Women and Politics

This post was submitted by Sophie Shulman, WCF Communications Fellow

In a recent attack ad, Carly Fiorina accused Senator Barbara Boxer of being an ineffectual representative, with her name on only three bills in the past 18 years. This prompted Rod Pennington to conclude that virtually all female Senators are essentially:

“Empty pants suits keeping chairs warm and taking orders from their male party leadership.”

I’m trying to figure out which Senate Rod Pennington and Carly Fiorina are watching. In the U.S. Senate, Barbara Boxer is the first female Chairwoman of the Environment and Public Works Committee and simultaneously, Chair of the Select Committee on Ethics, making her the only Senator in charge of two committees at the same time. Also, a quick online search reveals that, in the current Congress alone, Boxer’s name is on over 500 pieces of legislation, including an international effort to combat HIV/AIDS and tuberculosis, and an important taxpayer protection amendment to the Wall Street Reform bill.

Despite Pennington’s claim that women take their direction from male power-brokers in the Senate, he seems to have forgotten that, in addition to Boxer, who serves as Chief Deputy Whip, Sens. Patty Murray, Blanche Lincoln and Debbie Stabenow all hold leadership positions. In fact, the 4-to-10 ratio among the majority leadership is actually much higher than the actual percentage of women in the Senate (17%)—showing that these women are excelling in their political careers.

The recent health care reform debate also made it clear why we need women in Congress. Senator Barbara Mikulski, a leading member of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, played a key role in ensuring that women received equal treatment in insurance plans.

The Supreme Court’s rejection of Ledbetter shows why having women in Congress—and on the Court—is essential to promoting women’s equality. After Justice Ginsburg’s inspirational dissent, Congress quickly stepped up to remedy our unfair pay systems. Boxer was one of the first to co-sponsor the bill, and was soon followed by Sens. Debbie Stabenow, Olympia Snowe, Patty Murray, Barbara Mikulski, Claire McCaskill, Amy Klobuchar, Dianne Feinstein, Hillary Clinton and Maria Cantwell. Although the final bill was not passed until 2009, it seems unlikely that we would have the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act today without the support of these influential women.

Last year, Sen. Boxer was named the Chairwoman of the Subcommittee on International Operations and Organizations, Human Rights, Democracy, and Global Women’s Issues. This is the first subcommittee to ever focus specifically on women’s issues, and I’m certain that Boxer’s many years of service on the Foreign Relations Committee were instrumental in its creation. In response to her appointment, she eloquently stated that:

“Too often, we turn our eyes away as women are persecuted, abused and treated as second-class citizens. But even the most conservative historians have noted that when women are given the freedom to live up to their full potential, society as a whole flourishes. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Congress and with Secretary Clinton to stamp out violence against women in the world.”

This is an observation that many men would never make. Just as it took Justice Ginsburg to point out that our pay systems were unequal, often we need women to be part of the conversation to show what men choose not to see. In his article, Pennington poses the question:

“Could it be political correctness and the desire to have a woman, any woman, in a high office is to blame?”

The women that I’ve come to respect and admire in the U.S. Senate have fought for women’s rights, equal opportunity, and justice for all. I’m very proud to have these 17 women in the U.S. Senate, and hope the rest of America doesn’t share Pennington’s ridiculous and archaic assertions.

This post was submitted by Sophie Shulman, WCF Communications Fellow

Throughout the first few days of hearings to confirm Solicitor General Elena Kagan as the next Supreme Court Justice, the women on the Judiciary Committee, Senators Amy Klobuchar and Dianne Feinstein, have repeatedly brought up Kagan’s gender as a reason to support her nomination.

Eva Rodriguez at the Washington Post asked her readers yesterday whether this was appropriate—or necessary.

“Yes, Kagan was the first woman to serve as dean of Harvard Law School. Yes, she broke the glass ceiling to become the first female solicitor general of the United States. So what? Would anyone on the panel have praised a white, male nominee for being a great role model for young men? I seriously doubt it.”

While I admire Rodriguez’s perspective that women no longer need to fight to get access to the same opportunities as men, I can’t help but think we’re not there yet. As Sen. Feinstein noted during the hearings, recent cases such as Ledbetter prove that women still make less money than men—decades after women began to challenge the status quo.

And women are still seriously underrepresented in government, making up only 17% of Congress. Yes, we have made progress. But that does not mean that women have won the war.

Rodriguez also claimed that Kagan has not received special attention because of her gender as she has risen in political life.

“I was pleased that little attention was paid to the fact that she is a woman when she was nominated as solicitor general and then to the Supreme Court.”

Clearly, Rodriguez wasn’t taking into consideration the sexist attacks on Kagan’s appearance, sexual orientation, and marital status since President Obama announced his selection. Indeed, the question should not be whether male nominees would be described as role models for young men—but whether a man would be questioned about his sexual preferences just because he has chosen not marry.

