Apparently rumors are circulating that Elena Kagan, the solicitor general who is widely viewed as a front-runner for Justice Stevens’ seat on the bench, is a lesbian. The response to this “news” should be a big yawn, but that’s not the real world. The first blog posting that Kagan is a lesbian was made by a Republican, so it wasn’t intended to be neutral information.
The White House, instead of saying, "so what," responded by asking CBS to pull a report on the blog posting because it made “false charges,” which the network eventually did . Not sure that really made the situation any better. What if the White House said, “Really? Who cares?” We don’t live in that society yet, but we have to take steps to get there. Might as well start here.
Friday, April 16, 2010
Equal: Women judges to the rescue
More posts from Equal. See the last one here.
24. Seeking Equal Judicial Firepower
VAWA turned to the National Association of Women Judges, which had pioneered research into gender bias in the court system, not only from judges but from male attorneys. They took their work back to their states, sometimes to the chagrin of their male colleagues. New Jersey was first, followed rapidly by other states, including Minnesota. Slowly, the federal courts became involved. “Nourse [recognized] the potential power of almost a decade of surveys and investigations into judicial gender bias led by America's National Association of Women Judges.”
25. Women Judges to the Rescue.
The National Association of Women Judges was led by Minnesota Hennepin County District Court Judge Cara Lee Neville at the time NAWJ agreed to back VAWA. It stood at the intersection of the judiciary, led by Rehnquist, and the young women lawyers who supported VAWA. After the association voted to support VAWA, Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Mary Schroeder and University of Southern California Law School Professor Judith Resnick were two influential women who threw their influence toward VAWA and got the resolution supporting it passed prior to the ABA annual meeting where the ABA Judicial Administration Division was expected to attack it. NAWJ supported four parts of VAWA as written, and supported the civil rights provision if it was narrowly tailored to cases where a federal forum was necessary and appropriate. This wording would give Judge Norma Shapiro, a member of the ABA house of Delegates and the Judicial Administration Division, a chance to influence the division to accept the women judges language regarding a civil remedy. Judge Schroeder would work on tailoring the civil rights language.
Right before the climactic ABA meeting, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor addressed the Ninth Circuit Judicial Conference and told them to think more expansively about the reach and responsibility of the federal courts in addressing discrimination against women.
The ABA seemed poised to vote against VAWA, even thought the Board of Governors supported it, when attorney Brooksley Born, chair of the ABA standing committee on the federal judiciary, told the House of Delegates this would be the first time the ABA opposed civil rights legislation. In the end, the judicial administration was defeated and VAWA had survived its worst moment en route to Congress.
Then, in 1993, in a move that many saw as miraculous, the Judicial Conference reversed course from Rehnquist and shifted from opposition to VAWA to no position, opening the way for moderate judges to push for an acceptable and constitutional civil rights law for women. Judges began to see that closing the courthouse doors to women was not good for the judiciary.
A final challenge to VAWA came in meeting the concerns of judges by narrowing the scope of the civil rights provision but still affording the remedy that Nourse and the others involved with the bill sought. They wanted to draw on legal precedent but avoid the obstacles created in the 1880s civil rights cases and the early pregnancy cases. Eventually they reached the definition of crimes that VAWA covered: crimes committed because of gender or or the basis of gender and due, at least in part, to an animus based on the victim's gender. VAWA became law on Sept. 13, 1994.
24. Seeking Equal Judicial Firepower
VAWA turned to the National Association of Women Judges, which had pioneered research into gender bias in the court system, not only from judges but from male attorneys. They took their work back to their states, sometimes to the chagrin of their male colleagues. New Jersey was first, followed rapidly by other states, including Minnesota. Slowly, the federal courts became involved. “Nourse [recognized] the potential power of almost a decade of surveys and investigations into judicial gender bias led by America's National Association of Women Judges.”
