Just to pick a nit, the original Supreme Court only had five members, the rest were added. It actually got up to 13 before one of the Roosevelts started trimming back the number to 9.
 

Director, your history is incorrect. President Franklin Roosevelt, because some of his actions were ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, attempted to "pack" the court with four new justices who would vote his way. That unconstitutional attempt was, naturally, disallowed by the Supreme Court.

Mr. Modesitt correctly notes that he is one of the few people holding the liberal media to task for its continued sexism. That's because most of the right-wing, conservative, and libertarian columnists and blogs are focusing on Obama's health care plan. Only a little was said about Ms. Sotomayer because her appointment to the Supreme Court was a slam-dunk: the Democrat-majority Senate was going to approve her appointment regardless of her prior unconstitutional rulings and her blatantly biased attitude.

Our mainstream media has many problems, especially its nearly monolithic left-wing/liberal bias; its inability to report objectively, clearly, and correctly; and its automatic assumption that all things right-wing, conservative, or libertarian are bad. Then there's the problem with the media's inability to accurately report on science, technology, medical, or economic news. Latent sexism is further down on the problem list.
 

My original encounter with this story was apparently incorrect:

http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/13/was-hillary-clintons-answer-in-congo-the-right-one/

That being the case, you're spot on about the media being completely idiotic in criticizing Mrs. Clinton. But in their defense, they do tend to be idiotic about most things. It seems like they've stopped trying to be objective in news reporting and started being okay with just openly chasing big headlines for better ratings.
 

I heard a news report that stated that the person that asked the question simply misspoke and had intended to ask what president "Obama" thought. The person asking the question was nervous and misspoke.

In my opinion, Ms. Clinton freaked out and overreacted. It is not sexist to critique a powerful woman politician behaving poorly.
 

Bcage: I'm sorry to correct you, but recent reports from ABC News have revealed that there was no "mistranslation." The Secretary of State was asked what her husband thought. I saw her reaction, and she certainly did not "freak out." She WAS irritated, as she had every right to be. Any powerful person who happened to be asked what his or her spouse thinks about his or her job would be put off by such a demeaning question. Your reaction suggests you really don't get it.
 

What I said was the person asking the question misspoke; not that his words were mistranslated. My understanding is the person asking the question was young and nervous. When he asked Ms. Clinton the question he said President Clinton, when he meant to say President Obama. It was an honest mistake by a kid; and one of the most powerful women in history publicly berated him.

Ms. Clinton's reaction did not reflect (or project) a position of power. Instead she came off as weak and overly sensitive. This in turn has led to ridicule.

Your reaction suggests you really don't get that.
 

I really don't care whether the "kid" misspoke. If I mispeak, I have to live with the consequences... as my readers point out. Your reaction is all too typical of a generation that thinks the young need to be coddled. The plain fact is that Bill Clinton is not Secretary of State, and that Hillary had no way of knowing that her questioner "meant" to refer to Obama. She shouldn't have to be either nurse or mind-reader, and considering the fact that she's been pretty much under constant attack for years, her reaction is far more justifiable than yours. After having played, if on a lower level,in national politics for almost 20 years, I don't have much sympathy or support for Monday morning quarterbacks who blow every slight irritation or less than perfect choice of words into a large brouhaha.
 

@bcage:

It's possible the boy misspoke, but Mrs. Clinton could hardly know that at the time.

She was there to talk about the empowerment of women, and to her point of view, the questioner was completely overlooking everything she said and assuming that her husband knew better than her. I'd say that's grounds for getting upset.

The media rarely gives anyone a free pass, and since the Clintons have provided such an easy target over the years, I'm sure the overreaction was automatic.
 

Eh, yikes. Didn't mean to team up on you bcage.
 

This is all really funny to me. I make a simple observation Ms. Clinton reacted poorly to an inadvertent question and because of that she appeared weak.

Should she be asked what her husband thinks; who cares? Ask her whatever you damn well please. As the Secretary of State of the USA and arguably the most powerful woman in the world today, the expectation is that she would be able to handle it better. Simply dismiss the question; ask for clarification; whatever. Don't spout off once, then just to make sure that everyone is paying attention and is acutely aware of how much it bugged her, pause a few seconds and come back to it again.

The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

In other words, she just effectively validated that she may be the most powerful woman on earth, but she is most concerned about playing second fiddle to her spouse. Weak.

Was she right to be annoyed; Yes! Was the question inappropriate; Yes (although it appears not intentionally so). Did she react poorly; Yup. Is the damage done; you bet.

She single handedly managed to prop up the very stereotype that you are railing against. I expect more of her.

As far as me being a part of a generation that thinks the young need to be coddled; you neither know my generation or my attitude toward how young people should be treated. I simply stated a fact: young person made a mistake. I expressed no opinion whatsoever about the consequences to him and I won't do that now... it is not germane.

