Moment in Herstory: Kagan Confirmed & Sworn In

This past Thursday, August 5th, supreme court justice nominee Elena Kagan was confirmed as the 112th justice and 4th woman appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court. On Saturday, August 7th, Kagan was sworn in twice, once before friends and family and again before the media, by Chief Justice John Roberts who told Kagan, "We look forward to serving with you."

A former Harvard Law School dean and most recently, U.S. solicitor general, Kagan will succeed John Paul Stevens as she makes history by bringing the number of women serving at one time to three of nine seats for the first time.

Kagan's presence on the U.S. Supreme Court is not expected to cause a shift in the supreme court's ideology because Stevens had a reputation for being the "leader of the liberals," but the feminist community excitedly awaits her formal installment as a justice on October 1, 2010.

Photo Credit: Boston Globe

California Supreme Court Could Go to a Female Majority

Last Wednesday, Governor Schwarzenegger nominated Tani Cantil-Sakauye to the position of Chief Justice of the California Supreme Court.

This is great news for women in politics. If Sakauye is confirmed, not only will it be another victory in the sense that there is another woman on the California Supreme Court, but her confirmation would also push the court to a female majority of four to three for the first time in history. (Sakauye would join the three current female associate justices: Joyce L. Kennard, Carol A. Corrigan, and Kathryn M. Werdeger.)

Furthermore, Sakauye, a Filipina-American, would also be the second female and the first person of color in the Chief Justice position.

Governor Schwarzenegger's nomination comes as a response to current Chief Justice Ronald George's announcement that he will not seek another term. George's departure will be a loss to the LGBTQ community, as George authored the legislation that legalized same-sex marriages in 2008 (although later reversed by Proposition 8).

Still, we hope that if appointed, Sakauye will support feminist issues, and help create a fantastic record of feminist rulings for the first-ever, California Supreme Court with a female majority.

The Commission on Judicial Appointments will review Sakauye's nomination on August 25th. If approved, she'll need to be voted into office by California voters on November 2nd.

(photo credit to courtinfo.ca.gov)

Kibbitzing with the Judiciary Committee

Cross-posted at Jewesses with Attitude

Yesterday marked the final day of Solicitor General and Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan’s confirmation hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee. The hearings are regarded by some as a useful tool for gauging a nominee’s judicial philosophy and by others as a farcical display of senatorial bluster and skilled evasiveness. Kagan herself sharply criticized the hearing process itself in a 1995 article she wrote during her tenure as a professor at the University of Chicago, though she says that her perspective on that particular issue has changed now that she finds herself in the hot seat.

Senators and pundits across party lines have praised Kagan's performance during the hearings, though that does not mean that she can count on the support of any conservative Senators when it's time to vote on her nomination. But she has definitely come across as intelligent, quick-witted, and charming. One of her greatest strengths during the hearings has been a killer sense of humor. Her best one liner played off her Jewish identity. When asked by Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) where she was on Christmas Day in the lead-up to a question about the terrorist arrested on a plane this past December, she cleverly retorted "Like all Jews, I was probably at a Chinese restaurant."



I get such a kick out of seeing a nominee who doesn't hide her Jewish identity, but jokes about it. She's bold, she's Jewish, she's from New York--in Elena Kagan, I see myself and a lot of other fabulous women I know. May that chutzpah help her once she's (hopefully!) on the nation's highest bench.

Elena Kagan + No answer = Ex-Gay?!

