Thursday, October 13, 2005

gender in the supreme court

I think having John Roberts and now Harriet Miers being noominated for the SCOTUS has been a great way to prove gender disparities not only exist, but many of the Senate still believe in gender norms/stereotypes. It's obvious in the way they are questioning Miers' ability to lead this country and are interested in her "judicial philosophy", of which she has none, but that's beside the point.

Dobson, of Focus on the Family, got invited to a special meeting with Karl Rove before Miers was nominated and, well, it's just fucking hilarious in that sad, can't-do-anything-but-chuckle-or-I'm-gonna-scream way. Because this means they were attempting to prop Miers up before we officially knew about her. I'm sure the Shrub cronies figured if they got Dobson on their side from the get-go, he'd help smooth over the fact she has absolutely no history in law-making. Sure she was a lawyer, but one that didn't live in a court room.

Anyway, I think it's interesting they are using religion as a point in which to doubt her ability to be a nonpartial Justice when Roberts is a die-hard fundamentalist conservative Catholic, but hey, we weren't allowed to talk about that.

What scares me the most is that if Miers isn't confirmed, Shurb will have the opportunity to appoint someone even worse. At least with Miers, we feel safe in knowing she'd mostly sit in the background, trying to disappear into the wallpaper. I"m afraid that if he gets a 2nd chance at this one, he won't be a *safe* with his choice.

I have a paper due at some point in my Women and the Law class. We have the option to do it on the confirmation hearings and, lucky me, I get two of 'em and I plan to compare/contast and see just how different their line of questioning is/isn't. For the first time, I'm actually looking forward to writing a paper!