Supreme Court and Court

Women on the Supreme Court: Do They Matter?

At present, there have only ever been four women to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court. If women and men are capable of coming to the same conclusions, the question emerges concerning whether it matters that there have been so few. To determine the facts, this paper discusses the gender composition of the Supreme Court and the extent to which, if any, that the meager female representation on the Court has mattered. Finally, a summary of the research and important findings concerning these issues are presented in the conclusion.

To date, four women, Sandra Day O'Connor (who is now retired from the Court), Sonia Sotomayor, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Elena Kagan have served as justices of the U.S. Supreme Court (Woodruff 1). There are more women than men in the nation's population, though, at 50.8% versus 49.2%, respectively (U.S. population 1), so it is clear than men have been preferred for Supreme Court justices in the past for reasons besides strict gender representation. Because Supreme Court justices are carefully vetted by the U.S. Senate, it is also clear that these four women are extreme examples of what it takes to gain access to a coveted seat on the Court. Indeed, Justice Ginsburg emphasizes that, "In the ancient days, when I was going to college, the law wasn't a welcoming profession for women" (3).

Given the paucity of female representation on the Court since its establishment in 1789 (The Supreme Court 3), it is reasonable to suggest that the situation has not changed substantially, but it has changed somewhat, at least to the extent that four women have managed to break through this legal glass ceiling. In reality, though, the three women currently serving in the Supreme Court represent fully 37.5% of the justices (there are currently only eight justices serving pending approval by the Senate of a new justice) but this percentage still fails to come close to matching the percentage of women in the U.S. population.

Assuming that both male and female Supreme Court justices are capable of coming to the same conclusions, the precise percentages of male and female justice represented on the Court should not matter. It is reasonable to suggest, however, that although men and women may be capable of reaching the same conclusion based on the legal facts of a case, this does not mean they will do so. Supreme Court justices, like all people, tend to apply their own personal worldviews and experiences to novel situations. For example, in the case of Marbury vs. Madison (1803), Chief Justice John Marshall's decision was clearly "outside the box" based on the chief justice's interpretation of the facts in the case, thereby establishing the concept of judicial review and activism (Landman 401). It is doubtful that someone else without the legal background of Chief Justice Marshall would have decided this case in this fashion, meaning that a lifetime of experience immersed in the laws of the land is an important qualification for Supreme Court justices.