Supreme Court nominees are often criticized for their views on issues like abortion, the death penalty and so on. In the case of Elena Kagan, there is talk about her possibly being a lesbian because former Harvard classmates claim that they knew her to be a lesbian. While her decline to answer the media's questioning her sexual orientation has caused people to share their ideas about her sexuality, one individual's hypothesis stands out...
Greg Quinlan, President of Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays (PFOX), recently claimed that Kagan should come out as an ex-gay. As an ex-gay himself, Quinlan suggests that if Kagan is a lesbian she would have come out because President Obama supports LGBT individuals and BECAUSE she has not stated her sexual orientation, she must not be a lesbian! He proposes two possible reasons for her refusal:
1. She is worried that denying rumors could imply that she discriminates against LGBT people-- Quinlan states that to prove her heterosexuality she would need to marry a man which would "be a step backward, and not forward, in liberal gender politics"-- OR,
2. She is an ex-gay!
Oh, really? Refusing to share her sexuality with the media means that she must be or was at one time a lesbian? Sorry, but that's bull. First of all, I must point out that just because she doesn't divulge her sexual orientation does NOT mean she is gay or an "ex-gay"-- maybe, just maybe, she would simply prefer to maintain her privacy. Next, I take serious issue with the term "ex-gay" and organizations like PFOX. PFOX and similar organizations use the term "ex-gay" to describe an individual that has been converted-- CONVERTED?!?!-- from being homosexual to being heterosexual. These organizations that claim to support ex-gays and their loved ones are often ran by religious groups that shame LGBT individuals and attempt to convert them.
Specifically, PFOX claims that individuals choose to be ex-gays yet the organization focuses on providing testimonies and resources that encourage individuals to "leave homosexuality." According to Truth Wins OUT, PFOX's "goal was to counter PFLAG by providing the media with parents who claimed to love their children-- while rejecting their sexual orientation. Ironically, the group has never been lead by a person who is actually the parent of an ex-gay individual."
Um... Not anti-gay? I disagree-- PFOX's goal is to counter a prominent pro-gay organization! How can an organization whose primary goal is counter a pro-gay organization not be anti-gay?
However, this organization's aggressiveness toward PFLAG doesn't surprise me. After all, the organization's founder, Anthony Falarano, claims,

"Satan uses homosexuals as pawns. They're in, as you know, key positions in the media, they're in the White House, they're in everything, they're in Hollywood now. Then after he uses them, he infects them with AIDS and then they die."

This group has been against LGBT individuals from the start. You're not fooling me PFOX. Elena Kagan should NOT "come out" as an ex-gay nor should anyone else.

Interested in learning more?

• Check out Ted Cox and contact him at ted.m.cox@gmail.com to let him know that you're interested in having him speak about his undercover work at on your campus.
• Stay up to date on the ex-gay movement at Ex-Gay Watch.

Pro-Choice is Our Choice Too...Roe at 37

First of all, let me say, happy 37th anniversary of Roe v Wade! Now that that's out of the way - don't celebrate, ACTIVATE!

Yesterday, West Coast Organizer Jacqueline, new FMF intern Laura Garnett and myself attended an event called "Pro-Choice is Our Choice Too...Roe v. Wade at 37". It was put together by the National Council of Jewish Women in Los Angeles, along with the Hollywood chapter of NOW and local Planned Parenthood chapters.

The awesome, super-pro-choice speakers included: Rebecca Iaacs, the President and CEO of Planned Parenthood Advocacy Project Los Angeles; Dr. Arthur Fleisher, an OB/GYN who has been practicing medicine since the 50's and performing abortion since BEFORE Roe v. Wade (because abortion became legal in California in 1970); Professor Laurie Levenson of Loyola Law School; and Abbe Land, former Mayor of West Hollywood, current West Hollywood City Councilmember, Co-CEO of the Los Angeles Free Clinic and a past FMF staff member!

The message I would like to convey to you (in case you didn't know) is: OUR RIGHTS ARE NOT SAFE! Roe v. Wade basically ruled that abortion can't be entirely outlawed, but it can be regulated to death - and the anti-choice movement is sure taking advantage! From the Hyde Amendment, to state funding restrictions, to parental notification and consent, biased counseling requirements, mandatory delays, ultrasound requirements, reporting requirements, and more - when it all boils down, abortion is accessible for women with means, and for everyone else, it is not. In fact, 87% of counties in the U.S. do not have a single abortion provider.

In addition to having hugely negative consequences on women's ability to exercise their legal right to abortion, these types of anti-choice tactics are slowly chipping away at the legality of the right itself. Personhood amendments in particular, which we are seeing increasingly (several states had them on the ballot in 2008, state legislatures have considered them and North Dakota's House has even passed one, and we can expect to see them on the 2010 ballots in CA, NV, AK and CO, if not in more states) aim to directly challenge Roe v. Wade.

