|
|
|
Jewish World Review July 26, 2005 / 19 Tammuz, 5765 Washington's girl-crazy summer By Kathryn Lopez
http://www.JewishWorldReview.com |
The knee-jerk reaction some critics have had to John Roberts being
selected as the president's first Supreme Court pick reeks of
foolishness. This has been their thinking: A woman is retiring, and
a woman must replace her. And so they just can't get that into a
"John."
Even retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's first public reaction
was: "He's good in every way, except he's not a woman."
Perhaps President Bush should have nominated one of his twin
daughters to the Supreme Court instead. Think that's silly? Then
read the letter Sen. Ken Salazar, D-Colo., sent to President Bush
the morning after the Roberts announcement:
The freshman senator wrote, "You and I both have two daughters. The
profound message we should be giving to them is that their gender
creates no limitations for them to live up to their G-d-given
potential. Yet, I fear that with the loss of Justice Sandra Day
O'Connor from the United States Supreme Court, we are sending the
opposite message."
However, Salazar conceded that "the fact you have not selected a
distinguished woman in the mold of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor is
not a reason for disqualification." How grandiose of you, senator.
I can hear John Roberts now, upon confirmation: "Thank you,
senators, for looking beyond my obvious liability — my gender. You
took a chance on me, confirming me despite the irrevocable damage I
may do to the girls of our nation, who, like my own daughter, dream,
as they play with their Justice Barbies, that one day some
open-minded president will nominate them instead of some slice of
Wonder Bread — well, me — to the Supreme Court. I'm so sorry I am
a man, but I will try my very best not to be too much of a
Neanderthal in robes."
Salazar's letter was not an isolated incident in Congress. When
rumors were flying that Chief Justice Rehnquist might free a second
seat on the court, four women senators (two Republicans, two
Democrats) wrote to Justice O'Connor pleading with her to reconsider
walking away from the court. They wanted her to be named the first
woman chief justice. Why? Because they don't think there's another
woman out there who someday might fill the slot? Because a woman
will never be considered outside of their ridiculous suggestion?
We really aren't this silly, are we? Bush defied conventional wisdom
— on the Left and Right — when he picked a guy to fill the
O'Connor seat. Good for him.
Am I a self-loathing woman? No, just looking for a qualified judge
chosen not because of the rules of an identity-politics game, but
because he's (or she's) the qualified American who the president
wants, period.
Novel, I know. Devoid of the kind of overwrought emotive nonsense
that has surrounded the Justice O'Connor retirement. One Supreme
Court writer (Slate's Dahlia Lithwick) wrote just before the big
O'Connor announcement: "What we forget — what I forget — is that
O'Connor single-handedly blew open more doors for young women than
almost any human being alive on this planet. What we forget is that
it's possible to be baffled by her ideology, worried by her power at
the center of the high court, anxious about many of her views, and
still feel the impulse to hug her."
A Chicago Tribune headline read "Women express disappointment that
court will have only 1 female." No offense to Justice O'Connor and
others, but I wouldn't be surprised if you stood on a street corner
(preferably not across from the Supreme Court), randomly asked women
walking by who the other female Supreme Court justice is, and got
the wrong response. Maybe Laura Bush? Or Hillary Clinton? She's a
judge, right? If you did this a month ago — before O'Connor made
news — asking for the name of any woman on the Supreme Court, I
don't think you would have gotten too many right answers.
Ronald Reagan appointed Sandra Day O'Connor as the first female
justice in July 1981. That was an important historic milestone
(look, gals, no glass ceiling). So, by now — you would think — we
would all be capable of taking a collective deep breath, look at
John Roberts on his merits, then look at the next nominee on his —
or her — merits, and stop insulting American women. There'll be
another woman on the Supreme Court, but hopefully it won't be
because of her gender. It will be because she's the qualified judge
the president decided is capable of carrying out such an immense,
crucial duty.
President Bush set a healthy precedent with Justice Roberts. I hope
the girls understand that.
Every weekday JewishWorldReview.com publishes what many in in the media and Washington consider "must-reading". Sign up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.
Comment by clicking here.
© 2005, Newspaper Enterprise Assn. |
Arnold Ahlert | |||||||||||
