicitly pro-life or who vote for politicians who are pro-life. (I might add, regrettably.)

Men can, with at least some degree of success, imagine themselves in that situation...

But that's my point about Enlightenment values: you don't need to be a woman to share the views of women on issues like abortion, public safety, workplace discrimination, etc.

How does "women being half of the population" correspond to half the representation within legal institutions?

If that childish application of cause and effect is all you have to offer, than please don't do your cause any more harm.

Gender equality arguments are only as deep as the ideas they confront, and so far very few people have stepped up to deeper, more difficult historical and philosophical ideas that have made law possible in America.

If gender equalitists cannot stand on their own merits without debasing the instutional and civil structures that protect them, then it is about time they were left where they are:sitting down.