Con­ser­va­tive woman should be next choice

The Charlotte Observer (Sunday) - - Opinion - BY CHRIS­TINE M. FLOW­ERS Philadel­phia Daily News

The Black Jus­tice. The First Fe­male. The Wise Latina. The Ru­mored Les­bian. The Catholic. The Other Catholic.

Lib­er­als have had a ten­dency to la­bel pos­si­ble Supreme Court picks based upon their iden­ti­ties, not their brains.

Thur­good Mar­shall was the first African-Amer­i­can on the bench, and it was un­der­stood that he’d have to be re­placed with an­other Jus­tice of Color. He was, but unfortunately, Clarence Thomas wasn’t ex­actly what Mar­shall fans had hoped for.

San­dra Day O’Con­nor was the first woman on the court, but her con­ser­va­tive cre­den­tials an­noyed the type of women who didn’t think she was fem­i­nist enough. Ul­ti­mately, they warmed up to her when she pro­tected abor­tion rights against at­tacks from her male col­leagues.

So­nia So­tomayor made that fa­mous state­ment about how a “wise Latina” might be able to bring some­thing to de­lib­er­a­tions that her sweat­bands male brethren could not, rid­ing the iden­tity wave straight to the bench.

Elena Ka­gan was ru­mored to be gay in some sort of wish­ful think­ing cam­paign from the LGBT com­mu­nity and as a sub­ver­sive sort of crit­i­cism from ho­mo­pho­bic op­po­nents, but ul­ti­mately her sex­ual ori­en­ta­tion be­came ir­rel­e­vant.

I’ve of­ten crit­i­cized us­ing iden­tity pol­i­tics to make le­gal de­ci­sions, but now that Pres­i­dent Trump has nom­i­nated Brett Ka­vanaugh to the bench, I’ve changed my tune. I’m not afraid to call my­self out for hypocrisy and in­con­sis­tency. I want a con­ser­va­tive woman on the Supreme Court.

Af­ter years of hear­ing mi­nor­ity groups de­mand rep­re­sen­ta­tion and push the idea that they need to see their faces and voices re­flected in our po­lit­i­cal in­sti­tu­tions, and then watch­ing those in­sti­tu­tions yield to the idea that color, gen­der and sex­ual ori­en­ta­tion ac­tu­ally mat­ter, I re­al­ize that they might be right about one thing: whin­ing loudly enough gets re­sults.

So if you can’t beat ’em, join ’em. Here is my whine, for the next time that Trump gets to ap­point a jus­tice: The next per­son on that court should look like me, sound like me, think like me, act like me and do it fear­lessly.

The pres­i­dent should’ve cho­sen a con­ser­va­tive woman.

I’m not talk­ing about some safe Repub­li­can from the pur­plish sub­urbs who won’t rock the boat.

We need a real con­ser­va­tive woman, some­one who be­lieves that jus­tices do not leg­is­late from the bench and cre­ate rights based on her own de­sires, un­teth­ered to any con­sti­tu­tional ba­sis. Yes, I’m talk­ing about abor­tion.

I want a con­ser­va­tive woman jus­tice who won’t ad­ju­di­cate cases by con­sult­ing her re­pro­duc­tive or­gans for their opin­ions. She’ll look at the law and try to de­ter­mine if there is any­thing in the Con­sti­tu­tion that jus­ti­fies le­gal­iz­ing the ter­mi­na­tion of preg­nan­cies. She won’t lis­ten to the ridicu­lous, over­heated rhetoric about coat hang­ers.

I want a con­ser­va­tive woman jus­tice who won’t im­pose her con­cep­tion of “pri­vacy,” and “equal pro­tec­tion,” “re­li­gious free­dom” and “speech” on the rest of us. She won’t al­low oth­ers to tell her that op­po­si­tion to same-sex mar­riage is re­li­gious big­otry, if she be­lieves that there is noth­ing in the equal pro­tec­tion clause of the 14th Amend­ment that re­quires carv­ing out a spe­cial priv­i­lege for Adam and Steve, while deny­ing that same priv­i­lege to Bob, Carol, Ted and Alice.

I want a con­ser­va­tive woman jus­tice who won’t al­low peo­ple to ques­tion her abil­ity to be fair be­cause she wor­ships at a cer­tain al­tar.

I want a con­ser­va­tive woman jus­tice who will teach all of us that women think with their brains, and not their vagi­nas, and that they do not mis­take loy­alty to the sis­ter­hood for loy­alty to the law.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.