I think we should all hope—and work to create—the world that Rodriguez described. But we’re just not there yet. Three women on a Court of nine Justices is not equal representation. And the cases heard by the Supreme Court have an enormous impact on the day-to-day lives of American women. Protecting women’s reproductive health choices and fighting for pay equity are not issues that men in government have often prioritized.

So yes, it does matter that Solicitor General Kagan is a woman, because she will set a good example for young women, make one more crack in the glass ceiling, and bring her unique knowledge and experiences to the Court.

First of all, I just have to share that I am absolutely in love with this picture.

Can’t you just picture this girl as a future amazing candidate, attorney, or judge? I found the pic on Sexism & the City, which also has this great comic about fair pay:

Second, the Huffington Post gave a peak at who the potential top candidates for next Supreme Court pick might be…and six out of 10 of them are women! I did a triple-take and couldn’t believe my eyes. I just hope that this list remains similar when Justice John Paul Stevens does retire. We need more women on the Supreme Court! Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor need some female company.

So happy Friday, all you fabulous feminist grrls and boys - keep on truckin’ and let’s make sure that 2010 is another Year of the Woman.

This post was submitted by Jamie Bence, one of WCF’s Summer 2009 Fellows.

With all the excitement surrounding Sonia Sotomayor’s nomination, it’s easy to ignore that the Supreme Court wrapped up its 2008-2009 term, which has some important decisions concerning women.  Our summary below, with links to each of the opinions:

• Fitzgerald v. Barnstable School Committee: The case involved the parents of a Massachusetts kindergartner claiming that their daughter was discriminated against repeatedly when an eight-year-old boy in her school required her to lift her skirt or pull down her panties.  The court ruled that students could pursue recourse for harassment in school claims under Title IX, which bars sexual discrimination in schools.
• Crawford v. Nashville and Davidson Counties:  Vicky Crawford was fired from her job of 30 years after she answered her employer’s questions during an internal investigation, and told them that she had been sexually harassed.  The Supreme Court determined that Ms. Crawford was protected under the anti-retaliation provision of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which bars discrimination in
  employment.
• AT&T Corp v. Hulteen: In this case, the court considered whether employers violated Title VII by not fully restoring service credit for pregnancy leaves taken before the AT&T Corp v. Hulteen: In this case, the court considered whether employers violated Title VII by not fully restoring service credit for pregnancy leaves taken before the 1978 passage of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act.  Justice Souter’s opinion held that AT&T is not required to include some pregnancy leaves when calculating pension benefits for its female employees.  In her dissent, Justice Ginsburg remarked that she would not dissent if the Pregnancy Discrimination Act were merely “an ordinary instance of legislative revision” of the Court’s construction of a text.   Ginsburg held, contrary to the ruling, that AT&T’s conduct was facially discriminatory, and actionable because it denies equal benefits post-PDA.
• Safford Unified School District #1 v. Redding: This case considered whether the Fourth Amendment prohibited public school officials from conducting a strip search of a student suspected of possessing a drug on campus in violation of school policy.  A thirteen-year-old honors student was rumored to have one or more ibuprofen pills, in violation of the school’s drug-free policy.  After an extensive bodily search which involved the partial removal of the girl’s undergarments, no drugs were found.  The court ruled 8-1, with only Justice Thomas dissenting.  Read here about how Ginsburg said gender changed her perspective on this case.

The justices can’t start a new term just yet though, as they have yet to decide on an election law case involving an anti-Hillary Clinton movie.  Stay tuned, and stay supportive of Sotomayor!

This post was submitted by Jamie Bence, one of WCF’s Summer 2009 Fellows.

As the confirmation hearings for Sonia Sotomayor draw nearer, women from across the political spectrum have spoken out in favor of the prospective justice.  Kirstin Gillibrand recently wrote a column for the Huffington Post supporting her fellow New Yorker:

In Judge Sotomayor, we have a jurist whose life experience allows her to understand, respect, and connect with the people whose lives will be affected by the Court… Through discipline and hard work, Judge Sotomayor went on to graduate with honors from Princeton University and get her law degree from Yale Law School.

Gillibrand’s piece shows how Sotomayor brings diversity to the Supreme Court that extends beyond her gender or race. Her cumulative life experiences, from her humble beginnings, Ivy League education and rise through the legal community will bring a new perspective to the bench.

Sandra Day O’Connor, the first woman appointed the Supreme Court, applauded Sotomayor’s nomination, and pointed out discrepancies between women’s preeminence in the legal field and their sparse representation on the nation’s highest bench:

Our nearest neighbor Canada also has a court of nine members and in Canada there’s a woman chief justice and there are four women all told… About half of all law graduates today are women, and we have a tremendous number of qualified women in the country who are serving as lawyers and they ought to be represented on the Court.

