Why has there been so little mention that there are 4 women on the Supreme Court?

You make a good point, and it is a milestone. But maybe the true milestone is the lack of special attention. Treating this as normal and unremarkable is the state we want to achieve, isn’t it?

I’d like to see the recognition of a milestone such as this: It’s been x years since anybody thought it was a big deal to have a woman (of any color) on the Supreme Court.

Because it’s no big deal. And that, itself, is a big deal.

Because, it is still not enough. Remember the Notorious RBG anecdote: at what point there would be enough women on the bench, Ruth Bader Ginsburg had a simple answer: “When there are nine.”

@zenvelo I think 4 is fine. I think 1 is fine. I think none is fine.

All that matters is that they are qualified for the position. That’s it.

I certainly can’t speak for every woman out there, but I already know I can do whatever it is that I want in life. I don’t really need there to be women on the supreme court in order to know that women can be on the supreme court.

That being said, I am all for representation, as long as they are the most qualified pick for the job. Representation means nothing if the reason is because of gender, race, whatever. It also means nothing when that pick is not qualified and a bad pick.

One day we might not even care if they are labelled Republican or Democrat.

She is qualified @SergeantQueen.

Because NO SEX.

Therefore no news, no outrage, no accustations, no money, no guns, no drugs, no fetuses… and nobody cares.

Honorable character & good public behavior gets you nowhere.

@Dutchess_III

I wasn’t saying she wasn’t. I was talking generally.

I’m not sure you can be “all about representation” and still be OK with a SCOTUS with nine male judges. I think you need to rethink that. Inspiring girls to pursue law degrees is not really to point. Women already outnumber men in law schools. Lack of diversity impacts judicial decisions and erodes the public’s confidence in institutions. Well, some of the public,

To mention it would be sexist.

@SergeantQueen Women’s rights are already being taken away from them. Just this week Oklahoma passed a law blocking most abortions. Whatever you may think about abortion, that was a right given to women years ago in Row vs. Wade and now male lawmakers are taking that right away.
So we damn well need women on the Supreme Court to speak for women.

@Jeruba‘s right.. Equality should not be surprising or newsworthy.

But it is necessary until actual equity is achieved.

@canidmajor True as well. Income disparity is still very much status quo. Sometimes we say ’ if we only had a penis maybe we’d get a raise.’

Diversity on the Supreme Court is an excellent thing.

The Supreme Court is not, however, about representation. Congress is about representation. That’s the purpose of the Legislative branch, elected to represent their constituencies in their respective states. The Legislative branch makes the laws, the Executive branch implements and enforces the laws, and the Judicial branch interprets them and determines how to apply them.

The Judiciary is not the voice of the people. It’s not up to Judge Jackson (future Justice Jackson) to give voice to Black women or any other definable demographic of the population. Her duty is to the law of the land.

@chyna I don’t see how abortion law is relevant to what I said. You people seem to be taking what I said out of context or just not understanding it. It’s nice to have women representation, but we don’t need it.

She has been approved, but is not actually on the Court yet.

@Jeruba, the “representation” of Congress is different from the idea of “representation” of demographic groups. The different cultural experience that women or persons of color bring to the judiciary can only broaden the perspective of Justice. Otherwise, why not simply program computers to make the decisions?

@SergeantQueen It’s about basic rights that can be taken away if (for example) men don’t think women need or are qualified to make decisions about their own persons or property. Many older white men still think that way (and I know quite a few). You are young enough that you don’t remember when “marital rape” did not exist because a woman could not legally say no to her husband.

A time when birth control was illegal.

@canidmajor, I agree with your distinction. But I think it is more appropriate to say that we want the participation of members of various demographics on the Court than to speak of them as representatives. Otherwise, how about some representation for elderly white atheist women of Western European ancestry, raised in New England and residing in California?

@Jeruba If you want to sit on the highest bench, I firmly support your right to put in the time and the effort to achieve such a thing. You likely represent a not insignificant demographic, of which I am a fringe member. Your insight would be welcome to me,
But I find your semantic argument to be simply silly in this context, as I am sure was your intention.

I agree with those who say that perhaps the best way of honoring the presence of four female justices is to simply take it in stride and not make a big deal of it, but it would not be out of place to note that in forty years we have gone from no female justices to four and that this is something we can take pride in.

Why is that significant? Why can’t you see those justices as the individuals they are rather than just members of their identity group? This is the problem with identity politics as employed both by the left and the right. Biden picked his justice on ONE criteria – was she a black woman? How insulting is that?

We need to get to a place where we don’t feel this knee-jerk need to point out everytime a particular demographic first is hit and just treat all of these folks as individuals. We should praise or criticize judge Jackson on her merit and philosophy. Her demographics should be irrelevant. But the racists on both sides of the aisle can’t see anything but demographics.