The North Dakota bill which has passed in the ND House (but has yet to pass in the Senate or be passed into law) defines "personhood" as beginning "at the moment of conception". Of course, the meaning of "moment of conception" is up for debate, but nevertheless, this bill's sole purpose is not only to ban abortion, emergency contraception, and even some forms of birth control in North Dakota, but to make its way to the Supreme Court and overturn Roe v Wade.

And as Laurie Levenson stated yesterday, "We are one vote away from overturning Roe v. Wade". We don't know how Justice Sotomayor will vote on the issue of choice. We know that the two most pro-choice Supreme Court justices, Ginsburg and Stevens, are also the oldest and most likely to retire. So, if Roe v. Wade gets overturned, what next? Well, 15 states actually have unenforceable abortion bans on the books, that would immediately go into effect should Roe be overturned. Oy!

Furthermore, the anti-choice movement has been very successful at making "abortion" a dirty word and making people feel it is a procedure they should be ashamed of. The constant messaging that "abortion is murder" and increased messaging about the connection between fetal/embyronic "life" and "personhood" surely serves their goals well as people internalize these messages like they're a McDonald's marketing campaign.

The reality is that 1 in 3 American women will terminate a pregnancy at some point in their lives. Abortion is one of the most common surgical procedures performed. So why is it so stigmatized?!

Today, on the 37th anniversary of Roe, please treat it not as a celebration, but a call to action! Make sure young people realize the very real and constant threat our rights are under. Raise awareness about abortion - the procedure itself, how common and safe it is, and encourage people to speak up and speak out for our rights!

Sotomayor, Suits, Sexism

Cross-posted with Princeton University's Equal Writes blog.

I can't wait for the day when an accomplished, powerful woman appears is made completely irrelevant by the contents of her brain and of her résumé.

I thus find Robin Givhan's article in the Washington Post yesterday - in which she accused the SCOTUS nominee of exhibiting little obvious femininity and of dressing "in the manner of a 1980s lady power broker" - disturbing. Not only do I believe Sotomayor's fashion choices were completely unobjectionable, I'm left wondering why Givhan even cares.

The justice's ensembles reflect her awareness of the climate of her hearing. Racism and sexism - from implications that her Puerto Rican heritage would hinder her ability to make decisions to bogus controversy over her involvement in the Belizean Grove - were obvious players in the questioning and surrounding media speculation, but Sotomayor remained calm and unshaken. Aware of our nation's ever-present biases against Latinos and against women (and especially against Latina women), she was careful not to let her demeanor or statements give the committee any reason to doubt her level-headedness or her "fidelity to the law."

It makes sense, then, that she chose "simple and bold" colors and "virtually no visible jewelry." I'm not alarmed that she wore "sheer black pantyhose." I understand why her nails gave "no hint of the cherry-red manicure that she has, on occasion, worn." In Givhan's own words, she was trying to "leave [her] gender at the door" and let the hearing focus on her accomplishments, knowledge, and experience.

If she "embraced that period in fashion when femininity had no place in the executive suite," as Givhan asserted, she was being careful not to offend the Senators of the Judiciary Committee (of which 17 out of the 19 members are white males) who haven't yet come to terms with the possibility of an assertive, intelligent Latina woman.

But aside from this article's unwarranted criticism of her fashion choices, I'm concerned with why the criticism is being doled out in the first place. Women should wear whatever they want, period. Whether or not Sotomayor chose to abide by what Givhan calls the "new gospel of women's power dressing" that encourages wearing accessories, ditching the pantyhose, and favoring sheath dresses over shoulder-padded suits, her fashion sense has nothing to do with how she's going to perform on the bench.

Givhan's article thus elevates a superficial and should-be unimportant issue: the clothes that a strong and intelligent woman just happens to be wearing.

Photo courtesy of http://www.flickr.com/talkradionews.

