The Next Supreme Court Justice
Published May 04, 2009 @ 09:23PM PT

By now you've heard the news. Supreme Court Justice David Souter is retiring. For civil rights activists, the loss of Souter is big. He's been a friend to the disenfranchised throughout his tenure on the Supreme Court as succintly described in the New York Times:
The first opinion he wrote overturned, for a unanimous court, the conviction of a black man for killing a white woman, because the defendant had not been given ample opportunity to challenge the makeup of the nearly all-white Georgia jury. Justice Souter went on to become a reliable champion of civil rights. In 2003, he provided a critical fifth vote upholding the University of Michigan's affirmative action program.
He has also been a firm supporter of the constitutional right to abortion. In 1992, in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, he voted to uphold the court's embattled ruling in Roe v. Wade.
After Sept. 11, Justice Souter backed the due-process rights of the prisoners being held in Guantánamo Bay. He has voted in favor of gay rights, and carefully tended the line between church and state.
Thankfully, we are under the guidance of a President who has incredible expertise in the intricacies of the Supreme Court. It is one of his major skill sets - a deep, profound knowledge of constitutional law - which is crucial to the future integrity of our justice system. Thus, while we are losing a friend on the Court, we are also given an opportunity to secure a new, younger face on the bench who will continue to seek justice and equality for all.
But who that face is and what it should look like is creating a lot of questions here in Washington, DC.
As a friend of mine pointed out, conservatives have a decided advantage when it comes to control of the Supreme Court due to the fact that seven of the nine Justices were appointed by Republican Presidents. Right now, conservatives will continue to control much of the Supreme Court in the years to come because Republican Presidents such as Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush actively sought out nominees who could sit on the bench for over a generation.
- Chief Justice John Roberts Jr: 53 years old, appointed by Bush II
- Justice John Paul Stevens: 89 years old, appointed by Ford
- Justice Antonin Scalia: 72 years old, appointed by Reagan
- Justice Anthony Kennedy: 72 years old; appointed by Reagan
- Justice David Souter: 67 years old; appointed by Bush I
- Justice Clarence Thomas: 60 years old; appointed by Bush I
- Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg: 76 years old; appointed by Clinton
- Justice Stephen Breyer: 70 years old; appointed by Clinton
- Justice Samuel Alito: 59 years old; appointed by Bush II
Before President Obama won the election, I was terrified that another conservative in the White House would ruin any chance of a balanced Supreme Court. I was worried that under a McCain-Palin administration, it was only going to be a matter of time before the entire court turned a deeper shade of red and I lost access to important civil rights - such as the right to privacy and the right to choose.
With Justice Souter's retirement and the potential for Justice Ginsberg to step down due to her health in the near future as well, it is becoming clear that President Obama has a real opportunity to balance the court's ideological slant by nominating diverse, progressive, smart, young judges to the High Court.
Clearly, I would like another female justice. If not two. I would appreciate a Latina or Asian and if possible - it'd be great to make space on the Supreme Court for an LGBT candidate. And all of this is yes, for the sake of diversity, but also for the sake of justice. Read this Washington Post article - When Women Rule, It Makes a Difference- and you'll see why:
But a diverse Supreme Court isn't just about a bench that looks like America. This is about jurisprudence, too. In research that we conducted with our colleague Andrew D. Martin, we studied the votes of federal court of appeals judges in many areas of the law, from environmental cases to capital punishment and sex discrimination. For the most part, we found no difference in the voting patterns of male and female judges, except when it comes to sex discrimination cases. There, we found that female judges are approximately 10 percent more likely to rule in favor of the party bringing the discrimination claim. We also found that the presence of a female judge causes male judges to vote differently. When male and female judges serve together to decide a sex discrimination case, the male judges are nearly 15 percent more likely to rule in favor of the party alleging discrimination than when they sit with male judges only.
Additionally, this report from Northwestern Law titled "Untangling the Causal Effects of Sex on Judging" illuminates even more reasons for gender to play an important role in deciding the next Justice. So far we've seen a few female names float through the press: Sonia Sotomayor (age 55), Elena Kagan (age 49) and Pamela Karlan (age 50) are the most prominent so far. At this point in time, I don't have a preference for either of these three women - I need to know more about them and what they can do for the Supreme Court.
NOW has started a petition asking for the President to name a "woman like Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who is a proven advocate for equality and fair treatment under the Constitution." And while I agree that it'd be ideal to have another female similar to Justice Ginsburg, it does seem a little short sighted to give a singular parameter for this position: be a woman.
Of course, I want the Court to be more diverse. One woman out of nine men is pathetic. And I often believe that the most authentic voice for justice comes from the source that has lived through the discrimination.
But, I can't deny that Justice Souter was very capable of defending the rights of women and minorities - and therefore that leaves me open to almost anyone who can fulfill that role whether they are male, female, black, white, Latino, Asian, handicapped, or LGBT.
The most important thing to me is that the next Justice will defend women's rights, be a voice for the voiceless and truly understand the delicate nature of the decisions made by the High Court. If anything, my greatest preference is that this next Justice be a young progressive. We need him or her to be there for at least a generation to come.
Share this Post
Related Posts
-
Obama Nominates Sonia Sotomayor; Offers Hope for Women Everywhere
-
Wikipedia: Men Re-Write History & Women Watch It Happen
-
Will You Have To Ask Your Employer For The "Abortion Rider"?
