lucounu,
You ask: "How is that a misogynist view?"
At any given time, there are at least five or more men and five or more women who are all equally skilled and competent to become a U.S. Supreme Court justice. To say that just one of those ten or more candidates is "the best available person" is to make a subjective decision that cannot possibly be validated by any kind of consensus. Of course, the president is entitled by law to make the nomination, but I will contend to my dying day that it was misogynistic for George W. Bush to nominate Samuel A. Alito, Jr. to replace Sandra Day O'Connor on the U.S. Supreme Court, and for the U.S. Senate to consent to that nomination. To add to my disgust over the matter is the fact that George W. Bush is the father of two daughters, and even so he was unable to do the right thing. I concluded then that there was no hope except to force a change in the U.S. Constitution, and so I wrote my proposed amendment.
lucounu, the very few comments I have received were from women who are feminist academics � make that "angry" feminist academics. Their plainly stated intent is to get even, and they will wait 100 years if necessary for that satisfaction. To "get even," they intend to achieve a majority position on the U.S. Supreme Court that will endure without a break for as long as women have been oppressed in American history, which is hundreds of years. They do not want shared equality, they want undeniable dominance for as long as it takes to right the wrongs. Why the anger? Because they see plainly the misogyny that almost all men are blind to, and they feel the abuse and the oppression of that misogyny very personally.
Quite frankly, I believe it is in the best interests of American men to do what is necessary to ratify my proposed amendment as soon as possible. I do not want to live in the nightmare that might occur if the U.S. Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade with a Court that looks like this:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/about/members.aspx If a female majority decision overturns Roe v Wade at some future date, then so be it. But that overturning decision should never be made by a Court comprised of six males and three females.
lucounu, it is an odd thing to contemplate, but it seems to me that liberal feminism has overburdened itself by combining its efforts with the LGBT political agenda. Far Left thinking does not embrace biological distinction, as in: "she is a woman because of her body." Rather, they go with "she is a woman because of her mind" � and "if she wants to be a man tomorrow, that is fine, too." It is crazy, but it is heartfelt. According to the thinking, gender is a choice, though sexuality is not. If you go down that road too far, my proposed amendment guaranteeing Supreme Court Gender Equality makes no sense at all. So, very oddly, I think if support for my amendment ever materializes, it will come from conservative Far Right Republican women who are very traditional in their thinking.
My fight for change on the U.S. Supreme Court goes one step farther. Consider:
http://steven-a-sylwester.blogspot.com/2009/10/dianne-feinstein-should-be-next-us.htmlYes! Yes! Break up the lawyer monopoly! If the law allows it � and it does � then it should be done. A U.S. Supreme Court justice should be just one thing: a wise person. Certainly, becoming wise does not prerequisite becoming a lawyer. Senator Dianne Feinstein would have busted up the lawyer monopoly magnificently, and it would have been for the good of America if she had.
lucounu, "dared" is a loaded word, but I stand by it. The three women in U.S. history that I admire the most are Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Lucretia Mott, and Susan B. Anthony, because those three women dared to change the world. Their fight was monumental, and it was significantly against the fears of fellow women for many, many years � even decades.
The following was how I first introduced my proposed amendment:
http://steven-a-sylwester.blogspot.com/2009/10/xxviii-amendment-to-united-states.htmlToday is Memorial Day, May 25, 2009, a day on which all war dead are commemorated in the United States.
Today I commemorate Elizabeth Cady Stanton (November 12, 1815 � October 26, 1902) and Lucretia Mott (January 3, 1793 � November 11, 1880), who together in July of 1848 in Seneca Falls, New York, organized the first convention in the U.S. regarding women�s rights (the convention at which Stanton first read her Declaration of Sentiments calling for the right to vote for women), and Susan B. Anthony (February 15, 1820 � March 13, 1906), who joined the cause after first meeting Stanton in 1851 and who then fought tenaciously for the right to vote for women until the day she died 55 years later. Though the cause began in New York on July 19, 1848, New York did not pass a law giving women the right to vote until 1917. In 1918, President Woodrow Wilson began to support the need for a constitutional amendment granting women the right to vote, and the amendment was officially proposed on June 4, 1919. During the following two weeks, six states ratified, and the required 36th state ratified on August 18, 1920, which finally made the Nineteenth Amendment to The United States Constitution a constitutional law. Remarkably, the remaining twelve states that then formed the Union took over sixty years to add their ratifications to the amendment, the last state being Mississippi on March 22, 1984.
The Nineteenth Amendment (Amendment XIX) to The United States Constitution reads: �The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.�
* * *
I highly recommend this documentary:
http://www.pbs.org/stantonanthony/Steven A. Sylwester