I do think that as far as coddling goes, wouldn't it be more appropriate to simply recognize that Ms. Clinton did not perform as the Secretary of State of the USA is expected to instead of making excuses like "she's been pretty much under constant attack for years"... oh, wait, wait... she is weak and you feel the need to defend her from the questions of a nervous kid. Pretty much makes the point right?
 

Let's look at this another way. Let's say you're in the Deep South talking about how black folks should feel empowered. We have a black president now, etc. Then a kid in the audience stands up and says, "That's all fine and great, but what does that white guy think about all this?"

What is the appropriate response to that? Ask the kid to sit down and shut up? Ignore him? What do you, bcage, think the best possible response in that siutation is?
 

While I disagree very much that the media in general has a leftist bias (I think it has a "green" bias, as in reporting whatever makes money regardless of what it is); I also think that there is a very real institutional bias against women.

If nothing else, look to the wage inequality and the glass ceiling that exist in corporate America.


In response to bcage, the president has had several similar reactions to various questions this year. If it is the response we are blaming and not the respondent, then why haven't the same points been made about him?

And in terms of damage done, this country can't hold on to stories of genocide for longer than a few weeks. What on earth makes this so ground shaking that it will matter two months from now?
 

Nate, you bring up a good point. We're still occasionally seeing a beauty queen from California, and that happened some time ago. Genocide doesn't sell, but apparently clevage and firestorm social issues do.
 

Iron Sparrow... I like the analogy and lets run with it. First, just to make it aligned, say the white guy was a foreigner and had to ask the question through an interpreter.

Interpreter: "Mr. President (blah blah) what does that white guy think?"

Obama: "EXCUSE ME? I am certain that I misunderstood your question. Are you asking me about what a white guy would say?" - note: this is said with an incredulous look on his face.

Interpreter to kid - kid to Interpreter - (blah blah)

Interpreter: "No, the question was mispoken, he meant to ask what does the person in the white shirt on the stage with you think"

Obama: (laughs) "That's better. I didn't want to have to give your mother a call to get permission to send you to your room without supper" (audience laughs; Obama is unruffled; answers the corrected question)

-- or, assume the question was not misspoken --

(after the interpreter repeats the question)
Obama: "I would assume that the opinion would be no different because I don't answer the question as a black man, I answer it as an American." (very much in control; maybe stares at the kid for a couple of seconds longer than needed) "Now, unless some white guy beats me in the next election, there is no need to ask that question at any future Presidential briefings" (big smile; crowd laughs; Obama in control; no news cycle story)

Obviously all made up, but I would think you would accept that it would be plausible. The key is that this question could have been very offensive to him, but he would not have let the question get the better of him. He would not get flustered. He would stay in control. He might throw a barb, but he is much more likely to be dismissive through humor than to show weakness and lack of control.

How many times have you seen Obama get something on the boundaries of appropriateness and he responds with something like (big smile) "now, now, now... waaaaait a minute... are you saying (blah, blah, blah)"..."you are kidding right?!" Completely in control.

Why is is so difficult to admit that Ms. Clinton had a bad day. She responded poorly and let a meaningless question get under her skin in a way that it should not have. No one is saying that she is not fit for office or that she is not a very capable person.
 

I'll let the sparrow and the cage run through their hypotheticals, but the question appeared by all respects inappropriate. Not simply because the Secretary of State is a woman, but because she's vastly more intelligent than her wish-he-could-have-been-a-rockstar husband.

If my opinion was overlooked in favor of a man who is not my intellectual equal and who is wholly disconnected to the subject at hand, I'd be a little peevish as well.

And I cannot fault either really. They both said something they shouldn't have. Perhaps they will, each of them, walk a way a little wiser for next time. What good is each passing day if you don't grow up a little?
 

I'm not sure I like the implications of a sparrow being left to his cage, Julie. . .

bcage, I've watched the video. Mrs. Clinton got slightly testy, nothing more. Your hypothetical is a very adroit way of handling the situation, but that doesn't mean Mrs. Clinton's response was a huge international, diplomatic blunder. The fact that we're even talking about it is proof that it's been over-covered in the media because Clinton stories make for good ratings.
 

Iron Sparrow: I could not agree more. No international incident (nor is it evidence of a sexist conspiracy). Simply a powerful person having a bad day on a slow news day.

Cage is my last name and the sparrow references were inevitable. I once dated a girl named Robin... it was doomed from the start!

I have enjoyed the banter.
 

"Should it be surprising that women may not reach the same decisions under law as do men, even when they have the same education?"

Apparently not. Review the 3rd US Circuit Court of Appeals review of the murder convictions of George Banks. The judges were three women:
1. Marjorie Osterlund Rendell
2. Dolores Korman Sloviter
3. Jane Richards Roth

Some history of the case.

On 6 Sep 1982, George Banks, a Black male employed as a prison guard, was suspended from his job.

On 17 Sep 1982, Mr. Banks took a gun and killed 13 people, including five children, at two separate locations. Let's call this "Day Zero," since it's when the murders happened.