Comments (7)
Comments on Change.org are meant for further exploration and evaluation of the ideas covered in the posts. To that end, we welcome constructive comments. However, we reserve the right to delete comments that are offensive, abusive, or off-topic; that contain ad hominem attacks; or that are designed to subvert or hijack comment threads rather than contribute to them. Repeat offenders may be permanently removed from the site at our discretion.
Author
-
Jen Nedeau is a social media consultant, progressive activist, feminist speaker and writer. She currently lives in New York City, where she works full-time as the Director of Digital Strategy at Air America Media. In August 2008, Nedeau was selected to be the Editor of the WomensRights.Change.Org where she facilitates daily discussion about the feminist movement. Additionally, Nedeau volunteers as the Chief Technology Officer for New Leaders Council, a non-profit that offers exclusive training for young leaders. You can follow her on Twitter @HumanFolly or learn more here: www.jennedeau.com.
Facebook
Twitter
Digg
StumbleUpon
Delicious
Email


















LGBT or handicapped, you have got to be kidding. Maybe severely impaired or special needs, we got em in Congress and the former just left the White House.
Posted by Christopher Nedeau on 05/05/2009 @ 10:52AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Thanks for the sarcasm, Dad.
Posted by Jen Nedeau on 05/08/2009 @ 07:43PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I don't see what's so ludicrous about a LGB justice. T is another matter, but eventually who knows? It could happen. As far as handicapped, that would be less surprising to me than a LGB justice, unless they were of course mentally handicapped. Again, that's another issue entirely.
The most important factor is qualifications. The nominee has to be qualified, experienced, and rational. Empathy is another quality that President Obama mentioned as being of particular importance to him, and I have to agree. It's always best to have a judge who is capable of understanding issues from other perspectives and who isn't just a cold, calculated automaton. I would also like to see a younger, minority woman appointed to this position, considering the current justices are predominately older white males. However appointing someone who is the most qualified for the position should be a top priority, regardless of his/her gender, race, or sexual orientation.
Posted by Alan Haggard on 05/05/2009 @ 01:05PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I believe that a mix of experiences that aspires to reflect the diverse values and perspectives in our citizenry -- is critically important. If women must live by the rules handed down by that court, then we need to have voices on that court to represent our interests. It's just not rational to believe an overwhelmingly male court can adequately consider how its decisions would impact 51 percent of this country, since men are from Mars and women are from Venus, remember?
And since we have a progressive administration anyway, saying we'll take any old qualified progressive Justice is setting the bar pretty low, don't you think? To paraphrase NY Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo who, with Gov. Patterson, was very unhappy to have not a single woman among the nominees to replace NY Chief Judge Judith S. Kaye, if we can't find a single solitary qualified woman to serve on Supreme Court, then something is wrong.
Posted by Gloria Pan on 05/08/2009 @ 05:41PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Gloria - I'm with you - I'd love a female justice. And yes, there is something wrong if we can't find a qualified one. But my point isn't so much that we won't be able to find one, but to point out that there are men who have served the Court, such as Souter, who were capable of aligning themselves with women's causes. I'd much prefer a female justice - not just for the sake of diversity, but also because there are certain experiences and learnings you can't get from a J.D. - you need to live it. I wanted this piece to reflect both on Souter's contribution to the court as well as the future possibilities, but I hope it's clear that my first and foremost preference is a female justice.
Posted by Jen Nedeau on 05/08/2009 @ 07:43PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
You all are confusing policy making with judging. Of course we need elected policy makers, i.e.legislators, who reflect diverse values and perspectives of society, but the vast majority of the time, appellate court justices apply existing law, we call it precedent, to the unique facts of each case before them. They are not supposed to be concerned with the broader implications of their decisions but rather the correct outcome for that particular case.
That is why it should be irrelevant what is the sexual preference, lifestyle or physical disability of the next Supreme Court Justice. The reason that gender and race are treated differently is because the law has made these two individual distinctions subject to affirmative action in order to correct the historical effects of discrimination. I agree that until there are more persons of color and more women on the Supreme Court, the country has not accomplished its goals of correcting unequal treatment of these specific groups of people.
But of paramount concern is that the next justice be of outstanding competence in thefield of judging, which is why prior judicial experience is so important. Attempting to ideologically pigeonhole a candidate can be risky as many court appointments turn out to be much more independent-minded than the administration expected.
Posted by Christopher Nedeau on 05/09/2009 @ 05:12PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
We desperately need another champion of civil rights. This time the human rights movement focuses on children as well. Kids, by birthright, deserve equal protection under U.S. laws as part of citizenship. But because so many people view assault of children differently, this age discrimination in rights to protection still exists. 5.8 million kids were reported as abused in 2007 per Child Maltreatment, a U.S. annual report on abuse and neglect data in the U.S. That's not "spanked" ... and spanking IS by criminal definitions an act of assault. That's "abused," by terms that stay vague and only hint at injuries that would put a kid in a hospital. 3 children die every day in the U.S. from abuse and neglect. 78 percent of them are under 3 years old. Nearly half ... 44 percent ... are 1 year of age or younger.
Children deserve their 14th Amendment Constitutional rights to equal protection. Citizenship protections are a birthright, they aren't delayed until the age of 18. The movement to protect children from all of the lighter terms used to describe assault upon a child at the hands of caretakers and schoolteachers, IS IN FACT a civil rights movement in the U.S., and one that has become successful in 25 other nations already. 25 countries have banned all assault of children. Can't we be next?
Posted by Christine Clarke on 05/10/2009 @ 07:01PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.