Women and Politics

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.

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!