Monday, May 10, 2010

What about the womenz who aren't liberal?

After the nomination of Elena Kagan for U.S. Supreme Court, I wandered over to Feministing for the first time in many months just so I could read what they wrote about Elena Kagan's nomination to the Supreme Court. Their post is called Kagan Sexism Watch: "What about the menz?!" -- their cute, progressive way of insisting that men, as a class, don't have anything to complain about. Ever. Even when they do.  Here's their brilliant post, in its entirety:

"And so it begins. Via Media Matters, we see that National Review's Kathryn Jean Lopez (who we just lurve at Feministing) is all upset that a whopping two women in a row have been nominated to the Supreme Court.

"Shockingly, a search of Lopez' past tweets and commentary don't indicate any such concern when dude after dude was being nominated..."

It's brilliant, well-written, insightful posts like this that remind me why that blog is so popular. 

People like the crowd at Feministing are big on having a Supreme Court that "looks like America," even though the court is not a representative elected body.  And even though America's representative elected bodies hardly ever "look like America." 

Here's a reality check: if a conservative woman had been nominated, they wouldn't be celebrating. They'd be attacking. In fact, they'd be attacking her worse than if she were a conservative male (anybody remember what they did to Sarah Palin?).  They'd be talking about the fact that she doesn't speak for women. Like Feministing does, as we all know.

Having three liberal women on the Court (which is what we'll have shortly) doesn't "look like America," in case anyone is wondering.  In 2008, Obama lost married women 47-50 percent. Unmarried women, however, delivered him a whopping 70 percent of their vote.

If you want a court that "looks like America," we'd need at least a couple of married, conservative women. How about a practicing Catholic woman who believes in the sanctity of life from the moment of conception?  Does anyone think Feministing would be celebrating that appointment?  My guess is they'd be getting all catty on her, giving women a bad name by behaving in that stereotypical way when women go after each other, claws out.  That's what they did to Palin.

With Kagan's appointment, for the first time ever, there won't be a protestant on the court.  That really "looks like America," doesn't it? 

Personally, I don't care if the Court doesn't "looks like America." I want great legal thinkers. There was a day when presidents picked jurists like Cardozo, Holmes, and Brandeis. And, yes, there are great women judges -- I know some.  Sadly, nowadays, Supreme Court nominations are crassly political, meant to appease constituents.  In the case of the Democratic party, that means appeasing self-anointed victim groups.  And Kagan's nomination is sure to please Obama's most faithful group, single, liberal women.