WHAT an embarrassment it is to so-called women’s advancement when an under-qualified woman is chosen for a powerful position. Such is the case of Elena Kagan, Obama’s Supreme Court nomination. She has no judicial record and a very thin portfolio of legal writings. This is a bright and capable woman, a leftist who views our military with hostility and who has an impressive resumé, but she’s an administrator not a judge.

What’s truly amazing is the hypocrisy of many who advocate for parity on the court. On the one hand, they argue, women are no different from men and thus should be equally represented. On the other hand, they say, women are different from men, that their presence will alter the judicial culture, and therefore they should be equally represented. Sex differences are only relevant to the degree to which they argue in favor of female ascendancy. 

In today’s New York Times, a Georgetown legal expert argues that if there were three women on the court, there might be more inclination by clients to choose women to represent them before the court. In other words, these lawyers might be chosen partly because they are women, something that is considered an absolute no-no when it comes to men. Says Pamela Harris, of the Georgetown Law Center, “If clients are visualizing the court as a predominantly male entity, they are going to want a lawyer who looks like the people on the bench,” she said. “I think this could also be a critical moment in terms of women arguing before the Supreme Court.”

This is one of the silliest reasons I have ever heard for choosing a lawyer to appear before the highest court in the land. Would one chose a lawyer because they had, say, a haircut like Elena Kagan’s? Harris also seems to be suggesting that a women lawyer may come to be considered morally superior to a male lawyer, regardless of her actual qualifications. Certainly, in the eyes of her supporters, Kagan is qualified partly because she is a woman. Feminism merely replaces one form of discrimination for another. No society can avoid discrimination.

                                                               — Comments —

Lisa writes:

Harris says, “I think this could also be a critical moment in terms of women arguing before the Supreme Court.”

Lord have mercy. Go ahead and make the whole Supreme Court women so no poor man will ever have to listen to this awful “women arguing before the Supreme Court.”

Laura writes:

I have five sisters. The phrase “women arguing before the court” fills me with dread and apprehension.

Postmodern Antiquarian writes:

“What’s truly amazing is the hypocrisy of many who advocate for parity on the court. On the one hand, they argue, women are no different from men and thus should be equally represented. On the other hand, they say, women are different from men, that their presence will alter the judicial culture, and therefore they should be equally represented. Sex differences are only relevant to the degree to which they argue in favor of female ascendancy.”

This is a wonderful insight.

I would like to make an ancillary point that this isn’t all bad for men. I would recommend that we men become smarter about leveraging sex differences to our advantages. Quit complaining about the burdens of gender equality and luxuriate in all the things we don’t have to do any more: Carry their bags; open doors; do all the driving; protect them against intruders; spread our sport jackets over puddles; marry them … the list goes on and on …

Just remember, these people can’t be all that bright. They would argue that the Queen of Heaven should have had the right to become a carpenter.

Laura writes:

I can understand giving up the bags and the doors, even the puddles, if your heart’s not in it anymore, but not marriage. How will you change the world if you don’t have daughters and sons?

Please follow and like us: