Forget the Gender Debate
I want someone who speaks for me on the Supreme Court
Commentary, Eming Piansay,
YO! Youth Outlook, Oct 19, 2005
As I shuffled through an unusually high stack of old magazines piled up in my house, I passively listened to the news on the radio in the background. Every so often I’d stick my head up and let my ears catch some of the dialogue. Most of what I heard consisted of the debate about Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers, who will replace the retiring Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Conner.
I always thought it was a kind of miracle to have just one or two women, along with a grip of men, on the Supreme Court. From my point of view, just having one woman – regardless of her political position – is progress in itself. At the same time I would hope that, for a position such as the Supreme Court, someone with a distinct record and capable performance, rather than blind sitting duck who doesn’t know whether to flap or squawk, would be given the right of way into the courts. Even Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg expressed the same idea at a speech back in September. She said: “Yes, it would be nice to have another woman on the court, but not any woman.”
President George Bush said not to long ago, “Harriet Miers is a uniquely qualified person to serve on the bench. She is smart, she is capable. She is a pioneer.” If being smart and capable were the chief qualities to have for getting nominated for the Supreme Court every other Joe-Somebody in the country would be nailing their glossy resumes to the White House door.
Now, once you’re on the Supreme Court you’re in there for life. Life, baby, life. Being young and naïve right now, the thought never crosses your mind that when you’re 60 these guys might decide, “Hey, to hell with your social benefits and securities. We have bigger problems right now, like crazy, deadly sponges from Mars.”
When Miers was first nominated all the news that came out about her talked about how religious she is and how she goes to church and loves God. Unless this position is really for a Catholic school teacher in Texas, I don’t see why it would matter if she worshiped God, Jesus or the local 7-11. If you are religious be religious, but don’t throw that card around when it comes to these sort of big issues. There’s a separation of church and state for a reason.
Usually, most judges are supposed to be fair and be able to see two sides of opposing views, at least that’s the hope. At the same time personal prejudices come into play, that’s just human nature. For example, Miers backed the ban of abortion in 1989. Clearly, issues similar to this may come up in the future and her past biases might surface. If placed on the Supreme Court, Miers could prove to be a really good friend to some and a really big pain to others. Till now she’s been lock-lipped about her current take on abortion, but I figure if things go well for her she won’t be able to shut up about what she thinks later.
With people like John Roberts and Harriet Miers being selected for important positions like the Supreme Court, I’m forced to wonder if there will ever be a someone that high up in the system – male or female – who will actually speak and act for the people. 1 of 1
I always thought it was a kind of miracle to have just one or two women, along with a grip of men, on the Supreme Court. From my point of view, just having one woman – regardless of her political position – is progress in itself. At the same time I would hope that, for a position such as the Supreme Court, someone with a distinct record and capable performance, rather than blind sitting duck who doesn’t know whether to flap or squawk, would be given the right of way into the courts. Even Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg expressed the same idea at a speech back in September. She said: “Yes, it would be nice to have another woman on the court, but not any woman.”
President George Bush said not to long ago, “Harriet Miers is a uniquely qualified person to serve on the bench. She is smart, she is capable. She is a pioneer.” If being smart and capable were the chief qualities to have for getting nominated for the Supreme Court every other Joe-Somebody in the country would be nailing their glossy resumes to the White House door.
Now, once you’re on the Supreme Court you’re in there for life. Life, baby, life. Being young and naïve right now, the thought never crosses your mind that when you’re 60 these guys might decide, “Hey, to hell with your social benefits and securities. We have bigger problems right now, like crazy, deadly sponges from Mars.”
When Miers was first nominated all the news that came out about her talked about how religious she is and how she goes to church and loves God. Unless this position is really for a Catholic school teacher in Texas, I don’t see why it would matter if she worshiped God, Jesus or the local 7-11. If you are religious be religious, but don’t throw that card around when it comes to these sort of big issues. There’s a separation of church and state for a reason.
Usually, most judges are supposed to be fair and be able to see two sides of opposing views, at least that’s the hope. At the same time personal prejudices come into play, that’s just human nature. For example, Miers backed the ban of abortion in 1989. Clearly, issues similar to this may come up in the future and her past biases might surface. If placed on the Supreme Court, Miers could prove to be a really good friend to some and a really big pain to others. Till now she’s been lock-lipped about her current take on abortion, but I figure if things go well for her she won’t be able to shut up about what she thinks later.
With people like John Roberts and Harriet Miers being selected for important positions like the Supreme Court, I’m forced to wonder if there will ever be a someone that high up in the system – male or female – who will actually speak and act for the people. 1 of 1
