« Needs or Wants? | Main | Seasons »
April 28, 2003
"Scalia in a Skirt"?
The femi-nazis are calling some of President Bush's female federal judicial nominees "Scalia in a skirt".
"The women he is nominating are Scalia in a skirt," said Ms. Magazine's Eleanor Smeal, referring to conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. They "never saw a woman's legal right that they wanted to uphold."
Not to cast aspersions on Ms. Smeal's eminent qualifications to determine the proper qualifications for a federal judge, but lady, you're saying that like it's a bad thing.
"A group of well-qualified women and minorities are nominated to the court, but they're not women enough or minority enough," said Don Stewart, spokesman for Sen. John Cornyn, Texas Republican. "That borders on racism and bigotry."
Certainly does, doesn't it? Women differ in their political leanings just like everyone else. And I would assume minorities do also.
"The 1950s housewife era, when a woman had to think certain ways, are over," said Mr. Stewart, spokesman for Mr. Cornyn. Justice Owen is "a distinguished member of the Texas Supreme Court, and she should be judged on that, not on whether she conforms to some view that women are supposed to have."
Frankly, a judge's jurisprudence is more important to me than his or her political beliefs. It's a much better indicator of whether a judge will rule based on the law, or attempt to legislate from the bench. And I believe the latter is wrong, wrong, wrong....whether conservative or liberal.
But that's just my opinion....for what it's worth.
Posted by Rita at April 28, 2003 06:00 AM
Comments
All true. But, as I noted almost a month ago, "the phrase 'Scalia in a skirt' evokes images that I'd rather not have evoked, thank you very much."
Posted by: James Joyner at April 28, 2003 10:49 AM
A kilt maybe, a skirt never.
I'm sure I'll have nightmares about this skirt business.
Posted by: Rita at April 28, 2003 10:58 AM
As you well know, all judgeships are based on political afilliations, in one way or another and it would be disingenous to state otherwise. Having postulate that, the dynamics of this protest is not related to qualifications, but the simple fact that members of NOW, or NAG, are such an extremely small percentage of the population that they are unable to load the bench with their own candiates.
Posted by: Bill at April 28, 2003 12:01 PM
Oh sure, most nominations are based on political affiliation, though many states are doing away with that. But if you want to predict how a judge will rule, look at his or her previous opinions or theory of jurisprudence.
Much more accurate than political affiliation.
Posted by: Rita at April 28, 2003 01:15 PM
I personnaly would not want to predict a judicial decision.....that presumes that the issue is not decided on merit, but on the predictablity of a judges personality. As long as the decision is predicated in the law......
Posted by: Bill at April 29, 2003 03:15 PM