It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Justice Ginsburg: We Need All-Female Supreme Court

page: 2
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 27 2012 @ 12:19 PM
link   
Oh, and by unequal female respresentation, I notice there are 3 out of 9, 1/3 female.

Personally will be happy when I see half female, maybe they need to have 10 eh?

And all leadership roles half women. The Pontif should be shared with with a committee of elected people, half women and half men.

Would make quite a difference.




posted on Nov, 27 2012 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by jimmyx
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?


I would think that one encumbered with a such a HUGE responsibility could control her urge to provide an asinine answer to an asinine question. Apparently I'm wrong!

Then again, I've seen her submit some pretty asinine opinions in her time on the court - which is about 3 decades too long!

Come to think of it, based on her history, I'm thinking she was responding rather seriously.



posted on Nov, 27 2012 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Unity_99
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.
edit on 27-11-2012 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)


I think you are provably the only person in this thread that bothered to watch the video of the interview, and how polite and funny she was about the subject.

When I read the transcript - and selected quote in the article - I was under the impression she was trying to make a feminine statement, but after watching the interview, I think the opposite.

She was attempting to defuse the problem, and the comment that "all should be female" is taken way out of context. I believe she said it that way because she believes it doesn't matter, and that it's usually the public who gives relevance to that issue, and not the actual judges.

That is clearly demonstrated when she says " But there’d been nine men, and nobody’s ever raised a question about that."... It's a non-issue.

Supreme Judges aren't selected with those parameters in consideration. They are selected on their ability to be Supreme Judges, not their gender or ethnicity.



posted on Nov, 27 2012 @ 05:56 PM
link   
Bear in mind that this is a Supreme Court Justice who doesn't think all that much about the United States Constitution:


As Egyptian officials prepare to send to trial 19 American democracy and rights workers, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg visited Cairo last week where she suggested Egyptian revolutionaries not use the U.S. Constitution as a model in the post-Arab Spring.

"I would not look to the U.S. Constitution, if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012," Ginsburg said in an interview on Al Hayat television last Wednesday. "I might look at the constitution of South Africa. That was a deliberate attempt to have a fundamental instrument of government that embraced basic human rights, have an independent judiciary. It really is, I think, a great piece of work that was done." (Source)



posted on Nov, 27 2012 @ 05:59 PM
link   
What the hell is so hard about equal distribution?

5 women, 5 men, wtf is the problem??



posted on Nov, 27 2012 @ 06:12 PM
link   
Nine positions is it?
Okay... 3 men, 3 women, and 3 hermaphradites please. That should fix that.

next,

now who judges judges? hmmmm.....
Okay, for every 5 years of prison life they have doled out for a person, they must, themselves, stay at that persons house for 5 nights.

Then, what is sitting in their seats, will be useful for man kind.

Lucky it's not up to me.....



new topics

top topics
 
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join