The Washington Post on Wednesday published two opinion pieces about President Obama's impending nominee to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice David Souter. Summaries appear below.
~ Ruth Marcus: As Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has noted, "breaking the gender barrier" of the Supreme Court "is not a one-time, been-there-done-that event," columnist Marcus writes in a Post opinion piece. Rather, it is "a constant evolution toward a time of unremarkable equality, when being the only woman -- on the bench, around the conference table, in the room -- feels more strange than it does familiar," she writes. Marcus says that this is why it is "essential that President Obama's nominee to replace David Souter be a woman." She continues that the "stark fact is that having one female voice out of nine is not consistent with women's being half the talent pool ... in our society." Whereas former President George W. Bush's nomination of Harriet Miers "suggested that presidents have to sacrifice to scrounge up female nominees," nowadays "it would be no stretch for Obama ... to find a nominee who happens to be both fully qualified and in possession of two X chromosomes," Marcus writes. She notes that there are currently 47 women serving on federal appeals courts and that women serve as chief justices on appeals courts in 20 states. Although is it true that nominating a female justice is "partly a matter of symbolism," a female justice also "brings a useful set of life experiences to the art of judging," Marcus says. She concludes, "It's fine that some justices are from Mars. We just need a few, at least, from Venus, too" (Marcus, Washington Post, 5/13).
~ Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.): Obama's nominee to replace Souter will be "welcomed by the Senate and by the American people" if he or she is "a highly qualified individual with a distinguished record that demonstrates judicial restraint, integrity and a commitment to the rule of law," Sessions, the ranking minority member on the Senate Judiciary Committee, writes in a Post opinion piece. However, the nomination of "an individual who will allow personal preferences and political views to corrupt his or her decision making" will raise the question of if "we are willing to trade America's heritage of a fair and neutral judiciary ... for a high court composed of robed politicians who apply the law differently based on their personal feelings toward a particular person or issue," he says. The role of the Republicans during the Senate confirmation hearings "will be to see that fair and rigorous hearings determine whether the president has selected a nominee who respects the Constitution or one who intends to rewrite it," Sessions writes, adding that the Senate hearings "represent the public's best opportunity to participate in the process and learn about a nominee's qualifications." Therefore, senators "must ask tough, substantive questions to determine if the individual possesses four characteristics that great justices share," including impartiality; commitment to the rule of law; integrity; and legal expertise and judicial temperament. The Senate's "examination" of these qualifications "will be rigorous and fair," Sessions writes, adding that his colleagues in the Senate "should refrain from making political attacks on the nominee's character, leaking background materials or taking quotes out of context to create a caricature of the nominee." He concludes, "Just as we will demand that the nominee be worthy of the office, we in the Senate must also be worthy of the occasion" (Sessions, Washington Post, 5/13).
Reprinted with kind permission from nationalpartnership. You can view the entire Daily Women's Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery here. The Daily Women's Health Policy Report is a free service of the National Partnership for Women & Families, published by The Advisory Board Company.
© 2009 The Advisory Board Company. All rights reserved.
Buy Septilin Without Prescription
Комментариев нет:
Отправить комментарий