Screenshot 2016 03 15 at 1.03.31 PM

Champion of gender equality and Supreme Court resident bad ass Ruth Bader Ginsberg has infamously stated, “ I’m sometimes asked when will there be enough [women on the Supreme Court]? And I say when there are nine, people are shocked. But there’d been nine men, and nobody’s ever raised a question about that.” Right on, Notorious RBG. Three women on the court is not enough reparation to make up for the shameful national history that excludes women from politics. With the recent vacancy in the Supreme Court, tensions surrounding the new nomination have been mounting. Basically, the President of the United States nominates an individual, that individual is reviewed by the senate, and then (if confirmed by majority vote) that individual is sworn into a position that lasts literally a lifetime. So it’s kind of a big deal.

The replacement for late Justice Scalia has allegedly been narrowed down to a list of three men, and that’s a huge problem. It’s not that any of the potential candidates are unqualified or inexperienced. It’s that for every well qualified and highly experienced man, there is a woman who is equally capable of living up to the same standards. Female ubiety is essential in the highest court. The first ever female justice was only appointed ten years ago. You heard that correctly: ten years ago. The gender playing field needs to be leveled, and even three fierce women on the court is not enough.

I understand that importance of nominating a favorable candidate, but who’s to say that isn’t a woman? Women have been and continue to be marginalized within the political field. Now would be a good time for Obama to consider the impact that nominating a woman would make. With landmark cases like Whole Woman’s Health vs. Cole being assessed in the next couple of months, the perspective of a woman is exactly what is needed. And it can’t wait. Imagine a deadlock in a decision that has made healthcare inaccessible for over 5.4 million women? That could happen with only eight justices on the court. Of course, that’s exactly what opponents of women’s rights would want.

While men are clearly favored within the patriachrical political system, issues surrounding the nomination itself are also posing a challenge. GOP representatives have been outlandishly pushing for the court’s vacancy to exceed the length of Obama’s presidency. Serial killer Ted Cruz has said “The stakes are too high to allow President Obama, in the waning months of his final term, to make a lifetime appointment that would reshape the Supreme Court for a generation.” But that’s exactly the point.

This is a huge decision, and it’s a decision that will ultimately determine the state of women’s reproductive rights in this century. I don’t know anyone more qualified than a woman to rule on issues regarding women’s health. The future of the Supreme Court needs more female representation. It’s not a radical idea. It’s an consensus that reflects the values and necessities of half the population. So Obama, what’s good?

More from BUST

ADVERTISEMENT

Trump V. Cruz: Who Hates Women More?

New Fall Issue d217c

No Taxation On Our Menstruation! This Lawsuit Could End The Tampon Tax

Watch The Trailer For The Most Important Pro-Choice Documentary Of Our Time And Get To Know The Director: BUST Interview

multi-media artist, writer, ~free spirit~, sp00ky brat

instagram @rockstaralyssa

Support Feminist Media!
During these troubling political times, independent feminist media is more vital than ever. If our bold, uncensored reporting on women’s issues is important to you, please consider making a donation of $5, $25, $50, or whatever you can afford, to protect and sustain BUST.com.
Thanks so much—we can’t spell BUST without U.

 DONATE NOW