Supreme Court Pick: Women Don't Need Any Special Favors
Emily Miller
Columnist
Posted:
05/1/09
President Obama's reported consideration of only women candidates for the Supreme Court seat is an insult to women, and he of all people should know better. The first black president of the United States is in the Oval Office for one reason–more people voted for Barack Obama than for John McCain.
Watching the president this week at the "100 days" press conference, viewers were not thinking, 'That is a black president in the White House!' Rather, they were thinking, 'I agree/disagree with what he is saying about the economy, foreign policy, social issues.'
(Well, I was actually thinking that he finally figured out how to discreetly use his blankie - i.e. teleprompter.)
The resurgence of Americans patriotism at the Inauguration came from our common understanding that we elected a black president without his race being an issue. The non-issue of race was the joy in the moment, not the historic value of a black president, which is clouded by the negative–segregation and slavery.
Finally, we have put to bed the affirmative-action argument. We do not need the government to force us to hire or elect without bias because as a nation of doers, we want to have the smartest, hardest working and best qualified person in the Oval Office as we do in every job.
Appointing a Supreme Court justice is one of the most important decisions a president makes while in office as it will reverberate for generations. I would be proud if the best candidate for the bench was a woman. I would be offended if the candidate for the bench was a woman who was not the most qualified.
I was outraged when President Bush appointed Harriet Miers primarily because she was clearly way out of her league. (As a conservative, I was also concerned because she had no record on important issues. I was also worried that she could not hold her own on the bench and would be swayed by the more experienced liberal justices. Her lack of intellectual stature is just further evidence that she was unqualified for the position.) 43 was forced to withdraw her nomination and appoint the experienced conservative, Justice Alito.
Watching the president this week at the "100 days" press conference, viewers were not thinking, 'That is a black president in the White House!' Rather, they were thinking, 'I agree/disagree with what he is saying about the economy, foreign policy, social issues.'
(Well, I was actually thinking that he finally figured out how to discreetly use his blankie - i.e. teleprompter.)
The resurgence of Americans patriotism at the Inauguration came from our common understanding that we elected a black president without his race being an issue. The non-issue of race was the joy in the moment, not the historic value of a black president, which is clouded by the negative–segregation and slavery.
Finally, we have put to bed the affirmative-action argument. We do not need the government to force us to hire or elect without bias because as a nation of doers, we want to have the smartest, hardest working and best qualified person in the Oval Office as we do in every job.
Appointing a Supreme Court justice is one of the most important decisions a president makes while in office as it will reverberate for generations. I would be proud if the best candidate for the bench was a woman. I would be offended if the candidate for the bench was a woman who was not the most qualified.
I was outraged when President Bush appointed Harriet Miers primarily because she was clearly way out of her league. (As a conservative, I was also concerned because she had no record on important issues. I was also worried that she could not hold her own on the bench and would be swayed by the more experienced liberal justices. Her lack of intellectual stature is just further evidence that she was unqualified for the position.) 43 was forced to withdraw her nomination and appoint the experienced conservative, Justice Alito.