Women and Politics

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.

Well, we almost made it through the second day of Sonia Sotomayor’s confirmation hearings before sexism reared its ugly head. But thanks to Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), it has made an unwanted, noisy, and obnoxious arrival - like the drunken guest stumbling uninvited into your party.

I thought it couldn’t get worse than the constant barrage of questions about the “wise Latina” quote. But I had forgotten about the Pièce de résistance argument: that she’s a mean girl bully who beats up on lawyers. Sen. Graham whipped that dazzling argument out during his impressive (and by impressive, I mean horrifying) line of questioning, saying she has been described as:

Temperamental, overly excitable, not having a good temperament. Lacks judicial temperament. Behaves in an out of control manner, makes inappropriate comments, attacks lawyers. A bit of a bully.

Would a male judge ever be criticized for asking lawyers hard questions? Would he ever be called a bully? Judge Guido Calabresi, a former dean of Yale Law School who sits with Sotomayor on the Second Circuit, says no. Calabresi even kept track of her questions and compared them to those of the other court members - he says her behavior was “identical.”

“Some lawyers just don’t like to be questioned by a woman,” Judge Calabresi added. “It was sexist, plain and simple.”

So clearly if the big, bad lawyers don’t like having to answer to a woman, that must mean she’s a temperamental bully. In response to Graham’s question, Sotomayor explained:

“In the Second Circuit, some lawyers do find that our court is described as a ‘hot bench’ because they’re peppered with questions. Lots of lawyers who are unfamiliar with the process find that the bench is difficult and challenging.”

To which, Sen. Graham replied:

“But if I may interject, it’s that they find you difficult and challenging. Do you think you have a temperament problem?”

I’m not sure if she answered with a simple, “no,” because I was too busy being shocked and horrified. But the point is that this kind of sexist questioning is unacceptable and has no place in a Supreme Court confirmation hearing. What’s next, Sen. Graham? Will you accuse Sotomayor of being catty? Take issue with her hair or clothes? Give her makeup suggestions?

I hope at least my children will live to see a day when women will be judged in the same light as men, and without any ridiculous female stereotypes.

So far, today’s hearing has given Sonia Sotomayor the chance to answer in-depth questions about her past decisions, approach to using precedent, and issues such as privacy, women’s health, discrimination, the Second Amendment, and executive power.

But up first, of course, was another discussion about her background influencing her decisions and the “wise Latina” quote. She explained her real intention and how she was directing her words to a group of Latinos:

“I was trying to inspire them to believe that their life experiences would enrich the legal system, because different life experiences and background always do. I don’t think there’s a quarrel with that in this society. [...] I do not believe that any ethnic, racial, or gender group has an advantage in sound judging. I do believe that every person has an equal opportunity to be a good and wise judge, regardless of their background or life experiences.”

The issue of a woman’s right to reproductive choices and past Supreme Court rulings such as Roe v. Wade were brought up a couple times. Sotomayor’s answer aligned with her view about upholding past precedent, stating that protecting women’s health should always be a compelling consideration, and that Roe is considered settled law.

The infamous New Haven firefighters case was discussed at length, and Sotomayor again stated that her court stuck to past precedent. Read more about the Ricci v. DeStefano case here.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein brought up the hot topic of executive branch power boundaries. After stating how she would have to answer carefully, Sotomayor said:

“First, you look at, has Congress expressly addressed or authorized the president to act a certain way.” If so, she said, “then he is acting at his highest stature of power. [...] If he is acting where Congress hasn’t spoken, then he is acting in what Justice Jackson called ‘the zone of twilight.’ [...] A president can’t act in violation of the Constitution. No one’s above the law.”

So many important and difficult topics have come up today, and know there will only be more to come. So far, I’m impressed with how thoughtful, in-depth, and well-rounded Sotomayor’s answers have been. It’s a breath of fresh air to hear her own explanations and thoughts behind her rulings. I’m also pleased to say there hasn’t been too much emphasis placed on her race or gender. Let’s hope this continues.

The hearing will continue this afternoon - stay tuned!

The first day of Sonia Sotomayor’s confirmation hearings has come to a close. The second part of the day was filled more with supportive statements of Sotomayor.

Starting things off was the newly-elected Senator, Al Franken (D-MN). Addressing the hot topic of judicial activism, and the opinion of many Republicans against the concept, he stated:

“It seems their definition of an activist judge is one who votes different than they would like.”

Next, formally introducing Sotomayor was New York senators Chuck Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand. One of the many great things that Sen. Schumer said that struck me was:

“This moment is historic for all Americans.”

Sotomayor would be only the third woman and the first Hispanic on the court. This is huge - not just for women or Hispanics - but for everyone.

Sen. Gillibrand cited Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s hopes of having more women on the court, and how she is very thankful for President Obama and his recognition of the importance of woman’s voices on our highest court.

And then, after taking an oath, Sonia Sotomayor herself spoke. One of the first things she did was recognize her mother:

“I am here because of my mother’s aspirations and sacrifices for both my brother and me.”

The look of pride on her mother’s face was priceless.  Sotomayor gave great opening remarks, indirectly addresing some of the key arguments being given against her. She stated how she has witnessed the human consequences of her decisions, and that they’re always to serve the larger interest of impartial justice:

“In the past month, many Senators have asked me about my judicial philosophy. It is simple: fidelity to the law. The task of a judge is not to make the law - it is to apply the law.”

Touching on the issue of how her background has affected her decisions, Sotomayor said:

The process of judging is enhanced when the arguments and concerns of the parties to the litigation are understood and acknowledged. [...] My personal and professional experiences help me listen and understand, with the law always commanding the result in every case.

Very well said. The hearings are adjourned until tomorrow, so please stay tuned!

Welcome to the first day of the Sonia Sotomayor confirmation hearing races. Looking out at the track, it looks like they’re trying to round up a few anti-choice protesters. The Senators have reached the gate, they’re at the post. And…they’re off!

First out of the gate is Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Patrick Leahy, praising Sotomayor as an extraordinary woman and citing past hurdles of other minority nominees. He calls her a “justice for all America” and adds, “let no one demean this extraordinary woman.”

And now coming up quickly on the outside, Jeff Sessions (R-AL) opens up the Republican arguments against Sotomayor. We’re not seeing any new tricks here: he pulls out the empathy, “wise Latina,” and prejudice cards.

As we round the bend, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) calls Sotomayor a special woman who has overcome adversity, but is cut off by an anti-choice protester! Patrick Leahy takes swift action and has them removed.

Coming into the final stretch, we’ve got two Republicans neck and neck: Charles Grassley of Iowa and Jon Kyl from Arizona, once again citing Obama’s so-called “empathy standard.”

And coming up on the inside, Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) fires back against the “judicial activist” argument, saying:

The term “activist” is only a “code word” they use to seek judges who will rule in ways they want. Says John Roberts and other “right-wing” judges are the ones who have disregarded precedent in making political rulings that always favor prosecutors and business interests.

And as the Senators cross the finish line of this first race, Sen. Richard Durbin (D-IL) is interrupted by another anti-choice protester, but states that the court must take real life into account. He crosses the finish line and calls recent rulings “a triumph of ideology over common sense,” citing conservatives supporting strip-searches of high school girls.

The hearing now breaks for lunch, but stay tuned as this exciting week at the Sotomayor confirmation hearing races continues. Will Sonia Sotomayor receive the fair hearings that many have called for? Or will the opposition continue to use sexist and racist arguments against this experienced nominee?

And when did empathy become a bad word?