Women and Politics

This post was submitted by Sophie Shulman, WCF Communications Fellow

Yesterday marked the beginning of Solicitor General Elena Kagan’s confirmation process to become the next Justice of the Supreme Court. Despite her high office in the U.S. government and extensive legal experience, the fact that Kagan is a progressive woman has attracted a great deal of controversy—leading social conservatives to criticize her lack of judicial experience, appearance, and position on women’s reproductive rights.

Sound familiar? The eminently qualified Sonia Sotomayor was questioned about her experience as well. But in fact, many of the most famous and well-respected Justices were not judges before being appointed to the Court. Senator Dianne Feinstein defended Kagan by reminding the Senate Judiciary Committee that:

“The Roberts court is the first to be comprised entirely of former federal Court of Appeals judges.”

On Monday, through thinly veiled compliments about her academic expertise, social conservatives on the Committee hinted at the type of issues they will try to use to block her nomination. One of the major criticisms leveled at Kagan involved her history of involvement with political issues—AKA, Judicial Activism.

But let’s remember how social conservatives approved countless politically-minded judges while President Bush was in charge of the nominations—but now that progressives have an opportunity to simply maintain the balance of the Court—activism is considered a major issue. As Senator Chuck Schumer eloquently put it:

“Judicial activism now has a new guise—activism to pull our country to the right.”

And one of the issues that the right is most ardently concerned with is that of a woman’s right to make her own health choices. In fact, there were anti-choice protesters outside of Kagan’s hearings yesterday—and conservative Senators frequently alluded to their fear that Kagan would uphold Roe v. Wade.

But despite their supposed fear of judicial activism, these anti-choice politicians would most likely celebrate the active upheaval of the 30 years of jurisprudence that is a woman’s right to choose.

That is precisely why it’s so important that we have another woman on the Court. As Kagan said yesterday:

“I owe a debt of gratitude to two other living Justices. Sandra Day O’Connor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg paved the way for me and so many other women in my generation. Their pioneering lives have created boundless possibilities for women in the law.”

Their careers have also created opportunities for all American women. By standing up for the values that allow women to freely pursue careers and achieve equality, Justices like Ruth Bader Ginsburg have significantly affected countless women’s lives. Cases such as Ledbetter have proven that having women on the Court does matter, because their experiences and perspectives are different from the six male Justices.

With any luck, Kagan will soon be approved as the next woman who will fight for women’s equality and inspire others to follow in her path. Senator John Kerry described Kagan’s bipartisanship and equanimity, saying that Kagan is:

“The type of judge you would want if you weren’t sure what side you wanted to win.”

As we saw with Sotomayor, the hearings only heat up as we go along. But yesterday, Sen. Sessions called for more candor in the confirmation process—here at WCF, we agree. While Kagan herself has shown her commitment to thorough and open hearings, let’s hope that the Senators will do the same—these hearings should be about Kagan’s qualifications—and nothing else.

Today’s news of President Obama nominating Solicitor General Elena Kagan to fill Justice Stevens’ spot on the U.S. Supreme Court should be celebrated. Kagan’s confirmation would add another justice who supports women’s reproductive health choices to the Court; as well as a historic number of women on the Bench.

In a year where women’s health and female candidates have been thrown under the bus, Obama’s pick of Kagan provides a much-needed breath of fresh air.

Yes, it’s sad that we’re still at a point where we celebrate the potential for women to fill just 30% of the seats in any major branch of government…however, we must push for progress. And so far, President Obama is 2 for 2 on Supreme Court nominees—choosing Sonia Sotomayor last year.

As it goes with any Supreme Court nomination process, we know to expect voracious efforts to discredit and attack a nominee’s record and stance on issues. But after seeing the sexist arguments used against Sotomayor last year, we also know to brace for the worst when the nominee is a woman.

In fact, despite Sotomayor’s historically extensive judicial experience, U.S. senators still managed to question her qualifications. So with Kagan, I can only expect the worst. The media is already buzzing about how she may be criticized for never serving as a judge in the lower courts. However, as Media Matters reminds us, Justices John Marshall, William Rehnquist, and Earl Warren had never been judges before their appointments.

But I would bet dollars to donuts that Kagan will be raked over the coals and accused of lacking experience—simply because she’s a woman.

WCF monitored the sexist remarks against Sotomayor last year, and we will not stand idly by if Kagan endures any attacks because of her gender.

This post was submitted by Jean Qiao, WCF communications fellow

We all knew that President Obama could potentially impact the direction of the nation’s highest court. Clearly, Supreme Court justice nominees can define a Presidency, as we saw with George W. Bush and Justices Roberts and Alito…who would overturn Roe v. Wade in a heartbeat.

Luckily, we’re now seeing the second Supreme Court retirement under President Obama (though his nominee won’t change the Court’s ideological makeup): After weeks of suggesting his departure, this morning Justice Paul Stevens announced today that he will officially retire from the bench at the end of June. Justice Stevens is the longest-serving member of the current Supreme Court and has consistently voted in favor of progressive issues.

Wouldn’t it be nice if Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg had the company of another woman on the bench?

Good news, everyone. In their article about Justice Stevens, the Washington Post listed three people that are potentially on the short-list for nominees, and two of the candidates are women: Solicitor General Elena Kagan and appellate court Judge Diane P. Wood. In addition, Kagan is the first woman ever to hold the post of Solicitor General.

So this means there’s a 75% chance that the next Supreme Court Justice will be a woman? I like those odds, but let’s hope that President Obama will make that a reality. Replacing Justice Stevens with a progressive woman will ensure that our reproductive rights are protected (barely protected…but protected).

