Ruth Bader Ginsburg wants to see 9 women on the Supreme Court

Article here. Excerpt:

'Ginsburg has been candid in the past about her experience as a woman on the nation’s highest court. In conversation with Totenberg on Sunday, Ginsburg said that it was “lonely” after Sandra Day O’Connor retired and that she didn’t like being the only woman on the bench. Asked why that is, Ginsburg replied, “No one wants to be a one-at-a-time curiosity, and that’s what I was. I was the only one. It wasn’t the way the court should be at this time in our history.”

Following up, Ginsburg said that she is often asked how many women on the Supreme Court would be “enough.”

Her answer? “When there are nine.”

“For most of the country’s history, there were nine and they were all men. Nobody thought that was strange,” she explained.

Misandry on the court! Misandry on the court!'

Like0 Dislike0

Comments

She says she wants to see 9 women on the SC since gee, it's been 9 men for so long, so put 9 women on it for awhile.

Amazing a supposedly justice-oriented person like a SC judge would use completely unreasonable thinking. But not really -- she wouldn't be alone. Loads of SC judges have used unreasonable thinking in opinions, remarks, etc.

Two fallacies seem to me to underlie her remarks. The first is she seems to seek justification for propagating an injustice b/c others did it in the past. This is retributory thinking, and what's known as a "tu quoque" (Latin, lit.: "You and that which.") fallacy. In some cases, when harms are so severe, it can be understood (i.e., sympathized with even if not accepted as reasonable). But are socio-cultural standards held for millenia that precluded politicians of both sexes (such as queens, empresses, female presidents and pharaohs, etc.) from appointing women as high court judges so severe a social injustice that the fundamental notion of seeking the best candidate for such a significant job be vacated in favor of finding the best possible female candidate -- and for all 9 seats? Hardly. In fact, gender, race, sexual orientation, etc. ought not be factors in the decision. If they were at some point in the past, we know now this was wrong. So why keep doing it? Retribution, maybe?

Her second sign of fallacious thinking is the fallacy of false attribution. "Only female SC judge around most times --> I feel lonely." Well, maybe so; we're talking emotional needs here, and these defy logic in ppl of both sexes, but somehow, I think all too often, ppl feel a certain way and mis-attribute its cause. Why one feels sad, lonely, etc., is high on that list. But to the point, no one ever said work is where you go to socialize and get your needs for companionship met. Besides, I doubt every woman or even most working as the only woman within a group of men would say they feel "lonely", being the only female among their colleagues in their work group. If you can get social needs met there, great. But the SC assoc. justice job description says nothing abt tending to the personal needs of fellow judges for helping them feel less lonely in life or on their jobs (or does it??). If she feels lonely for any reason, she can join some kind of assn. or club for female judges b/c guess what-- they do exist! Or if it's not being around female judges she necessarily needs, she can broaden her social circle maybe by taking up a hobby. Hell, go to a Meet-Up in Bethesda for something! But perhaps before deciding she's the only lonely one on the SC, she should talk to her SC colleagues to see if they feel that way, too. After all, "It's lonely at the top," is a truism for a reason.

Like0 Dislike0