Women in the Supreme Court

The New York Times featured an interview with Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, entitled The Place of Women On the Court, in which they discussed women and politics. Having been the only woman on the Supreme Court for the past three years, she is optimistic about the seemingly likely appointment of Sotomayor, and expressed extreme confidence in Sotomayor's ability. She even told the interviewer that Sotomayor would "hold her own" with the other Judges.

Ginsburg also tackled the idea of a change in the atmosphere on the bench if there was a higher presence of female judges, versus male judges, and how she thought Supreme Court rulings might differ depending on cases pertaining to women's rights. She touched upon future legality of Roe VS Wade, and many other famous court cases. I really encourage you to read the interview. She is obviously an incredibly brilliant woman, and has had many unique experiences serving on the Supreme Court.


Photo Courtesy of thewhitehouseproject on flickr

Supreme Court Rules in Strip Search Case

The Supreme Court ruled in an 8-1 decision today that the strip search of a 13-year old girl by public school officials was unconstitutional. In the majority opinion, Justice Souter affirmed the circuit court's decision that the girl's Fourth Amendment rights had been violated (see pdf of majority, concurring, and dissenting opinions here).

The 13-year old student, Savana Redding, was accused by a fellow classmate of having several tablets of ibuprofin, an over-the-counter drug banned from school property. After getting the tip from the fellow classmate, vice principal Kerry Wilson searched Redding's backpack and pockets, and then sent her to the nurse where she was required to strip down to her bra and underpants. At no point during or immediately following the search was Redding permitted to call her mother.

While acknowledging that Redding's Fourth Amendment rights were violated, the Supreme Court overturned the lower court's decision to hold vice principal Wilson accountable for the strip search. Souter and six other justices ruled that Wilson and other school officials were immune from legal punishment because past court rulings have been unclear regarding the amount of power that administrators have over students.

Justices Stevens and Ginsburg concurred that Redding's Fourth Amendment rights had been violated by the search, but disagreed with the court's ruling on Wilson's immunity. In her opinion, Justice Ginsburg wrote of Wilson's actions that "abuse of authority of that order should not be shielded by official immunity... Wilson's treatment of Redding was abusive and it was not reasonable for him to believe that the law permitted it."

While it is a victory that the court acknowledged Redding's constitutional rights in this case, it is a shame that no one is being held accountable for the undoubtedly traumatic experience that she endured. The court must clarify its position on students' vs. school officials' rights to ensure that what happened to Savana Redding does not happen again.

The Supreme Court Rules!*

Today the Supreme Court ruled in a case that seems completely mundane and specific, like almost every Supreme Court case, but actually has huge implications. A small municipality in Texas wanted to change its voting location from a private garage to an elementary school. Under section five of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (extended for 25 years in 2006 by Congress) they had to apply with the federal government to make that change to their election procedures.

Section 5 applies to districts from Massachusetts to Alaska, but is disproportionally applied to Southern states. When the Act was written in 1965, registration of whites in the South was up to 50% higher than registration of African-Americans. Literacy tests were given asking questions about obscure state constitutional law and the number of bubbles in a bar of soap.

Southern states did disproportionally discriminate against minorities, and Section 5 sought to rectify that. It states that the districts chosen had to clear any change in their voting law with the federal government, in order to prevent discrimination against minorities. The Court ruled 8-1 that the municipality in this case could apply for a blanket exemption from Section 5, instead of filing separate requests for every change.

This ruling is important because the case was trying to question the constitutionality of Section 5. The Court compromised with the exemption option they offered. The Justices in the majority questioned Section 5 in the actual proceedings, noting that it is unfair to assume that Southern states are inherently more racist than Northern states, but they ended up leaving Section 5 intact.

The Court kind of copped out on the constitutional question presented about Section 5, but in the long run this compromise is much better for fully enfranchised voting than almost any other outcome. This decision is basically the Court's admission that we still need to work to ensure fair voting practices. Clarence Thomas, however, disagrees.

My opinion of Clarence Thomas is heavily influenced by my Supremes experience. Last fall I was lucky enough to sit in on a Court case and I witnessed Thomas' judicial style. He leaned back in his chair, whispered snarkily (or so I assumed) to Breyer, and looking generally like he didn't give a (bleep) about the proceedings. He also happens to be the one dissenting opinion in this case, and I take him a lot less seriously now that I know how he operates. His argument as the lone dissenter in this case was basically that while Section 5 was an extremely effective law in its time, there is no need for it now because there is no systematic campaign of violence against minorities.

