Comments on: Feminism, “Post-feminism,” and Ruth Bader Ginsburg http://www.historiann.com/2009/10/11/feminism-post-feminism-and-ruth-bader-ginsburg/ History and sexual politics, 1492 to the present Sun, 28 Sep 2014 05:09:30 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.9.2 By: Judicial review, “originalism,” and bad metaphors : Historiann : History and sexual politics, 1492 to the present http://www.historiann.com/2009/10/11/feminism-post-feminism-and-ruth-bader-ginsburg/comment-page-1/#comment-597191 Wed, 14 Apr 2010 13:15:50 +0000 http://www.historiann.com/?p=7847#comment-597191 [...] If you just can’t get enough on the Supreme Court, see these other posts on Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the strip search case of 2009, and Gonzalez v. Carhart, (2007), from the Historiann [...]

]]>
By: ER Doc http://www.historiann.com/2009/10/11/feminism-post-feminism-and-ruth-bader-ginsburg/comment-page-1/#comment-458313 Tue, 13 Oct 2009 23:15:14 +0000 http://www.historiann.com/?p=7847#comment-458313 Even though Sotomayor appears to be a moderate, I still have the vain hope that Obama will nominate a frank liberal to replace the frankly liberal Stevens if he retires next year. With luck, this could also be a feminist justice.

]]>
By: Indyanna http://www.historiann.com/2009/10/11/feminism-post-feminism-and-ruth-bader-ginsburg/comment-page-1/#comment-457768 Tue, 13 Oct 2009 02:38:50 +0000 http://www.historiann.com/?p=7847#comment-457768 I think the Supreme Court is on the quarter system, though, Historiann. (Or maybe the Oxbridgian system). Starting about now and going up through late June. Clerks to do the basic preliminary sorting and grading, like post-docs in a science lab. And the Court sessions I guess are like your basic oral comprehensive exams from hell–for unprepared counsel, anyway. Then off to Jackson Hole or the Maine coast for three months to rest up. Just like my annual routine, only different!

Put Harry Blackmun down as another justice who went rogue on his nominator, re Roe v. Wade, Callins v. Collins (dissent, death penalty), Stanton v. Stanton (rejecting gender as a basis for age-of-majority), dissent in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, etc. etc.

]]>
By: Historiann http://www.historiann.com/2009/10/11/feminism-post-feminism-and-ruth-bader-ginsburg/comment-page-1/#comment-457451 Mon, 12 Oct 2009 20:08:42 +0000 http://www.historiann.com/?p=7847#comment-457451 Truffula: hah! Well, if it makes you feel any better, stacking the judiciary is harder than it seems, since people who are poised to join the federal judiciary are pretty smart, seasoned, and independent-minded. So many recent prominent jurists–like Justices O’Connor, Souter, and Stevens, haven’t turned out to be nearly as conservative as the presidents who nominated them had hoped they would be.

Being appointed to the federal judiciary or the Supreme Court is like the ultimate senior academic appointment with tenure–nominators have to just hope for the best, because there are no do-overs.

]]>
By: truffula http://www.historiann.com/2009/10/11/feminism-post-feminism-and-ruth-bader-ginsburg/comment-page-1/#comment-457447 Mon, 12 Oct 2009 19:48:45 +0000 http://www.historiann.com/?p=7847#comment-457447 Republican presidents have recently been much more aggressive when it comes to stacking the judiciary. I don’t know why Dem presidents haven’t made it a priority–I suppose because there’s no countervailing organization like the Federalist Society to advocate and do the homework for them.

Given what I saw coming from some quarters during the 2008 primary, I’m not so sure I’d want a self-selected group of Democratic activists doing this.

]]>
By: LadyProf http://www.historiann.com/2009/10/11/feminism-post-feminism-and-ruth-bader-ginsburg/comment-page-1/#comment-457302 Mon, 12 Oct 2009 15:50:59 +0000 http://www.historiann.com/?p=7847#comment-457302 I may have been sloppy re: dates–should be more careful at a history blog! I believe the Federalists were afoot inside the White House right from the start, i.e. January 1981, even before their Society got incorporated; but their vetting operation might not have been firing on all cylinders until around 1983 or 1984. (Like many other feminists, I’m giving my oppressors the benefit of the doubt.) Still, it began WELL before Bork. I remember Daniel Patrick Moynihan announcing that he would vote no on Bork because the White House, for no stated reason, had been killing his nominees for federal court vacanies in New York.

]]>
By: Historiann http://www.historiann.com/2009/10/11/feminism-post-feminism-and-ruth-bader-ginsburg/comment-page-1/#comment-457225 Mon, 12 Oct 2009 13:23:04 +0000 http://www.historiann.com/?p=7847#comment-457225 Z–me too (the guilt.) In all cases that I can remember, it was a defensive move to prevent me from thinking that it could happen to me, too. (I learned quickly that it could, and that there was nothing I could do about it.)

]]>
By: Z http://www.historiann.com/2009/10/11/feminism-post-feminism-and-ruth-bader-ginsburg/comment-page-1/#comment-457217 Mon, 12 Oct 2009 13:02:56 +0000 http://www.historiann.com/?p=7847#comment-457217 Great post!

On not seeing gender discrimination and so on for what they were — I am guilty and have been moreso, despite always having claimed feminism.

]]>
By: Historiann http://www.historiann.com/2009/10/11/feminism-post-feminism-and-ruth-bader-ginsburg/comment-page-1/#comment-457182 Mon, 12 Oct 2009 11:38:52 +0000 http://www.historiann.com/?p=7847#comment-457182 LadyProf–thanks for the additional intel on the Reagan years. I am about as far from a 20th C U.S. historian as one can get and still be a North American historian, so I humbly bow to those with expertise in this field.

I didn’t know the Federalist Society was operating in the 1980s, but of course, it makes sense that it would probably have been a reaction to Civil Rights, the Warren Court, and the like. (Just guessing–perhaps you know more.)

Republican presidents have recently been much more aggressive when it comes to stacking the judiciary. I don’t know why Dem presidents haven’t made it a priority–I suppose because there’s no countervailing organization like the Federalist Society to advocate and do the homework for them.

]]>
By: LadyProf http://www.historiann.com/2009/10/11/feminism-post-feminism-and-ruth-bader-ginsburg/comment-page-1/#comment-457045 Mon, 12 Oct 2009 05:15:03 +0000 http://www.historiann.com/?p=7847#comment-457045 Historiann, I think you conceded too much to CPP. It’s true that the Bork nomination in 1987 marked the first use of scholarly writings to attack a candidate in confirmation hearings. But boy did the Reagan White House start it.

For lower-court nominations, I mean. A team of Federalist Society lawyers hunted the country for ideologically reliable lawyers and judges to install in judicial vacancies. And they invented the practice of killing a lot of recommendations from Democratic senators, which in the past would have been honored out of comity and courtesy. (Or the good ol’ boys club. Whatever.)

Combing through old law review articles to yank statements out of context seems troubling, but compared to what? Kennedy and his staffers found a transparent way to resist a nominee on ideological grounds … in contrast to the ideological backroom maneuvers that had been going on for six years.

I think Sheldon Goldman covered the issue in his book about presidential input into federal court judicial nominations, but I’m not sure.

]]>