Thursday, July 14, 2005


I found this article on Hillary's evolution over the past few years interesting.

I like Hillary. I don't agree with everything she says, but I think she is brilliant, ambitious, strong, and certainly capable. And frankly, I feverishly want a woman to run for the presidency. I think that Hillary has a chance, and as YG&B says, I'll quit my job to campaign for her if she needs me.

The other day, my law school girlfriends and I were debating the future Supreme Court Justice issue. It was interesting to hear what mattered the most to each of us as we looked to potential nominees. One of my dear friends, C, wants a Latino nominated, regardless of his stance as a conservative or a liberal, despite her position as a strong Democrat. YG&B is less concerned about race, so long as the individual is left-leaning, but is he or she is a minority, that would be fabulous. I, surprise surprise, desperately want a woman. I could live with fiscally conservative if she is socially liberal, but I hope and pray that Bush nominates a woman.

C (who really should have her own blog) pointed out, rather bitterly, that the world is a strange place these days, with African American women and Mexican American men as potential conservative appointees. And if we Democrats are so accepting and socially aware, why did Reagan appoint the first woman? Why will Bush appoint the first Latino? She argued that perhaps Democrats have neglected their traditional constituencies and taken them for granted for years. We heard stories about Clarence Thomas in law school, our professors alleging that Democrats wouldn't help him and refused to support him. A couple of professors even went so far as to say that he just wasn't the smartest student they'd had, but honestly, as if we don't see idiots getting breaks every day (i.e. please see George W.)? The rest, as they say, is history.

As C pointed out in her passionate emails, how can Bush have appointed two African American Secretaries of State, a Hispanic Attorney General, and now possibly a minority Justice? Why won't Democrats step up? Of course, we love Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and I know that the presidency was stolen from us in 2000, but sometimes you have to say- what the fuck?

I wholeheartedly agree with C, and I feel the frustration. Frankly, though, I am most terrified about issues like abortion, the death penalty, affirmative action, and health care, much like everyone else. I strongly believe that we need to support women and people of color, but I cannot move past my terror over the direction in which this country is heading and I worry more about the beliefs of those in power.

I always tell myself that "this too shall pass", but this time, I'm afraid it won't.


Phantom Scribbler said...

Well, my buddy would argue that Reagan appointed the first femal judge because Jimmy Carter didn't get re-elected.

But otherwise your point stands. More's the pity.

Phantom Scribbler said...


I do know how to spell...

SpookyRach said...

You are so right. (Keeping my fingers crossed.)

Oscar Madison said...

Let me get this straight. You are fervently praying that the next Supreme Court justice will be a woman, yet you're unhappy with the Democratic record of Supreme Court appointments that produced Ruth Bader Ginsburg -- who was only the second (but should have been the first) woman appointed to the Supreme Court?

Please recall that since 1968, Democratic presidents have had exactly... drumroll please ... TWO appointments to the Supreme Court (Ginsburg in 1993 and Breyer in 1994). Republican presidents have had 10 (and that number will probably be up to 13 by the end of "w"'s second term).

If you look at lower federal court judges, the Republican record on appointing women and minorities is bad compared to Democratic presidents.