President Bush has kept his promise that he would appoint justices in the mold of Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, two of the most ardently anti-choice and anti-women's rights justices on the Supreme Court. With Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito on the court, the balance of the Supreme Court has been shifted.
Eleanor Smeal said, "Instead of reaching out to women and/or people of color to make the Supreme Court more diverse and representative, Bush has slammed the door in the face of women and minorities. He has appointed a man who would turn back the clock on women's rights and civil rights."
2007-08-22 11:38:53 · 13 answers · asked by Deirdre O 7 in Social Science ➔ Gender Studies
Other people here have said that electing conservative white men who know how to do the job is a victory for reverse discrimination. I think what Bush has done is exactly what Eleanor Smeal said, but I dont think it has anything to do with who gets the paycheck; I think it has to do with a cultural representation. And it saddens me there are so many men answering this question who just dont see how the opinions of diversely affected groups could be important in our Supreme Court.
2007-08-22 16:50:47 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Has anyone ever coined the expression, "Smeal Campaign"?
One presumes, and I could well be wrong, that the best people for the job are the prominent contenders for such positions of power and prestige, rather than a merely 'Politically Correct' candidature.
Anyone who has ever taken the time to study the history of the U.S. Supreme Court will quickly realize that the voting patterns of the Justices are seldom, if ever, along "party lines". The fact that a person has a salary for life quickly gives Them the freedom of conscience that so many others tend to lack. Remember this: The most powerful people in the United States of America are those five persons who make up the majority of the bench of the Supreme Court. Their word is Law. Eleanor Smeal should know this is an historical fact, there being far too many precedents to disprove the integrity of the Judiciary.
2007-08-22 20:46:28 · answer #2 · answered by Ashleigh 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Well, yeah. That's obvious. Wait, which Bush? Bush Sr. appointed Scalia and Thomas, eh? Yeah, it's like the Dynasty of Stupid: two Bushes, both leading undistinguished but war-obsessed presidencies, both making things really pleasant again for Christian white males.
What I love is ... there's a woman going out (Sandra Day O'Connor) of the Supreme Court, but ANOTHER MAN coming in to take her place. Would it have just killed Bush to at least replace the one of only TWO women with *another woman*? Yeah, let's make it even more pathetically non-diverse than it already was. Eesh. There should be at least four, if not five, women on that court - and I have *no doubt* there are enough capable, intelligent, experienced women in government positions today to take those court seats.
2007-08-22 12:44:02 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 3⤋
I agree to a certain extent. Bush has slammed the door in the face of women and minorities, but this is not due to his "sexist" views but rather conservative/religious views. It can be argued that conservative/religious views and sexism are related....but I don't believe he picked a man to defend men's rights but rather he picked a person who would support his conservative views the most.
2007-08-22 12:01:29 · answer #4 · answered by Lioness 6 · 9⤊ 0⤋
Absolutely not. To base your opinion on the one issue "abortion" and say such idiotic things is beyond me. Bush has done more for minorities and women than she ever would. Abortion does not help women. It does not help minorities. Many would argue that abortion is genecide considering a vast majority of abortions are performed on minority women.
Abortion provides an easy way out of reckless behavior. It promotes permiscuity and thus the transmission of STD's. It creates an environment where men and their sexual desires are the driving force of media and music. It encourages men to be irresponsible and also to treat women like meat.
And what a moronic statement to make about turning back the clock on civil rights. Does she mean ending reverse discrimination? Does she mean putting an end to programs that keep people in poverty and subjection?
Eleanor Smeal is an elitist snob that thinks she's better than everyone else. Social programs, abortion, welfare, quotas, and hate crimes are all tools for the left to use to keep people in their place, hating eachother, being suspicious of everyone, and in a position that they blame everyone else for their tragedies or run to a clinic to escape reality.
2007-08-22 12:11:40 · answer #5 · answered by Bubbles 4 · 1⤊ 6⤋
Yes, the Bush administration is pretty right wing. It doesn't surprise me.
2007-08-22 12:00:39 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
The court should not "reach out" to anyone. That's known as reverse discrimination. Only liberals believe in meeting quotas. Whether it be race, sex, or any other matter, it's all flawed logic.
2007-08-22 12:42:03 · answer #7 · answered by snickerdoodle 3 · 1⤊ 4⤋
I think she's absolutely right. But the way our government is set up, we can't do anything about it. Had he not been elected and then re-elected, he couldn't have done it.
2007-08-22 12:00:46 · answer #8 · answered by mommanuke 7 · 8⤊ 1⤋
Misspoke. Judges have an uncanny reputation for doing the legal and right thing, regardless of how they are " stacked. "
2007-08-22 13:52:15 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 4⤋
It sounds perfectly reasonable to me. But I never expected anything more from George.
2007-08-22 13:04:10 · answer #10 · answered by Rio Madeira 7 · 4⤊ 4⤋