Writes by lawprof Melissa Murray in "Another Working Mom for the Supreme Court?" (NYT).
While Democrats have touted [Jackson's] sterling qualifications and the historic nature of her nomination as the first Black woman to the court, few have leaned into her identity as a mother, as the Republicans did with Justice Barrett.
Murray knows there are 2 big differences. One is that Barrett has 7 children — and the youngest was only 8 at the time of confirmation, 2 were adopted (from Haiti), and 1 has Down Syndrome. Jackson, by contrast, has 2 children, ages 21 and 17.
The other big difference is, as Murray puts it: "Democrats may be less inclined to flag a nominee’s family status as evidence of professional accomplishment or acumen." What I'd say there is that liberals and progressives are more likely to criticize people who call attention to a woman's status as a mother: Why are you talking about the fact that a woman is a parent when you don't talk about men that way?! In fact, I have to wonder about Murray, touting Jackson's momhood. Does she write NYT columns about the dadhood of male nominees?
What's the point of stressing that a woman is able to further her career while also having children? Is it that she has super capacity for hard word and long hours? If that's the point, I need to know if the children's father stayed home with the children. I don't assume he did not. Did he take a less demanding career and handle more of the childcare work? Or were there 2 high-powered careers and hired childcare? If so, how elite was that childcare compared to what ordinary Americans can afford?
If you want Jackson's supporters to "lean[] into her identity as a mother," those are the kind of questions you're inviting. And you'll also invite the comparison to Barrett, the one with the 7 children. And you'd better be careful not to stumble into sounding as though you're trying to one-up Kagan and Sotomayor, who have no children.
But Murray thinks that "leaning into Judge Jackson’s status as a working mother could serve several ends, further burnishing her impressive credentials and varied professional experiences, while rebutting charges that diversity is the only reason for her nomination."
Why would her being a mother rebut the "charge" that "diversity is the only reason for her nomination." That sounds more like an effort to credit Jackson with an additional diversity factor — motherhood — and to take a backhanded swipe at Kagan and Sotomayor. Is there some idea that the Court needs a liberal woman with children to offset the conservative woman with children?
By the way, Ruth Bader Ginsburg had 2 children. Sandra Day O'Connor had 3.
३४ टिप्पण्या:
Kavanaugh had two school age daughters. His hearing put them through the wringer. Dems don’t care about children. Children are collateral.
yes she has 7 kids. And I"m sure she has a Housekeeper and a Nanny (or two). thank God Kagan and Sotomoyor didn't reproduce.
They just know Jackson isn't turning out to be as popular a choice as they hoped she'd be so they're grasping at straws. The last time Biden zeroed in on a black woman candidate and touted her superior credentials for the job we got Kamala Harris. It's not at all surprising folks are skeptical about Jackson.
What I'd say there is that liberals and progressives are more likely to criticize people who call attention to a woman's status as a mother: Why are you talking about the fact that a woman is a parent when you don't talk about men that way?
I think that gives too much credit to modern liberals. It’s a good talking point and only conservatives care about values or consistence of beliefs…
I'm more interested in how many times they've aborted the Constitution
the court’s second working mother?
Jackson, by contrast, has 2 children, ages 21 and 17.
Didn't Ruth Bader Ginsburg have any kids (possibly named Jane and James)?
Didn't Sandra Day O'Conner have any kids (possible named Scott, Brian, and Jay)?
In fact; haven't ALL female Justices been working mothers?
Or, is the difference, that Amy's kids are school age? And live at home?
where does Ketanji's kids live?
How many male Justices have (or had) kids living with them?
This effort on the part of Ms. Murray falls into the old Texas category of "You kin put feathers on a dog, but that don't mean it kin fly."
I hasten to add that I am not criticizing Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson's ability at all. A more cosmopolitan way of looking at the article is to say that it is an effort to gild the lily.
Face it, the Democrats, being pro-abortion, want to downplay the notion that a woman can be both a mother and have an education and career. The abortion lobby and policies throughout society tell women that the only "choice" they have when facing an unexpected pregnancy is to abort if they want to stay in school or have a job.
while rebutting charges that diversity is the only reason for her nomination
Too late, Biden already screwed the pooch on there being some other reason for her nomination.
I recall several articles about Kavanaugh's role as a father, including coaching his daughter's sports teams.
"[T]here has been surprisingly little discussion of the fact that [Ketanji Brown Jackson] would join Justice Amy Coney Barrett as the court’s second working mother."
That is because the DC regime needs this to be about race so they can keep the country divided.
Motherhood is not nearly as important as her leftist credentials. Besides, those children are half white.
How many kids do the various male justices have? Did their wives work? Did they have nannies and au pairs for all the messy stuff?
Just a few of the questions that will never be asked, and which I'm not about to try to find out. Those people are successful, elite products of elite institutions and their family arrangements will reflect that.
I confess, I went to see if Jackson is a *married* working mother. That impacts how the issue is viewed.