The Court's decision to ignore the constitutionality question and create a loophole in Section 5 is, in a roundabout way, support for voter enfranchisement. And Clarence Thomas's dissent is a completely unsurprising sign of his irrelevance.

Check out this great overview of the ruling at Daily Kos.

*Get it? GET IT? I love terrible puns.

Sotomayor: Not a Meanie

The world is still afraid of powerful women.

SCOTUS nominee Sonia Sotomayor (ahem, Princeton '76!) is a "civil rights advocate...[with] nearly two decades on the federal bench," a judge with a "complete package of experience" in numerous levels of public service, and a "sharp and fearless jurist who does not let powerful interests bully her into departing from the rule of law." If confirmed, according to a press release from the White House, she'd have more federal judicial experience than any judge on the Court in the past century.

But her strong qualifications are met with accusations of a perhaps "too strong" personality. An article from NPR notes that her style has been called "blunt, even bullying," and unnamed attornies have described her as "'a terror on the bench,' 'nasty,' [and] 'overly aggressive.'"

This unflattering portrayal, however, may be symptomatic of America's lingering typecasting of women. A female, no matter how successful, is supposed to be more docile and passive than her male colleagues and counterparts; if she's opinionated and fearless, she's a bitch. The NPR article goes on to describe how Judge Guido Calabresi, former dean of Yale Law School, began keeping track of Sotomayor's questions (in court) and comparing them to male judges', only to state that he found "no difference at all" in style and content.

And when NPR listened to "two tape-recorded oral arguments in important cases" comparing her with her colleagues, they came to similar conclusions: "if Sotomayor sometimes dominates oral arguments at her court — if she is feisty, even pushy — then she would fit right in at the U.S. Supreme Court."

Feministing summarizes the issue well: she's "not meaner, just femaler."

Newsday Tuesday: June 9 Edition

Hey there, feminist folk, here's your Tuesday roundup of the hottest feminist news this week:

In the US, the death of Dr. George Tiller and related news has dominated the newswire. However, a few other domestic things have come across our radar:

• The Supreme Court will not hear a case challenging the constitutionality of the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy, banning gays and lesbians from openly serving in the military.
  
  
• In New Hampshire, legislation legalizing same-sex marriage was signed into law by Governor John Lynch.
  
  
• The US House passed the Federal Paid Parental Leave Act, which would provide 4 weeks of paid parental leave to Federal Employees after the birth or adoption of a child.
  
  
• Recent polls are showing that Supreme Court Nominee Sonia Sotomayor has public support - Sotomayor would be the third woman and the first Hispanic to serve on the Supreme Court, if confirmed.

On the Global Front:

• Meira Kumar, an Indian parliamentarian, is expected to become India's first female Speaker! In other India-related news, Pratibha Patil, the country's first woman president, announced an initiative to pass legislation to empower women in government by reserving a portion of seats for women.
  
  
• President Obama's speech in Cairo addressed global women's rights, including rights of women in Islam.
  
  
• The number of reported rapes in the Democratic Republic of Congo is soaring, with incidences caused primarily by the Democratic Forces of the Liberation of Rwanda (FDLR), a Rwandan Hutu rebel group.

Newsday Tuesday: May 26 Edition

Another week of feminist news has gone by, so here's a quick week-in-review!

National:
The US Supreme Court ruled that maternity leave taken prior to the 1979 Pregnancy Discrimination Act does not have to be credited to pensions on a pregnancy discrimination case.

President Obama announced his nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court of the United States, replacing retiring Justice David Souter.

International:
The Nepalese Supreme Court ordered an expansion of access to abortion, particularly for poor women.

State by State:
A proposed anti-choice constitutional amendment in the state of Tennessee passed the state house of representatives, specifically stating that "nothing in this Constitution secures or protects a right to abortion or requires the funding of an abortion."

