creators.com opinion web
Conservative Opinion General Opinion
Susan Estrich
17 Feb 2012
The Santorum Surge

Could it really happen? Could Rick Santorum be the Republican nominee? Is God a Democrat? Not to be mean, but … Read More.

15 Feb 2012
That's What Friends Are For

Here we go again: a tragedy in the music world, a tragedy waiting to happen that did. Disturbing headlines … Read More.

10 Feb 2012
What Happened to Newt and Mitt?

Newt's easy. While all of us on the Democratic side were playing "root for Newt," Republicans were … Read More.

Women on Top

Share Comment

The likely (and much deserved) confirmation of Solicitor General Elena Kagan to the United States Supreme Court creates an opening for one of the "Top 4" positions in the Justice Department. While there are many qualified candidates, the fact is that Kagan was the only woman in the top ranks at Justice. Even below that, men substantially outnumber women.

At a time when renewed attention is being focused on the progress — and lack thereof — of women to the top levels of the legal profession, the president has an opportunity to continue the progress he has made toward equality on the Supreme Court by appointing a woman to succeed Kagan as solicitor general.

As of now, the attorney general, the deputy attorney general and the associate attorney general are all men.

At the level of assistant attorney general, three of 12 — Antitrust (Christine Varney), Environment and Natural Resources (Ignacia Moreno) and Justice Programs (Laurie Robinson) — are women. Had the president had his way, a fourth — Dawn Johnsen — would be heading the important Office of Legal Counsel. But her nomination ran into staunch opposition, and the "acting" head of that department is now a man.

A second level down, at the level of department heads, seven of 24 are women.

This is not about affirmative action, in the sense of quotas or special preferences. Just the opposite. If there is one field where equality should be the norm and not the exception, it is law — especially in government.

When I went to law school, a hundred years ago, fewer than 20 percent of my classmates were women. In the years since, however, those numbers have increased steadily to the point that many law schools have, for some years, been educating more women than men.

And while the grueling hours and intense focus on "business getting" (often through the still "old boys network") in private practice have led many women in mid-career to take themselves off the partnership track, government and public service have been the beneficiaries of many of these decisions.

Today, there are more women judges, more women with government experience, and more women within the varied careers of prosecutors, state government department heads, in-house lawyers and academics than ever before.

The Justice Department can and should set an example for the profession — an example in terms of excellence and ethics, and also in terms of diversity.

As a woman lawyer, it made me proud to think that the United States' top lawyer for the Supreme Court was a smart, articulate and experienced woman. For every girl who has the chance to see an argument before the Supreme Court and who dreams of someday being there herself, the fact that there will now be three women sitting on the bench is a wonderful inspiration, only made that much better if it is a woman standing at the lectern.

Back when I was a law clerk and the Supreme Court was comprised of nine men, there was one day during the term when both Ruth Bader Ginsburg (then a professor and now a justice) and professor Herma Hill Kay of Berkeley argued on the same day. For the few women clerks, for the women in the chamber that day, for the secretaries and staffers, it was a red-letter day. We crowded the courtroom to see not one but two women argue. Most days, there were no women at all. Justice William Rehnquist, noticing the rarity of two women arguing, quipped to one of them, "You mean, you're not satisfied with having Susan B. Anthony on the silver dollar?"

The answer, then and now, is no. Not even close.

To find out more about Susan Estrich and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM


Comments

8 Comments | Post Comment
Elena Kagan was at the root of one of the biggest frauds in the history of jurisprudence. As an officer of the court, she had an absolute duty to come forward as soon as it was learned that a decision on partial-birth abortion was based on her ideology and not on medical science or fact. Let her stay where she is. She should be right at home in the cesspool that is the Obama/Holder DOJ.
Comment: #1
Posted by: Roxanna
Wed Jul 14, 2010 9:02 AM
There are other women far more qualified than Elena Kagan for nomination and confirmation to the Supreme Court.