25. Women Judges to the Rescue.
The National Association of Women Judges was led by Minnesota Hennepin County District Court Judge Cara Lee Neville at the time NAWJ agreed to back VAWA. It stood at the intersection of the judiciary, led by Rehnquist, and the young women lawyers who supported VAWA. After the association voted to support VAWA, Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Mary Schroeder and University of Southern California Law School Professor Judith Resnick were two influential women who threw their influence toward VAWA and got the resolution supporting it passed prior to the ABA annual meeting where the ABA Judicial Administration Division was expected to attack it. NAWJ supported four parts of VAWA as written, and supported the civil rights provision if it was narrowly tailored to cases where a federal forum was necessary and appropriate. This wording would give Judge Norma Shapiro, a member of the ABA house of Delegates and the Judicial Administration Division, a chance to influence the division to accept the women judges language regarding a civil remedy. Judge Schroeder would work on tailoring the civil rights language.
Right before the climactic ABA meeting, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor addressed the Ninth Circuit Judicial Conference and told them to think more expansively about the reach and responsibility of the federal courts in addressing discrimination against women.
The ABA seemed poised to vote against VAWA, even thought the Board of Governors supported it, when attorney Brooksley Born, chair of the ABA standing committee on the federal judiciary, told the House of Delegates this would be the first time the ABA opposed civil rights legislation. In the end, the judicial administration was defeated and VAWA had survived its worst moment en route to Congress.
Then, in 1993, in a move that many saw as miraculous, the Judicial Conference reversed course from Rehnquist and shifted from opposition to VAWA to no position, opening the way for moderate judges to push for an acceptable and constitutional civil rights law for women. Judges began to see that closing the courthouse doors to women was not good for the judiciary.
A final challenge to VAWA came in meeting the concerns of judges by narrowing the scope of the civil rights provision but still affording the remedy that Nourse and the others involved with the bill sought. They wanted to draw on legal precedent but avoid the obstacles created in the 1880s civil rights cases and the early pregnancy cases. Eventually they reached the definition of crimes that VAWA covered: crimes committed because of gender or or the basis of gender and due, at least in part, to an animus based on the victim's gender. VAWA became law on Sept. 13, 1994.
Avoid engagement right catfights if you want the job
The What Not to Wear Fashion Show recently held in Chicago attracted all sorts of blogosphere attention. I’m a person who still wears pantyhose (when I can find them in stores) so I’m not the best to comment on the overly-casual dress I see everywhere that irritates me to death. Still, isn’t this kind of weird advice to job seekers: “do not wear your engagement ring if it is large because it may anger your women interviewers and cause jealousy (and perhaps rage).” Apparently that is advice from a woman lawyer.
However, this is my favorite comment and one I kind of agree with, although I haven’t been in Express in years (it’s not for the 50-something). “Maybe you bought your suit at Express or somewhere… and you bent over to get a Danish and I can see your tramp stamp.” Click here for Above the Law’s full coverage.
However, this is my favorite comment and one I kind of agree with, although I haven’t been in Express in years (it’s not for the 50-something). “Maybe you bought your suit at Express or somewhere… and you bent over to get a Danish and I can see your tramp stamp.” Click here for Above the Law’s full coverage.
Monday, April 12, 2010
MWL Supports Retention Elections
The following is an update from Kelly Francis on MWL's recent public policy decisions:
At MWL's March Board meeting, the Board of Directors voted to support legislation proposing a constitutional amendment to move from contested judicial elections to retention elections. The proposed amendment stemmed from the recommendations of the Quie Commission, a group tasked with evaluating the potential ramifications of recent Supreme Court decisions on impartiality in Minnesota courts. In particular, the Commission was concerned that political and financial influences that had previously been restricted would start to interfere with judicial elections and outcomes. The resulting bills, SF70 and HF224, would change our current election process to an appointment and retention system with a Performance Evaluation Commission to evaluate appointed judges' qualifications.
