Monday, May 10, 2010

Another historic milestone has been reached!

In today's NPR morning news cycle, Elena Kagan's nomination was described as heralding the first instance in US' history of three women simultaneously sitting on the bench of the Supreme Court.

Seriously.

It. Will. Never. End.

10 comments:

Jokah Macpherson said...

Well, it can't go any higher than nine.

Wait, forget I said that.

ironrailsironweights said...

Not to mention the first lesbian.

Peter

Chris said...

This would be a strange situation.

Jewish population at large: 3%
Jews on SCOTUS: 33%

Protestant population at large: 50%
Protestants on SCOTUS: 0%

Anonymous said...

Does Breyer or Ginsberg have children? That concerns me more than any other factor (e.g. Souter).

When a justice makes a decision that will affect his grandchildren and their children, I would think that he/she would ponder the impact of that decision a little more than to arrive at a facile decision tempted by the adulation and exultation of being politically correct or being a ground breaker.

Can you imagine a court with three jews, none of whom have children and thus no investment in the future? That's scary.

Anonymous said...

"When a justice makes a decision that will affect his grandchildren and their children, I would think that he/she would ponder the impact of that decision a little more than to arrive at a facile decision tempted by the adulation and exultation of being politically correct or being a ground breaker."

But, you see, they don't really have to do that. If you have arrived at that level, you can buy or influence your way out of much of the unpleasantness that PC-related laws and decisions bring to the rest of us.

Back when he was on the SCOTUS, someone asked Thurgood Marshall if he wasn't being less than sincere to the civil rights struggle by placing his own children in private school. TM, whom Kagan worked for, responded something to the effect that he refused to apologize for looking out for the best interests of his children.

The elite will always look out for the best interests of their children and they have the means to do so. The question is will they look out for the best interests of you and your children. Or if you prefer can they identify with the average US middle and working class citizen.


I have seen little evidence that they will or can identify with the rest of us.

Ursula

Anonymous said...

Ursula

You are correct. Thurgood's statement is so interesting and I hadn't heard it before, but that certainly shows how insulated the court can be from its own decisions. Thanks.

Anonymous

Anonymous said...

FYI

Breyer and Ginsburg both are married and have children.

B Lode said...

It looks like I need to extend the rant I had over at another Audacious thread.

So really Privileged People are just a serious of nots,
non-female,
non-Hispanic,
non-gay,
non-transsexual,
non-Catholic,
non-Jewish,
non-Muslim,
non-legitimate,
non-important,
non-hip....

Because what does "Protestant" really mean anyway? In this country, it just means "non-Catholic", there being a surprising dearth of Orthodox Christians.

(EKL says the term Protestant sucks and it should replaced by "Reformational". "Protestant" originated as a put-down. I didn't think it mattered until yesterday. He's a Catholic. I'm not religious.)

Ren said...

People convinced of the exalted nature of their mission rarely stop when they're winning.

Cinco Jotas said...

Well, there's your first problem right there, listening to NPR.