Thoughts on gender quotas for the US Supreme Court

topic posted Fri, June 26, 2009 - 8:53 PM by  Timbo Nehead
Share/Save/Bookmark
Advertisement
I was thinking about this the other day and, frankly, I don't see a problem with their being gender super-minorities on the US Supreme Court. What do I mean by a 'super-minority'? Basically, I propose that there be a Constitutional Amendment whereby a majority minus one of the Supreme Court be women and men. Currently that would mean that there would be a legal requirement that four justices be men and four justices be women. The ninth justice would be the Chief Justice and would be of alternating gender--that is, if the previous Chief Justice was a man, then a woman would have to be appointed from the current pool of sitting Supreme Court justices who happened to be women. If the previous Chief Justice were a woman then the Chief Justice would have to be appointed from the pool of sitting Supreme Court justices who happened to be men.

Just a thought. Comments?
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • I think it's an excellent idea. For a myriad of reasons. I don't have time to go into all of them now... but I have written a few rather snarky blog entries about this subject in the past couple of weeks.

    I am also for parity of representation in the House and Senate. (Though I realize we will have a harder time of it, since those are elected offices.)

    16% doesn't cut it for me anymore. The paucity of women in high office is a direct result of overt discrimination on the part of the two established parties, and the MSM, as far as I am concerned. 2008 convinced me of that.

    Amma
    • The legislating of egalitarianism is always difficult. However, the 14th amendment speaks to it. Too bad the Republican Party didn't have enough cajones to actually get the ERA passed. My guess is that, based on your statistics, that it would be difficult now too. However, I don't quite understand why some politicians don't still support the idea. The ERA is still a good idea, right?