The Board of Directors also voted to add MWL to the Coalition for Impartial Justice as a supporter of the pending legislation. The Coalition for Impartial Justice currently consists of 27 supporting organizations, both legal and non-legal.
At MWL's March Board meeting, the Board of Directors voted to support legislation proposing a constitutional amendment to move from contested judicial elections to retention elections. The proposed amendment stemmed from the recommendations of the Quie Commission, a group tasked with evaluating the potential ramifications of recent Supreme Court decisions on impartiality in Minnesota courts. In particular, the Commission was concerned that political and financial influences that had previously been restricted would start to interfere with judicial elections and outcomes. The resulting bills, SF70 and HF224, would change our current election process to an appointment and retention system with a Performance Evaluation Commission to evaluate appointed judges' qualifications.
The Board of Directors also voted to add MWL to the Coalition for Impartial Justice as a supporter of the pending legislation. The Coalition for Impartial Justice currently consists of 27 supporting organizations, both legal and non-legal.
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
National bar association recognizes Infinity Project
The Infinity Project has been awarded The 2010 Public Service Award by the National Conference of Women’s Bar Associations (NCWBA).
The Infinity Project was started in 2008 by Minneapolis lawyers Lisa Brabbit, Mary Vasaly and Marie Failinger; along with Sally Kenney of the University of Minnesota, to promote gender diversity on the Eighth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
“We share this award with all of you, our supporters and organizers. Thanks to Minnesota Women Lawyers who nominated the project and to all of you for your commitment to the mission,” said Brabbit, who now serves as Infinity’s president.
The Public Service Awards, first presented in 1985, recognize programs of member women’s bar associations which serve the wider community. The purpose of the awards is both to honor the work of the organizations selected and to inspire other women’s bar groups to consider creating similar programs in their own associations and communities.
The award will be presented at a luncheon during the 2010 Women’s Bar Leader Summit, Transforming Law, Transforming Lives, to be held on Friday, August 6th in San Francisco at Golden Gate University School of Law.
More information about the Infinity Project is available at http://www.hhh.umn.edu/centers/wpp/infinity/
The Infinity Project was started in 2008 by Minneapolis lawyers Lisa Brabbit, Mary Vasaly and Marie Failinger; along with Sally Kenney of the University of Minnesota, to promote gender diversity on the Eighth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
“We share this award with all of you, our supporters and organizers. Thanks to Minnesota Women Lawyers who nominated the project and to all of you for your commitment to the mission,” said Brabbit, who now serves as Infinity’s president.
The Public Service Awards, first presented in 1985, recognize programs of member women’s bar associations which serve the wider community. The purpose of the awards is both to honor the work of the organizations selected and to inspire other women’s bar groups to consider creating similar programs in their own associations and communities.
The award will be presented at a luncheon during the 2010 Women’s Bar Leader Summit, Transforming Law, Transforming Lives, to be held on Friday, August 6th in San Francisco at Golden Gate University School of Law.
More information about the Infinity Project is available at http://www.hhh.umn.edu/centers/wpp/infinity/
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Another Country's Struggle for Equality
Although it is clear that the playing-field is not yet level for American women pursing legal careers, at least we are allowed on the field.
A good reminder of all the opportunities that women have in this country is a news story posted just today on Arab News.com: Women Lawyers Face Difficulty in Pursuing Careers.
The story talks about the difficulties facing all lawyers in the Saudi kingdom, but emphasizes how women are probably the worst off because they are not hired for necessary training jobs at firms.
“Women lawyers are not welcome in the Kingdom’s courts at all,” [one woman] said, adding that as a result she is forced to operate through male representative.
Instead of having the job opportunities available to male law school graduates, most women specialize in contracts or real estate, or work for the government.
A good reminder of all the opportunities that women have in this country is a news story posted just today on Arab News.com: Women Lawyers Face Difficulty in Pursuing Careers.
The story talks about the difficulties facing all lawyers in the Saudi kingdom, but emphasizes how women are probably the worst off because they are not hired for necessary training jobs at firms.