The State Assembly of California passed a broader state-level version of the federal Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009, expanding the statute of limitations on pay discrimination claims runs from the receipt of each discriminatory payment.

The Louisiana state House passed a health care "conscience" bill, allowing providers to withhold abortion, emergency contraception, and other services and medications on the basis of religious or moral objections.

In response to legislation earlier this month by the DC City Council enabling the District to recognize same sex marriages performed in other states, a bill was introduced to the US House of Representatives that would institute a Defense of Marriage Act for the District of Columbia defining marriage as between a man and a woman.

And the big news from California - the state's Supreme Court upheld the results of Proposition 8, an anti gay marriage ballot initiative which passed in November 2008.

Photo Credit: Official WhiteHouse Flickr Stream and Val protesting Prop 8 in DC last fall.

Judge Sotomayor Nominated for SCOTUS

Sonia Sotomayor has been nominated for the US Supreme Court. Sotomayor currently serves on the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals. She is the daughter of Puerto Rican parents, born and raised in the South Bronx, and a graduate of Princeton and Yale Law School.

If confirmed, Judge Sotomayor will be the first Hispanic Supreme Court justice, the third woman, and the first woman of color! She has ton of diverse legal experience and a compelling life story. Check out her moving acceptance speech here and learn more about Sotomayor at the NYT. Read some of her appellate decisions at the SCOTUS blog.

Rumblings in the Palmetto State

It looks like things are shaking up in South Carolina!

It appears the bill requiring a 24-hour waiting period for women seeking an abortion may not make it through the Senate before the session comes to a close this week! Could this finally be a win for women in South Carolina?

And do I dare to hope that Carolina's failing schools may finally get some much needed funding? With threats to veto the $350 million in stimulus funds intended to help address SC's failing schools and sky-rocketing unemployment (second highest in the nation), Governor Mark Sanford just may find himself in the court room with an unlikely foe. Chapin High School senior, Casey Edwards, who previously filed suit against Sanford in April, is ready to take Governor Sanford back to the state Supreme Court if he decides to veto the stimulus money. Way to take it to the man, Casey!



Update: Gov. Sanford used his veto pen yesterday on the budget and it looks like things may be heading to the state Supreme Court. Get ready for the fireworks!

A filly walks into a bar...

...and the bartender says "Why the long face?"

Some good news to start the week:

Four women won seats in the Kuwaiti Parliament after the country's elections Saturday. Kuwait has never had female MPs. We hope they will have a productive time there, and will bring a much-needed voice to the government.

Congrats to Rachel Alexandra, who ran from the front wire-to-wire Saturday to win the Preakness Stakes. Feministing's assessment of the media coverage around the race was right on.

Last Friday, I saw the Examiner's above-the-fold headline of "You Go, Girl!" This was certainly out of character, so when I looked below the fold, of course Rachel Alexandra was the cover horse. It's safe to say the Examiner wouldn't give a woman similar encouragement, so that's as feministy as the Examiner gets. Good start.

Slate launched Double X, a site for women's commentary on news, politics, art, and science. A lot of the posts grapple with the (ir)relevance of feminism, which I find troubling. But some of the contributors do write thoughtful pieces from a feminist perspective. Judge for yourself and let us know what you think.

And the bad news:

The U.S. Supreme Court today ruled women who took maternity leave before the Pregnancy Discrimination Act can't sue for bigger pensions. Justice Souter wrote the majority opinion, while Justices Ginsburg and Breyer dissented. Yet another reason it's imperative President Obama replace Justice Souter with a progressive and feminist jurist.

Additionally, the Burmese junta is trying democratic opposition leader Daw Aung San Suu Kyi for violating the terms of her 6-year house arrest. To me, this raises one of the key questions of American foreign policy:

Should our democracy be the shining city on the hill, in which we lead solely by example? Or do we embrace the Truman doctrine, in which the US actively "support[s] free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures?"

President Obama has his hands full as he negotiates the extent of U.S. involvement of foreign affairs. Best of luck to him.

Questions? Comments? You know where to find us: campusteam@feminist.org.

