Women and Politics

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.

America’s prospective first Latina and third female justice is one step closer to confirmation.  This morning, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted to endorse Judge Sonia Sotomayor.  However, the vote was almost entirely along partisan lines—13 to 6, with Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina the only Republican in favor.

Despite previously making demeaning and sexist comments during Sotomayor’s hearing process, Senator Graham did an about-face when it came time to vote, saying that he knew she was qualified for the nation’s Highest Court, and this was the only factor which determined his final decision.

There are only two women on the prestigious Judiciary Committee- Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-MN)- both of whom voted in favor of Judge Sotomayor.

The full floor vote is likely to be less partisan.  Several prominent Republicans, including Olympia Snowe of Maine, have pledged to support Sotomayor.

Watch the Committee vote here.  A full Senate vote, the final step in the confirmation process, is expected by August 7th. WCF supports Judge Sotomayor, and believes her confirmation is an important step towards reaching equality in public office.

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!

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!

On Friday, I had the pleasure of accompanying WCF President/CEO Sam Bennett to a taping of To the Contrary on PBS. The topics of the day were: healthcare reform and how it affects women, the retirement age increasing, and the recent Supreme Court ruling that the strip-search of the 13 year-old girl was illegal.

This all-female news analysis series is hosted by Bonnie Erbe - an exceptional journalist. Bonnie was honored by Women’s Media Center for her contribution to women in the media - a special and unusual honor since most journalistic awards are applied for - and this was just given.

Along with Sam, the panelists were: DC Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton, The Heritage Foundation’s Genevieve Wood, and Former Labor Dept. Assistant Secretary Victoria Lipnic. It was an honor to meet Eleanor Holmes Norton - now in her tenth term as a DC Congresswoman, she’s a powerful leader for women. Appointed in 2002, Victoria has an impressive track record as a moderate Republican - a very difficult path to walk. And though we may not agree when it comes to issues of reproductive justice - in particular, taking the pro-choice language “choices” and using it to the opposite end - I was impressed by Genevieve’s articulate and gracious nature.

Though each had their own unique perspective on healthcare reform and women’s retirement trends, they all seemed to agree that the Supreme Court strip search ruling was correct. Sam stated that, ”We can’t have schools be Constitutional dead zones.” You can watch that special online segment here.

Bonnie asked the panel if healthcare reform would help or hurt women, which drew differing responses. Genevieve Wood feels that putting bureaucrats in charge of our health decisions would negatively impact women. (I would argue that this is exactly what anti-choice laws do).

The details of Obama’s proposed healthcare reform plan are still being ironed out, but Sam Bennett points out that it’s essential for women and our country that the system be fixed:

“We spend more on healthcare than any nation and yet are ranked 37th by the World Health Organization in quality of care delivered to its citizens. Women bear the brunt of this inequity and stand to benefit the most.”

Be sure to catch To the Contrary on PBS - women’s perspectives are so often overlooked, and this show raises them to the forefront of today’s important issues. We look forward to future opportunities to participate in this fabulous series.

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!