David Souter Retiring, Obama gets to make first SCOTUS pick

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

In the 1994 speech she defines better herself.

My bad. I read the sentence wrong. Thanks.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

My bad. I read the sentence wrong. Thanks.

It's not a really radical definition, and it seems in keeping with what Obama suggested he wanted.

The only thing the repeated speech contributes that it's harder to make the case that she would have expressed it differently, but I don't think that matters much anyway.

I think it's kind of funny, but not really surprising, that sometimes it's just being female that makes the difference and sometimes it's being Latina depending on who the audience is. Wouldn't it be more interesting to make the claim to an audience that wasn't expecting exactly what they would hear? To tell a group of diverse women that it's being Latina that makes the difference? To tell a Latina/Latino audience that being a woman is enough to offer hope of better decisions. If the claim is as valid as it's supposed to be, why not?

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

I think it's kind of funny, but not really surprising, that sometimes it's just being female that makes the difference and sometimes it's being Latina depending on who the audience is.

I'd still chalk that up to context. If I'm talking to a bunch of Boy Scouts, I'm going to focus on how being a Scout influences my perspective on things. If I'm talking to a bunch of people over 6 feet tall, I'm going to talk about how being tall influences my perspective on things.

Sort of an aside: there is research that suggests that in states where judges are elected, all other things being equal more voters tend to favor a female over a male.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

I'd still chalk that up to context. If I'm talking to a bunch of Boy Scouts, I'm going to focus on how being a Scout influences my perspective on things. If I'm talking to a bunch of people over 6 feet tall, I'm going to talk about how being tall influences my perspective on things.

Sort of an aside: there is research that suggests that in states where judges are elected, all other things being equal more voters tend to favor a female over a male.

Sure, but even though you were talking to Scouts you probably wouldn't address the Scouts' attitude toward gays. There's something about appropriateness, but there's something about playing it safe with the audience you've got too. It's completely normal and expected, but for some reason, it amuses me in this case.

I don't think that most people in the abstract have a bias against women judges, so your second point isn't really surprising. Most of the time, I think voters imagine that women will be outside of any Good Ol' Boys network, and I think that's what they are hoping for in judges.

(I do think that employees tend to be ridiculously hard on most females in superior employment positions, but that's neither here nor there in this case. I'm just noting that in reality/ direct experience, people frequently hold women to different standards than they do men. )

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

Sure, but even though you were talking to Scouts you probably wouldn't address the Scouts' attitude toward gays.

I'm not sure I'm following what you mean.

I don't think that most people in the abstract have a bias against women judges, so your second point isn't really surprising. Most of the time, I think voters imagine that women will be outside of any Good Ol' Boys network, and I think that's what they are hoping for in judges.

The research I've seen suggests a bias toward female judges. The reason may have some to do with not being in the GOB network, but (again, according to what I've seen) has more to do with a perception that females are more likely than males to combine application of the law with compassion. Hmmmm.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

I'm not sure I'm following what you mean.

The research I've seen suggests a bias toward female judges. The reason may have some to do with not being in the GOB network, but (again, according to what I've seen) has more to do with a perception that females are more likely than males to combine application of the law with compassion. Hmmmm.

In the first part, that when giving addresses that you've been invited to give, you usually consider a topic your audience is likely to be receptive to.

In the second part, I haven't read the research so I have no idea, but what you've said wouldn't surprise me. I'm not sure who is anti-compassion when combined with application of the law; some of us are perhaps afraid of compassion used as a standard on its own or a substitute for application of the law.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

In the second part, I haven't read the research so I have no idea, but what you've said wouldn't surprise me. I'm not sure who is anti-compassion when combines with application of the law; some of us are perhaps afraid of compassion used as a standard on its own.

Put simply, stereotypical mother-figure vs. stereotypical father-figure.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

I'm not sure who is anti-compassion when combined with application of the law; some of us are perhaps afraid of compassion used as a standard on its own or a substitute for application of the law.

Despite any media-speak to the contrary, there's no realistic possibility that this would happen at the level of courts we're talking about (i.e. federal appellate and the Supreme Court).

[Munchkin03]

Now some people are wondering why she has so little in assets.

Wake me up when she's confirmed.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by Munchkin03

Now some people are wondering why she has so little in assets.

What does it say about me that I actually like her more for this?