Her inability answer the most basic of questions, particularly the one, can the federal goverment mandate the purchase or consumption of a particularl product, is telling.
Comment: #2
Posted by: pb1222
Wed Jul 14, 2010 9:32 AM
Estrich has a problem . . . Nowhere in this piece did I see the qualifications of Kagan mentioned. All estrich did was bitch about the lack of opportunities/advancement for women. Just like in nearly every other situation "follow the money". If a woman is a good lawyer she will rise to the top but if she tries to get there by yelling discrimination she will be looked at more critically and probably fail. One of the few exceptions to this rule is barbara walters. She screamed discrimination at not being given more opportunities in broadcasting and was promoted to anchor. Did you ever hear of the peter principle? " "in a hierarchy every employee tends to rise to his level of incompetence." this statement personifies both walters and kagan.
Comment: #3
Posted by: Bud in Oklahoma
Wed Jul 14, 2010 10:12 AM
So.. it isn't important to you whether the woman is supremely qualified then is it ?

You're only concerned about how it looks. Isn't that how we got into the mess we're in Susan?

You would be 100% behind ANY LIBERAL woman because you , m y friend, are a fraud.
Comment: #4
Posted by: jona
Wed Jul 14, 2010 4:44 PM
I'm sure Obama can find another Facist/Marxist female to fill the job!
Comment: #5
Posted by: Early
Thu Jul 15, 2010 7:49 AM
Don't we owe it to ourselves to have the best person in these positions, man, woman or child?
Comment: #6
Posted by: T Bigler
Thu Jul 15, 2010 8:05 AM
"The likely (and much deserved) confirmation of Solicitor General Elena Kagan"
This opening line undermines the rest of this essay, especially in today's context of our current President. As a nation, we were proud to have elected a black man to the highest elected office in the land. On the basis of his skin colour, primarily, some people voted for him and some people did not; but the unproven and untested promise of enlightened, principled, and inclusive leadership carried the day for him more than skin colour. Eighteen months on, the nation is more divided than ever, and the sentiment of a majority of the country is that this man has neither the principle or temperament to match the hopeful promise on which he was elected. If there is a lesson to be learned, it is that skin colour is neither qualification nor disqualification compared to judgment, experience, principle, and character.
The same lesson should be applied to Supreme Court judgeships. Unfortunately, this is unlikely to be the case. Which brings me back to the opening sentence -- "... and much deserved..." If this sentiment is based on Ms. Kagan's gender, it is sorely misplaced... as much as similar sentiment based on Barack Obama's race is now proven to be misplaced.
Blacks can be proud that Barack Obama was elected, they are a major segment of the president's dwindling constituency. Better by far would it be that the entire nation would be proud of having elected Barack Obama. Confirming Elena Kagan will no doubt inspire many girls and women, based on her gender. Better by far would it be that the entire nation would be proud that a temperate and principled jurist holds the Supreme Court seat. Given Ms. Kagan's complete lack of experience as a judge, at any level, confidence in her suitability is based much more on hope (and a little bit on gender, based on this essay) than on mature and proven experience. We've seen how this projection of hope and trust can have grave consequences.
- Bob Elkind
Comment: #7
Posted by: bob elkind
Thu Jul 15, 2010 11:28 AM
you are an idiot, she has no experience as a judge, and you support her going to the supreme court for a LIFETIME appointment?

again, see my first point, ou are a complete, discredited lefty loonie idiot. The only other alternative is that you hate what America's principles are. Maybe both.
Comment: #8
Posted by: ben matzh
Mon Jul 19, 2010 6:51 PM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right:  
Creators.com comments policy
More
Susan Estrich
Feb. `12
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
29 30 31 1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 1 2 3
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Marc Dion
Marc DionUpdated 20 Feb 2012
Mark Shields
Mark ShieldsUpdated 18 Feb 2012
David Sirota
David SirotaUpdated 17 Feb 2012

30 Sep 2011 Another New Year

27 Apr 2007 From Mike To Christine

21 Jul 2010 The Obama Paradox