In a year where we endured multiple efforts by our socially conservative legislators to restrict our reproductive freedoms and throw women’s health under the bus, some support from the nation’s highest Court would be nice.

Adding another woman to the bench will keep us moving toward balancing out the extreme gender inequality in public office government—because we need more women in ALL branches of government.

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.

The rallying cry of women’s political organizations has been that we need gender equity in public office. But why? Because it’s only fair? Women deserve to hold equal leadership roles?

Well, yes. However, the increasing trend is not to base our argument on entitlement, but the fact that women bring unique and needed skills to the political table.

As Renee Loth writes in the Boston Globe, women have traditionally morphed themselves into a male image in order to succeed in the political realm. Even women candidates today such as Hillary Clinton have been reluctant to emphasize their gender too much, for fear of losing votes. But, Loth says, women’s uniqueness is something to be celebrated:

“That women might see the issues through a different prism is something worth promoting, not hiding. Women doctors have pushed for more research into breast cancer. Women lawyers bring gender discrimination and sexual harassment cases. Domestic violence was quietly tolerated in society before women started joining police forces - and newsrooms. Collectively, having women in positions of influence rewrites every equation.”

And Martha Coakley, who recently won the Democratic primary and is well on her way to becoming the first female senator from Massachusetts, tends to agree:

“Women bring so much to the table and it’s important that women run. When women get involved they get enthusiastic, they get everyone else enthusiastic, and women will get the support of other women and of men.”

And luckily, women’s exceptional governing skills aren’t just being touted verbally by female candidates themselves, but finally being quantified. In September, Politico released a report showing that women lawmakers are more effective than their male counterparts.

Still, some women who dare to promote this idea experience backlash, as Sonia Sotomayor did during her Supreme Court confirmation hearings. We all remember the Wise Latina hubbub.

But hopefully more and more women will be able to flaunt their uniquely female set of skills openly and proudly, without the fear of losing support.

Martha Coakley knows that women bring something special and needed to politics, and is encouraging them to run for office:

“Don’t be afraid that you won’t win the first time around. If you don’t run you can’t win. So I’m asking you to run, and I hope you’ll consider it.”

Listen to Martha - ask a woman you know to run for office today!

After a contentious and often sexist confirmation process, the third woman and first Latina has been confirmed by the United States Senate to the Supreme Court of the United States.  Justice Sotomayor will be the nation’s 111th Supreme Court Justice by a 68 to 31 vote.

Sotomayor was supported by every Democratic Senator, fifteen women and nine Republicans.  Her swearing-in ceremony could take place as soon as tomorrow.

Sotomayor will begin her first case work in early September when the justices convene for a rare out-of-session hearing on a campaign finance case involving a conservative group that opposed the 2008 presidential campaign of Hillary Rodham Clinton.  Sotomayor will begin her first full session as the court’s most junior member on October 5th.

Siobhan “Sam” Bennett, President/CEO of WCF, said: “It is essential for the long-term health of our nation that women possess an equal voice in all branches of our government, and the confirmation of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court is an important step toward that goal.”

WCF applauds Justice Sotomayor for her historic ascendance, as well as President Obama for his nomination choice and the Senate for confirming her.  We look forward to more talented female jurists joining the Supreme Court in the future.

The confirmation of Sonia Sotomayor raises questions not just about the composition of the Supreme Court, but the balance of power in our entire country. The fact is, we need women to have an equal voice in our nation’s leadership. This is a very simple, yet somehow deeply complex idea.

Simple, because if you think about the range of diversity in our country, common sense would tell us that our public leadership should reflect the makeup of society. Otherwise, the needs of certain groups can easily be overlooked, and their unique experiences aren’t brought to the table.

Complex, because this is a new concept. Despite America’s goal to bring equality and justice to all, our history is riddled with different groups struggling to be heard and treated fairly. Certainly, never before have we been dedicated to ensuring that the governing power be divided based on the composition of our population. And don’t get me wrong—we aren’t now.

But there is, luckily, a growing sentiment that we should be thinking about the disparity between our government leadership and our society. And it seems that this idea is beginning with the need for women’s voices in our country’s leadership.

Many are conducting and reporting on research which shows that women having an equal seat at the table equals greater success. As Dee Dee Myers pointed out yesterday on MSNBC:

“Increasingly, there’s a body of research which says that when you have a diverse group of decision-makers, they actually reach better decisions. [...] Businesses with more women on their boards and in senior management positions are more profitable.”

Many articles have been written about the financial crisis, asking, if more women had been involved, would we be in such an economic disaster? Debora Spar, former Harvard Business School professor, says that women may “perceive and act on risk” in different ways - possibly leading them to avoid the “massively aggressive behavior that seemingly overnight brought us a crash of epic proportions.” She goes on to say,

“We desperately need to bring more women into leadership positions on Wall Street, in politics, in regulatory bodies and in American life generally. We need women in leadership positions not only because they can manage as well as men but because they manage differently than men [they tend] to make different kinds of decisions and to accept and avoid different kinds of risk.”

Now, before we go into any “wise Latina-she thinks women make better decisions” type territory, let me stop you there. That’s not the argument. The argument is that if women were equally represented on these bodies of power, the decisions made could have a different outcome. With a more diverse set of people working together, you increase the chance that a more balanced and well-thought-out conclusion might be made.

What Sonia Sotomayor has said, repeatedly, during her confirmation hearings is true: “Our system is enriched by a variety of experiences.” Simple idea in theory—endlessly complex in execution. But we have to start somewhere, and having Sonia Sotomayor on our Supreme Court is a heck of a start.