“Women lawyers are not welcome in the Kingdom’s courts at all,” [one woman] said, adding that as a result she is forced to operate through male representative.
Instead of having the job opportunities available to male law school graduates, most women specialize in contracts or real estate, or work for the government.
Monday, February 8, 2010
MWL Winter Event
Save the date! MWL's 2010 Winter Celebration is taking place on Tuesday, March 16th, 2010. The celebration will feature dinner, a silent auction, and a keynote address given by Civil Rights Attorney and Harvard's first tenured black woman professor Lani Guinier.
Registration and information can be found here. This appears to be a speaker you will not want to miss--her credentials and publications sound absolutely fascinating:
In 1998, Professor Guinier became the first black woman to be appointed to a tenured professorship at Harvard Law School. Before joining the faculty at Harvard, she was a tenured professor for ten years at the University of Pennsylvania Law School.
Ms. Guinier came to public attention when she was nominated by President Bill Clinton in 1993 to head the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice, only to have her name withdrawn without a confirmation hearing. Ms. Guinier turned that incident into a powerful personal and political memoir, Lift Every Voice: Turning a Civil Rights Setback into a New Vision of Social Justice.
While a member of the faculty of the University of Pennsylvania Law School, Ms. Guinier investigated the experience of women in law school, leading to the publication of a book, Becoming Gentlemen: Women, Law School and Institutional Change. She and her co-authors found that women were not graduating with top honors, although women and men came to the school with virtually identical credentials.
The author of many articles and op-ed pieces on democratic theory, political representation, educational equity, and issues of race and gender, Ms. Guinier has written The Tyranny of the Majority (Free Press, 1994) about issues of political representation; Who’s Qualified? (Beacon Press, 2001) written with Susan Sturm about moving beyond affirmative action to reconsider the ways in which colleges admit all students; and The Miner’s Canary (Harvard Press, 2002), written with Gerald Torres about the experience of people of color as a warning or “canary” signaling larger institutional inequities.
A graduate of Radcliffe College of Harvard University and Yale Law School, Ms. Guinier has received numerous awards, including the 1995 Margaret Brent Women Lawyers of Achievement Award from the American Bar Association’s Commission on Women in the Profession.
Registration and information can be found here. This appears to be a speaker you will not want to miss--her credentials and publications sound absolutely fascinating:
In 1998, Professor Guinier became the first black woman to be appointed to a tenured professorship at Harvard Law School. Before joining the faculty at Harvard, she was a tenured professor for ten years at the University of Pennsylvania Law School.
Ms. Guinier came to public attention when she was nominated by President Bill Clinton in 1993 to head the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice, only to have her name withdrawn without a confirmation hearing. Ms. Guinier turned that incident into a powerful personal and political memoir, Lift Every Voice: Turning a Civil Rights Setback into a New Vision of Social Justice.
While a member of the faculty of the University of Pennsylvania Law School, Ms. Guinier investigated the experience of women in law school, leading to the publication of a book, Becoming Gentlemen: Women, Law School and Institutional Change. She and her co-authors found that women were not graduating with top honors, although women and men came to the school with virtually identical credentials.
The author of many articles and op-ed pieces on democratic theory, political representation, educational equity, and issues of race and gender, Ms. Guinier has written The Tyranny of the Majority (Free Press, 1994) about issues of political representation; Who’s Qualified? (Beacon Press, 2001) written with Susan Sturm about moving beyond affirmative action to reconsider the ways in which colleges admit all students; and The Miner’s Canary (Harvard Press, 2002), written with Gerald Torres about the experience of people of color as a warning or “canary” signaling larger institutional inequities.
A graduate of Radcliffe College of Harvard University and Yale Law School, Ms. Guinier has received numerous awards, including the 1995 Margaret Brent Women Lawyers of Achievement Award from the American Bar Association’s Commission on Women in the Profession.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)