We had been debating whether it was necessary to join the ever-growing chorus calling on President Obama to appoint a woman to replace Supreme Court Justice David Souter – until White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs told us not to.
“I don’t think that the lobbying of interest groups will help,” Gibbs said this week, according to Politico. “I think in many ways lobbying can – and will – be counterproductive.”
What? Why would it be “counterproductive” to remind the President, the nation, and the world, that it is unacceptable to have only one woman serving on the Supreme Court? Why would it be “counterproductive” to point out that women are 51 percent of the population, 49 percent of law school graduates, 32 percent of the legal profession – but only 11 percent of the Supreme Court?
How is it “counterproductive” to note that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg herself describes being the only woman on the court as “lonely”?
Was it “counterproductive” when Sens. Barbara Boxer and Olympia Snowe sent a bipartisan letter to the President on Monday asking him to select a woman to replace Souter? “In order for the court to be relevant, it needs to be diverse and better reflect America,” the Senators wrote.
It is not counterproductive. It is our right and our responsibility to stand up and speak out about evidence of the inequality on the Court. Call on President Obama to name a woman to the Supreme Court .
Justice Ginsburg herself has said that women bring a different perspective to the bench and their life experiences influence their judgment. One woman representing 11 percent of the Court should not have the burden of reflecting the perspective and judgment of 51 percent of the population.
We join with Sens. Boxer and Snowe. We join with the op-eds, interviews, commentary, and petition drives calling on the President to name a woman to the Court. Add your voice to the chorus calling on President Obama to name a woman on the Supreme Court . We can’t say it loudly enough.
The WomenCount Team