Day 32, 19 Oct 1982. The prison staff finally awakens to the fact that murderers are supposed to be inmates, not guards, and Banks is fired from his job.

Day 180. Six months after the murders, when Banks should already have been tried, convicted, executed and buried, he is ruled mentally competent to stand trial. REMEMBER THAT! He was ruled mentally competent.

Day 256 (31 May 1983). A jury for Banks' original trial in Pittsburg was chosen.

Days 262-277. Banks is tried for 13 counts of murder and other crimes.

Day 277 (21 June 1983). Banks is found guilty of 13 counts of murder and other crimes.

Day 278. Banks gets 12 death sentences and one life sentence.

AND THE YEARS ROLL BY...

Day 1162 (22 Nov 1985). Banks exhausts county-level appeals. His death sentences are upheld.

AND THE YEARS ROLL BY...

Day 1614 (17 Feb 1987). The state supreme court upholds the verdicts.

Day 1844 (5 Oct 1987). The US Supreme Court refuses to hear the case.

AND THE YEARS ROLL BY...

Day 4899 (15 Feb 1996). Gov. Tom Ridge signs Banks' death warrant. But a stay of execution promptly arrives.

AND THE YEARS ROLL BY...

Day 5443 (12 Aug 1997). The 3rd US Circuit Court of appeals hears the case. The verdicts are again upheld.

AND THE YEARS ROLL BY...

Day 6020 (March 1999). Gov. Ridge signs another death warrant for Banks' execution. A federal judge issues another stay of execution.

AND THE YEARS ROLL BY...

Day 6966 (31 Oct 2001). The 3rd Circuit believes itself to have found a flaw in the wording of the trial jury's instructions (one missed by all the other courts to which the case had been appealed over the preceding 18 years) and reverses all 13 death sentences.

Now we are caught up to the moment when the three female judges decided that the original trial judge, Banks' jury, and all preceding appellate judges, were no proper judges of court procedure.

Day 7213 (17 Jun 2002). The U.S. Supreme Court rejects 3rd Circuit's reasoning and demands that the 3rd Circuit re-hear the appeal. The 3rd Circuit again rules in Banks' favor (dismissing all the death sentences). The case goes back to the US Supreme Court.

AND THE YEARS ROLL BY...

Day 7951 (24 June 2004). The U.S. Supreme Court rules against Banks, reinstating the death sentences.

Day 8054 (5 Oct 2004). Gov. Ed Rendell signs another death warrant for Banks' execution.

Day 8111 (1 Dec 2004). U.S. Supreme Court stays execution and orders a county judge to decide WHETHER GEORGE BANKS IS MENTALLY COMPETENT.

AND THE YEARS ROLL BY...

Day 8537 (31 Jan 2006). Banks' competency hearing begins.

Day 8564 (27 Feb 2006). A judge rules that Banks isn't mentally competent enough to be executed, and so the death sentences are voided.

So, having committed premeditated murder on eight adults and five children, having spent 23 years under a dozen death sentences, having been once confirmed as being sufficiently mentally competent to stand trial, having cost the taxpayers millions of dollars in legal costs, George Banks escapes his just fate. And those three female judges were among the biggest reasons for it.
 

David, I think that you are missing the point. I can tell that you are upset by the decision of the court of appeals. But I am more distressed by the example Mr. Modesitt uses in Plessy vs. Ferguson. Does that mean that I should advocate not appointing white males to our appeals courts?
 

Not to burst the arguement there, but perhaps those three female judges views were more affected by their political/social philosophy than their gender.

If you'd like I can find a list of women more than willing to put that man out of this world... I assure you it's not a gender issue.
 

Derek, I think those judges were two Jewesses and a White Roman Catholic. You might very well be correct about their social philosophy (or agenda) might have had a bigger influence on their decisions than their gender.
 

and the supposedly more liberal political party of the United States just one year ago decided that a black man was preferable to a white woman as the party nominee for president.

That's such an incredible oversimplification of the various twists and turns of the 2008 Democratic primary that it's ridiculous to use this as supporting the premise that there is a greater bias against white women than black men.

Beyond the gender and racial demographics in the voting, there was the generational split, there was the urban vs rural split, the immensely different organizational structure of the two campaigns, the early fundraising advantage for Clinton (and the later advantage for Obama,) and perhaps even more important than all of the above, the huge mistake the Clinton team made in February with the caucus states, (though that was partially a result of the greater resources the Obama campaign had following Super Tuesday.)

To put all that aside and paint it as "even liberals picked the black guy over the white woman" is absurd.
 

Nathaniel, although you have a point about the Democratic Party's reason for preferring a black candidate to a woman candidate being an oversimplification, history shows that this is a consistent trend. Blacks got the vote before women did, for example. Although there were undoubtedly other factors, it might be that that there is, in fact, some sort of motivation to promote non-white races rather than promoting women, if there is ever a choice to be made between the two.