Supreme Court Update

More news has emerged since we last discussed the looming Supreme Court nomination! A list of potential nominees has been leaked by a source at the White House to the Associated Press and (awesomely) 5 of the 6 names listed are women.

The list confirms the consideration of the four women I discussed last week: Solicitor General Elena Kagan, Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm, and US Appeals Court judges Sonia Sotomayor and Diane Pamela Wood. A surprise for me was Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano. Also listed was California Supreme Court Justice Carlos Moreno.

Mix It Up: Souter's Departure from the Supreme Court

I absolutely love the Supreme Court. I have been in my glory this past week as every major news outlet has actually dedicated some coverage (when they weren't talking about Obama eating a burger across the street from FMF's office) to my favorite branch of government.

I am sorry to see David Souter leaving the Court. In his nineteen years on the bench, he has proven himself to be a remarkably intelligent, fair-minded judge. He wrote the decision upholding a woman's right to choose in Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992) and he joined the majority in 2000's Stenberg v. Carhart, which struck down state laws against "partial birth abortion" (a decision that was sadly overturned in 2003). He has also upheld the constitutionality of important civil rights legislation, been an advocate for the separation of church and state, and defended the rights of GLBT individuals.

Ironically, when Souter was first nominated to the Supreme Court by George H.W. Bush, most progressive leaders and organizations (including FMF!) were passionately against his nomination. I am so glad that he proved them all wrong.

But while Justice Souter will be missed, President Obama now has an amazing opportunity to change the make up of our remarkably homogenous Supreme Court (8 in 9 white, 8 in 9 male, 9 in 9 alumni of the Federal Appeals Court). I am delighted that almost all of names being thrown around by the press are women--as we all know, my girl RBG is lonely out there (a future post on my immense admiration of and affection for Ginsburg coming soon). The lack of diversity among the justices is troubling and, as Christine Boyd and Lee Epstein recently wrote in a Washington Post op-ed, it affects the way the Court rules.

Here are a few of the subjects of the media's SCOTUS speculation:

Sonia Sotomayor serves on the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. She has a reputation of being a tough, outspoken judge who tends to rule against the government or big corporations. If appointed to the bench, she would the first Hispanic Supreme Court Justice.




Elena Kagan is the Solicitor General of the United States (the first woman to hold that position. Prior to her appointment, she was the dean of Harvard Law School. She has a wide range of legal experience, having served in the Clinton White House as a councilor and advisor, taught at the University of Chicago School of Law, and practiced privately.




Diane Wood is a federal judge serving on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. She was a faculty member at the University of Chicago School of Law at the same time as President Obama. She has consistently ruled to protect reproductive rights and the right to privacy.




Jennifer Granholm is the governor of Michigan. Born in Canada, she is a naturalized American citizen. President Obama has indicated that he values experience as an elected official, which could give Granholm a boost.





This is, of course, all speculation. There are countless potential candidates for the Supreme Court out there, and the president could surprise us all. My favorite suggestion so far? Melissa Harris Lacewell's endorsement of Kimberlee Crenshaw. She could really shake things up.

Feminist Friday Fun Day

Hope this Friday finds you well. This week has been a little bumpy for the FMF family, as several staff members are caring for ill family members right now. Please join us in sending Emily and Kathy some positive thoughts.

Aside from that, it's been a pretty good week for feminism. Tuesday the 28th was Equal Pay Day, a reminder that we must continue working to make fair pay a reality.

The same day, Kathleen Sebelius was finally sworn in as Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Secy. Sebelius had a great record working for women and families as governor of Kansas, and we're optimistic she'll be a great cabinet head.

This morning, the Washington Post reported U.S. Supreme Court Justice David Souter is planning to retire. The Post's follow-up article listed several female and minority candidates President Obama could appoint to fill Souter's position, in order to make the high court better reflect the American public. The National Women's Law Center also supports a diverse court.

We want President Obama will nominate a progressive, pro-choice candidate. Who would you like to see on the court? Past justices have come from a wide variety of backgrounds, including the executive and legislative branches, as well as folks outside government. So think big and comment below or e-mail us at campusteam@feminist.org with your favorite candidates for the position!