It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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?
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)
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)