Justice Ginsburg: We Need All-Female Supreme Court

Sexist and extremist. I think it's time for someone to retire ....

Justice Ginsburg: We need an all female supreme court

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg says there will be enough women on the Supreme Court when all nine justices are female.

“So now the perception is, yes, women are here to stay. And when I’m sometimes asked when will there be enough [women on the Supreme Court]? And I say when there are nine, people are shocked. But there’d been nine men, and nobody’s ever raised a question about that,” she said.

Yup, that's not sexist at all.

Good to see such level headed and rational people serving on the supreme court. Gives me a big warm and fuzzy feeling about the justice system in this country. And when taken with a dose of Holder, I'de say this country is on exactly the.right track.

If someone said there should be an all male court, femanists would be rioting in the street.

So her idea of fairness is to return the endless discrimination women have suffered? That's awesome and will solve all the problems.

Maybe white people should be enslaved for a few hundred years too? Ya know, return the favor n'all?

Eye for an eye solution on such matters is pretty farcical...

Perhaps he answer is simply a rebuttal to the question being asked which in itself a sexist question and not her actual belief. If gender is treated equally, why do we need to ask about there being enough women in the first place. The reaction of shock and outrage over her answer does expose the gender bias that many people hold.

Used to be merit and credentials were the tickets to success.

Then it turned into this nepotistic "who you know" as the path to success.

And now it's all about what you are. Not who you are but what you are.

A hispanic wounded veteran lesbian wiccan midget on the spectrum with lupus is a sure bet to being ruler of the world.

Great Idea, then the supreme court could become just like the family court with all its unbiased fairness. Justice is much better served when decisions are made based on hormones, and feelings.

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
And now it's all about what you are. Not who you are but what you are.

Very true. That's why the world is falling apart. It's not ability that gets a person
a position, it's everything EXCEPT your brain. At least, that's how it seems.

You'd think a SCOTUS would know better .. but apparently not.

(and Sotomayor is no freak'n prize either! Some of her decisions = )

I never understood how they could justifying keeping these justices on there for life, propped up and drooling and making decisions.

weirdos, the lot of them weirdos.

I think they are all possessed.

doesn't anyone see that maybe....just maybe...she was trying to make a point by answering an obviously stupid question, with an equally stupid answer. if the court, somehow in the future, had all nine judges that were female, do you think that would be the end of american jurisprudence? do you think all nine females would suddenly start ruling hysterically? do you see the absurdity of the question that was asked?

reply to post by jimmyx


Well it would just make it 100% absolute(to the existing 90%) that none of the divorce cases would be won by the Husband, even if he is a good father.

The initial question was moronic, the reply was sarcastic, and the reaction in the blogosphere -- ironic.

Sounds like a Tuesday to me.

Originally posted by 0zzymand0s
The initial question was moronic, the reply was sarcastic, and the reaction in the blogosphere -- ironic.

Sounds like a Tuesday to me.

Sounds like normal ATS protocol to me. People can't read and understand around here. Not shocking, it was a stupid question and she gave him a smartass answer. I give her props for calling the interviewer out subtly.

Originally posted by antonia
People can't read and understand around here.

Lovely.

Originally posted by Stormdancer777
I never understood how they could justifying keeping these justices on there for life, propped up and drooling and making decisions.

I agree with you.
And there are obviously people who have been promoted to SCOTUS who don't belong.

Hahaha.

Isn't she about 100 years old now?

Goodness. Perhaps having justices who have their own teeth and don't need Depends, would be a more practical start.

Having justices serve who were alive during the Great Depression is a sign that we are doing it wrong. Not that the Depression itself has any bearing on who serves, just that it's ridiculous to have these old people serving. They're taking away someone's job. Retire and go to Florida already.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Gender is not a qualification for knowing the law.

Nor is it a requirement of unbiased opinion.

These new age Feminists get more insane every year.

~Tenth

To be honest, I don't think it's that bad an idea. I just hope there isn't a swim-wear round. Some of these judges are 'older' ladies.

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Lovely.

You'll get over it.

Ginsburg went on to discuss the other two women now serving on the court -- Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor -- and also said, "So now the perception is, yes, women are here to stay. And when I'm sometimes asked when will there be enough [women on the court]? And I say when there are nine, people are shocked. But there'd been nine men, and nobody's ever raised a question about that.

That's what she said. Nowhere does she say "We need an All-Female Supreme Court". It was a stupid question, she gave him a smart ass answer. It was a sexist question to begin with.

Well, how in the world would you answer the question, "when will there be enough women on the Supreme Court"?? The answer is a joke, as in - you can only have nine justices, so anything more than nine women would be "more than enough". So - "enough" would be nine. Get it? She may be old, but I still think she's pretty sharp. Then, when people get shocked, she says "why be shocked at nine women, there were nine men for a long time".

The serious answer is, it shouldn't matter what your gender is - we shouldn't even be looking at gender when deciding a justice. There are men who would make great justices. There are men who would make horrible justices. There are women who would make great justices. There are women who would make horrible justices.

What is sexist about that, and I think a few missed the point. The point she was making is the same thing if someone asked, when are there too many men in the positions? When all the seats are male?

She was saying something extremely relevant but intellects didn't rise to the occasion to get the point? Which is, what does sex have to do with this? Obviously they were implying that this unequal amount of women was too much, giving too many lenient female friendly votes. The question thrown at her was sexist in its implication.

Quite an intelligent woman, and no she wasn't saying they all be women.