Moreover, O’Connor noted that she was disappointed when she stepped down from the bench and was not replaced by another woman.

Justice Ginsburg commented to CNN that she is “glad to no longer be the lone woman on the court.” She pointed specifically to the recent case of a 13 year old girl being stripped searched for ibuprofen as an example of an area where she felt her male colleagues could benefit from a female perspective.

Ginsburg made clear her belief that more women were needed on the court in the weeks leading up to Souter’s retirement. “Women belong in all places where decisions are being made,” she said. “It could be 60 percent men, 40 percent women, or the other way around. It shouldn’t be that women are the exception.”

Michelle Obama also came out in favor of her husband’s nominee, citing the parallels between their experiences as women of color educated in the Ivy League system:

[Sotomayor] said she never raised her hand her first year because she ‘was too embarrassed and too intimidated to ask questions’…despite all of her professional accomplishments, Judge Sotomayor says she still looks over her shoulder and wonders if she measures up.

However, the First Lady was hardly the only woman in the White House to welcome Sotomayor. Valerie Jarrett, in a recent interview with the Washington Post, defended Sotomayor against charges that she expressed superiority over white, male judges because of her life experiences:

“The spirit of her comment was one about diversity of perspective and enrichment of comment…And I think what the opponents are doing, they’re trying to find that one little kernel they find that they can criticize.”

These remarkable women, who have already established themselves as leaders in our political system, have praised Sotomayor and defended relentless attacks of her credentials. WCF hopes that this outpouring of support for Sotomayor continues through the confirmation process!

Since the announcement of Justice David Souter’s retirement, everyone’s been buzzing about the question of the day: will President Obama nominate a woman to the bench? And should he?

Our answer? YES! And we’re not alone. Several top women’s organizations are urging the President to add another woman to the Supreme Court. Why? Here’s just some of the reasons why the Supreme Court needs another pro-reproductive justice woman:

Ruth Bader Ginsburg is lonely. She’s the only woman on the nine-person Court.

The Supreme Court currently holds four anti-choice men.

Justice Souter stood on the side of women many times. His replacement should do the same.

Women constitute over 50% of our population - and only make up 17% of Congress and hold only one Supreme Court seat.

Roe v. Wade. Reproductive justice.

Obama’s pick will serve a lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court, affecting our country even beyond his presidency.

Equal representation of women in all levels and branches of our government is essential to the success and health of our nation.

WCF President/CEO, Sam Bennett, had this to say in reaction to Souter’s retirement:

“It is unacceptable that the United States currently ranks 72nd in the world for women holding elected office. America should serve as a leader in gender parity, instead of lagging behind.”

“President Obama has the chance to lead us into an era where women have equality in power and representation in the United States.”

Join us in asking President Obama to nominate a woman to the Supreme Court. The President has made strides toward gender parity in the women he’s chosen for his administration. Let’s keep the momentum going. It’s time to bring the assumption that most people in power are men to a screeching hault. The bench and our country need more women in power.

The news of Supreme Court Justice David Souter’s retirement has dominated the news, blogosphere, and twitter world this morning. Speculation of who President Obama will choose to replace this liberal-leaning justice, of course, ensued.

But refreshingly, the overwhelming prediction for Obama’s nomination is: a woman. From Our Bodies, Our Blog:

Among the names mentioned were former Harvard Law School Dean Elena Kagan, who Obama named as his solicitor general; Judge Sonia Sotomayor of the Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit; Judge Diane Wood of the 7th Circuit; and Stanford University law professor Kathleen M. Sullivan.

While the general consensus is that Obama’s replacement won’t radically change the ideological makeup of the Court, it does present him with an opportunity to bring some much-needed diversity to the bench. It also gives him a chance to uphold his pro-choice beliefs - that the Constitution supports a woman’s right to privacy, and that Roe v. Wade was rightly decided - by nominating a pro-choice justice.

Obama’s first 100 days included great strides for women being appointed to office as well as protections for our rights and health. The president now has a unique opportunity to keep that momentum going and move toward the goal of achieving gender parity in public office.

The Supreme Court currently sits with one lonely, fabulous woman: Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. One out of nine. Women make up over 50% of the U.S. population, yet we only hold 17% of congressional seats, and have one Supreme Court justice.

We can no longer ignore this giant disparity. It’s becoming increasingly more recognized that women’s equal empowerment and leadership is essential to the success and health of a nation. If the United States wishes to continue to move foward and solve the grave challenges before us, we need to make gender leadership equality a priority. It’s my sincere hope that President Obama will lead us into an era where woman have equal power and representation.