She seems to have married well (Wiki):
In 1996, Jackson married surgeon Patrick G. Jackson, whose family is considered Boston Brahmin. Through her marriage, she is related to former Speaker of the House Paul Ryan.[93] Patrick Jackson is descended from Jonathan Jackson, a delegate to the Continental Congress, and is related to Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.[94] The couple have two daughters.
Biden's top two diversity picks (VP & Supreme Court) are in interracial marriages, married to white men. Since we are now supposed to keep track of such things.
If I recall correctly there was a lot of discussion of John Robert's dadhood, very little of it complementary.
Democrats criticized *Barrett* for accepting the position while raising so many kids. They were perfectly happy to put her family status at issue, in the way that suited their political goal. She was further criticized for appropriating black children from the developing world.
I watched a bit of a speech she gave at a college event.
She lacks the bitterness one so often sees in leftists, feminists and rapidly advanced African American women.
She is, in fact, likeable.
She'll breeze through.
while rebutting charges that diversity is the only reason for her nomination.
I'm sorry, did she beat out the other candidates because of her motherhood?
Is that what made her best of breed?
"What's the point of stressing that a woman is able to further her career while also having children?"
Women are special. And even feminists can't quite let go of the idea, when it turns out to be useful, that women should get credit for their special mothering abilities. Which they do have, making them even more special from a pre-feminist point of view.
Emphasizing her motherhood is problematic for Democrats because it gives lie to the notion that women can't reach the top of their profession without abortion. They don't want to emphasize that. While they claim to be in favor of choice, the true believers really only believe in one choice.
Being a mother also does NOT rebut the "charge" that "diversity is the only reason for her nomination." But it distracts from it. Joe Biden made it 100% clear that being black and having a vagina was the deciding factor for him in choosing a nominee, and he chose Jackson above more qualified candidates, even other non-white candidates.
Plus, Jackson doesn't really bring much diversity to the table. She's Harvard/Harvard grad, former SCOTUS clerk, and a firm part of the establishment. She'll be a reliably leftist vote and it doesn't seem like she'll bring much intellectual heft to the court, if her opinion writing is any indication.
A Gender Spring? They're playing with a double-edged scalpel if they think that they can abort the baby, cannibalize her profitable parts, sequester her carbon pollutants, and have her, too. I wonder how many people... persons will take a knee to their exquisite and forward-looking bigotry.
'She lacks the bitterness one so often sees in leftists, feminists and rapidly advanced African American women.'
So she's not a perpetual bitcher and moaner like Jackson-Lee, Waters, and Big Mike?
Good for her...
Wasn't this same law prof yammering on last week about how Jackson Brown would bring an alternative black perspective to that offered by Thomas?
I get it. Murray is a cheerleader for Jackson Brown. Next Murray can write about the travails of cheerleaders.
Fight! Fight! Fight! We are going to win tonight!
Joe Biden made it 100% clear that being black and having a vagina was the deciding factor for him in choosing a nominee, and he chose Jackson above more qualified candidates, even other non-white candidates.
Being Black and NOT having a vagina could still be Democrats requirement for a Black female Justice.
Indeed, the Jacksons are old Boston money going back before the Revolution -- shipping, then textiles, then investments -- related to the Cabots and Lowells.
an alternative black perspective to that offered by Thomas
As the conflict between Mandela's Zhosa and Zulu prompted an apartheid regime, some, select lives matter, and we all lose... win with social justice in diversity, inequity, and exclusion.
Rollo said...
Indeed, the Jacksons are old Boston money going back before the Revolution -- shipping, then textiles, then investments -- related to the Cabots and Lowells.
=========
what about any trade with locales sub-equatoris
It doesn't really matter for the job of course, but Amy Coney Barrett's story really spoke to me at the time of her nomination. My mom told me if I was gonna be a working mom, I should only have 1 kid, but I wanted a large family. At that time, I'd had 4 pregnancies, but only 1 kid. Due to layoffs, I'd lost my dream job a few months earlier and was about to start a new job. Seeing her reach the pinnacle of success and the pictures of her with her crew of kids gave me hope.
I wish a Republican would ask her, "So, why did you marry a white man? Black men aren't good enough for you?" If you're going to be accused of racism anyway, you may as well have fun with it.
Uh, yeah, this is sexist. Why does it matter?
Antonin Scalia's nine children were a topic of sometimes prejudiced public conversation -- which he laughed off, calling them the product of "Vatican Roulette."
Apropos to nothing, Justice Alito was mentored by Donald Trump's sister and elevated to serve on the 3rd Appellate Court with her.
Brandeis claimed to have a passionate love for legal theory and called the law his mistress. No Souter there.
The new leftist militancy makes us dull and wan. No wonder they have to break things to get noticed.
Progressives were braying that they wanted 12 year old Barron Trump to be caged and raped by pedophiles. They don't give a shit about children, they only care about the ideology and ramming their policies down our throats against our wishes...
Oh for crisakes, she's a liberal.
Literally anything about her life will be hailed as positive, heroic, and ideal.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा