counter create hit Shortlisted: Women in the Shadows of the Supreme Court - Download Free eBook
Ads Banner
Hot Best Seller

Shortlisted: Women in the Shadows of the Supreme Court

Availability: Ready to download

"This fascinating book reconstructs a chapter of women's history that has been hiding in plain sight: the numerous qualified women whose names were floated for the Supreme Court but who never got there. Just as they were overlooked, so have their individual stories been -- until now." - Linda Greenhouse, New York Times contributing columnist "[Shortlisted] tells the politic "This fascinating book reconstructs a chapter of women's history that has been hiding in plain sight: the numerous qualified women whose names were floated for the Supreme Court but who never got there. Just as they were overlooked, so have their individual stories been -- until now." - Linda Greenhouse, New York Times contributing columnist "[Shortlisted] tells the political and personal sagas of women publicly considered for appointment to the Supreme Court but never actually nominated by a president... With fresh research, the authors effectively humanize the women who never received the nominations they deserved." - Kirkus Reviews In 1981, Sandra Day O’Connor became the first female justice on the United States Supreme Court after centuries of male appointments, a watershed moment in the long struggle for gender equality. Yet few know about the remarkable women considered in the decades before her triumph. Shortlisted tells the overlooked stories of nine extraordinary women—a cohort large enough to seat the entire Supreme Court—who appeared on presidential lists dating back to the 1930s. Florence Allen, the first female judge on the highest court in Ohio, was named repeatedly in those early years. Eight more followed, including Amalya Kearse, a federal appellate judge who was the first African American woman viewed as a potential Supreme Court nominee. Award-winning scholars Renee Knake Jefferson and Hannah Brenner Johnson cleverly weave together long-forgotten materials from presidential libraries and private archives to reveal the professional and personal lives of these accomplished women. In addition to filling a notable historical gap, the book exposes the harms of shortlisting―it reveals how adding qualified female candidates to a list but passing over them ultimately creates the appearance of diversity while preserving the status quo. This phenomenon often occurs with any pursuit of professional advancement, whether the judge in the courtroom, the CEO in the corner office, or the coach on the playing field. Women, and especially female minorities, while as qualified as others on the shortlist (if not more so), find themselves far less likely to be chosen. With the stories of these nine exemplary women as a framework, Shortlisted offers all women a valuable set of strategies for upending the injustices that still endure. It is a must-read for those seeking positions of power as well as for the powerful who select them in the legal profession and beyond.


Compare
Ads Banner

"This fascinating book reconstructs a chapter of women's history that has been hiding in plain sight: the numerous qualified women whose names were floated for the Supreme Court but who never got there. Just as they were overlooked, so have their individual stories been -- until now." - Linda Greenhouse, New York Times contributing columnist "[Shortlisted] tells the politic "This fascinating book reconstructs a chapter of women's history that has been hiding in plain sight: the numerous qualified women whose names were floated for the Supreme Court but who never got there. Just as they were overlooked, so have their individual stories been -- until now." - Linda Greenhouse, New York Times contributing columnist "[Shortlisted] tells the political and personal sagas of women publicly considered for appointment to the Supreme Court but never actually nominated by a president... With fresh research, the authors effectively humanize the women who never received the nominations they deserved." - Kirkus Reviews In 1981, Sandra Day O’Connor became the first female justice on the United States Supreme Court after centuries of male appointments, a watershed moment in the long struggle for gender equality. Yet few know about the remarkable women considered in the decades before her triumph. Shortlisted tells the overlooked stories of nine extraordinary women—a cohort large enough to seat the entire Supreme Court—who appeared on presidential lists dating back to the 1930s. Florence Allen, the first female judge on the highest court in Ohio, was named repeatedly in those early years. Eight more followed, including Amalya Kearse, a federal appellate judge who was the first African American woman viewed as a potential Supreme Court nominee. Award-winning scholars Renee Knake Jefferson and Hannah Brenner Johnson cleverly weave together long-forgotten materials from presidential libraries and private archives to reveal the professional and personal lives of these accomplished women. In addition to filling a notable historical gap, the book exposes the harms of shortlisting―it reveals how adding qualified female candidates to a list but passing over them ultimately creates the appearance of diversity while preserving the status quo. This phenomenon often occurs with any pursuit of professional advancement, whether the judge in the courtroom, the CEO in the corner office, or the coach on the playing field. Women, and especially female minorities, while as qualified as others on the shortlist (if not more so), find themselves far less likely to be chosen. With the stories of these nine exemplary women as a framework, Shortlisted offers all women a valuable set of strategies for upending the injustices that still endure. It is a must-read for those seeking positions of power as well as for the powerful who select them in the legal profession and beyond.

30 review for Shortlisted: Women in the Shadows of the Supreme Court

  1. 4 out of 5

    Matt

    I have decided to embark on a mission to read a number of books on subjects that will be of great importance to the upcoming 2020 US Presidential Election. Many of these will focus on actors intricately involved in the process, in hopes that I can understand them better and, perhaps, educate others with the power to cast a ballot. I am, as always, open to serious recommendations from anyone who has a book I might like to include in the process. This is Book #11 in my 2020 US Election Preparation I have decided to embark on a mission to read a number of books on subjects that will be of great importance to the upcoming 2020 US Presidential Election. Many of these will focus on actors intricately involved in the process, in hopes that I can understand them better and, perhaps, educate others with the power to cast a ballot. I am, as always, open to serious recommendations from anyone who has a book I might like to include in the process. This is Book #11 in my 2020 US Election Preparation Challenge. The selection of Amy Coney Barrett by President Trump to fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) led me to push this book higher up my list than originally planned. That being said, it is an interesting and essential look by Renee Knake Jefferson and Hannah Brenner Johnson into the world of women in the law and the US judiciary. Their exploration of how women were treated when it came to appointments to the bench (at any level, but ultimately SCOTUS) proves to be not only sobering, but enlightening. The authors pull on some obscure research to piece together this tome, looking at some of the women who made lists for appointments but were not given the position, called ‘shortlisted’ in the vernacular. Jefferson and Johnson also look at those women who went from listed to nominated and how their struggles continued when pushed into the limelight. A timely and thorough analysis that anyone interested in the Court ought to read. Jefferson and Johnson use the first part of the book to look at how women were treated, not only when it came to the profession of law, but also as they sought to enter the world of judgeships. The American legal system is divided into those judges who are elected by the people and those who are appointed. Not being an American and (admittedly) having other passions in the realm of US politics, I won’t try to lecture on how things are divided. The authors offer some interesting insights into the role various US presidents handled senior appointments. While some bandied about the idea of putting a woman into a senior judgeship, no names even made it to a SCOTUS list of appointees until FDR. The suffrage movement pushed for more women in positions to represent them in the various branches, though the authors posit that some of the names that emerged were tokens, even with strong qualifications. We will return to this idea below. It would seem that some presidents did not even want women to have the right to vote, let alone have a seat on SCOTUS, as is revealed in the text, with the press repeatedly highlighting sexist and misogynist views, including a potential nominee’s cooking skills and bathing suit body (Mildred Lillie). The authors offer a detailed biography of all the women who made shortlists for SCOTUS spots and how they were treated by all involved in the process, both selection and reporting. This, alone, adds a depth to the book and heightens its importance. Some women did make the cut and were chosen for positions, beginning with Sandra Day O’Connor in 1981, but the issues did not end there. Rather, this opens a new discussion about handling of women at the Court that proves just as troubling, even into the 21st century. The second half of the book seeks to explore what I would call the ‘post-first hurdle’ struggles for women and SCOTUS. As mentioned above, Sandra Day O’Connor’s nomination and confirmation in 1981 by President Reagan and the US Senate paved the way for others to follow, but it did not put to rest the issues of women in positions of judicial power. If anything, it opened more cans of worms, including asinine positing surrounding sexual orientation, ability, and work-family balance. Furthermore, as Jefferson and Johnson discuss early in this part, it created a question of token appointments, a selection to assuage guilt and shut the mouths of critics who spoke of a need for women on the Court. That balance between representation and ability enters the debate and dilutes the nominee in ways it should not, as is discussed with all five women who were nominated (four were confirmed). Token appointments appear to erode validity, while leaving the nominee feeling like some bauble or place card, which should never be the case. The authors also tackle the problematic issue of double binding or dual expectations put on females within the judiciary. The wife/mother-judge balance is one in which many women are thrust, with the expectation put upon them that their male counterparts would never (stereotypically) have to face. The authors explain that this is not only found within the judiciary and is a common complaint in the larger workforce. There is also the struggle to come across as ‘not too manly’ but also follow the norms of the position, so as not to be the proverbial sore thumb. This proves to be more of a struggle, as though muting one’s self while not negating a uniqueness that is inherent. Tied to the tokenism, the selection of these women due to their gender and then trying to quash it proves to be a dichotomy that cannot be sensibly rendered. Glass ceilings and opaque boxes lock female judges into a position of trying to define themselves without bucking trends. Even into today, views are not equally shared and there is a dismissal rate of expressed ideas until it comes from the mouth of a man, so the authors have uncovered in their extensive research. The issue is by no means settled, even at the highest court! If there is a crux of the book, other than to locate the numerous issues faced by shortlisted, nominated, and confirmed judicial candidates, it is that their presence at the Court does make a difference. Jefferson and Johnson take an entire chapter to cull through decisions and public sentiments related to Court business to highlight just what impact the four female Associate Justices have had. While it is obvious that the role Amy Coney Barrett will play cannot be extrapolated here, the attuned reader may be able to cobble together their own feelings on the issue (jot down some ideas and see how it plays out, should the GOP hijacking of the appointment process continue). While many Justices have brought unique perspectives to the Court’s discussions and decisions, only those seen through the eyes of a woman have been debased as problematic, say the authors. An example of Ruth Bader Ginsberg seeing things through the eyes of a teenage girl during one decision appeared lost on her colleagues and the press stymied her as trying to dilute a cohesive legal perspective. Sonia Sotomayor presented a Latina perspective to another case, but her voice was drowned out and her sentiments in dissent negated. Yet, there is no way to discount that the female perspective is present and important. It can, at times, cross partisan lines, though the Court has gone so far away from strict legal rulings to be a partisan circus, as is seen as recently as the Trump Court’s pushes further to the Right, as though it were feeding off the teat of the Federalist Society. While there is no doubt that the SCOTUS has long been a bastion of men and their legal perspectives, the slow inclusion of women in the process has been apparent over the last three quarters of a century. While Renee Knake Jefferson and Hannah Brenner Johnson are not foolish enough to think that parity is right around the corner, their decade-long study has shown that progress, albeit incremental, can be seen. Still, the road towards more representation in all levels of American jurisprudence for women is sure to come, though I am shocked that someone as outwardly misogynistic as Donald Trump might be an active player in the process. This is not simply a book that serves as a soapbox to bemoan issues that need adjusting, as the authors offer concrete solutions in the latter portion of the book. This is a compendium of research, strong sentiment, and thorough analysis, perfect for the curious reader. The writing is somewhat academic, but also highly digestible for those who wish to explore it. Each chapter is clear in its direction and they link together to formulate a cohesive path from issue to solution. While some may say that this is not a strong issue in the 2020 US election, representation at any level should include discussion of women, especially those in added visual minority groups. The book does not permit the reader to sit idly by, as it seeks to rally everyone to take action. Parity and affirmative action may not be entirely interchangeable, but both are core to the premise of this book, taken women from names scratched off a shortlist to becoming the one circled and hailed as a voice for new and effective change. Kudos, Madams Jefferson and Johnson, for this insightful study. I took so much away from this, especially when you revealed the stories of those who lingered on the lists and never had their time in the national spotlight. Love/hate the review? An ever-growing collection of others appears at: http://pecheyponderings.wordpress.com/ A Book for All Seasons, a different sort of Book Challenge: https://www.goodreads.com/group/show/...

  2. 4 out of 5

    Kimba Tichenor

    Nominated by Ronald Reagan and approved by the US Congress, Sandra Day O'Connor in 1981 became the first female justice to serve on the US Supreme Court. Her appointment seemingly signaled the breaking of a glass ceiling for all women. But, as the authors of Shortlisted show, her appointment, although historic, was in fact a case of tokenism, allowing President Reagan to claim that he had done much to advance the cause of women when in reality under his watch there were significantly fewer women Nominated by Ronald Reagan and approved by the US Congress, Sandra Day O'Connor in 1981 became the first female justice to serve on the US Supreme Court. Her appointment seemingly signaled the breaking of a glass ceiling for all women. But, as the authors of Shortlisted show, her appointment, although historic, was in fact a case of tokenism, allowing President Reagan to claim that he had done much to advance the cause of women when in reality under his watch there were significantly fewer women and minorities appointed as judges than under his predecessor.. This insightful and well-researched study exposes not only how tokenism masquerades as change but also how so-called shortlisting allows government officials and companies to claim greater diversity in hiring than exists. This story of maintaining the status quo is demonstrated through the lives of women who have been shortlisted for the Supreme Court as early as the 1930s, but who were not appointed. These women included: Florence Allen, Mildred Lillie, Amalya Lyle Kearse, Cornelia Kennedy, Sylvia Bacon, and Soia Mentschikoff, and Barbara Rintala. Although these women paved the way for those who would later be appointed, their amazing accomplishments in a male-dominated world have seldom been told and this book reclaims their history. For this, it should be commended. Also commendable is the authors' analysis of how mainstream media, including so-called left-leaning publications such as The New York Times and The Washington Post, to this day employ a different standard in covering female and male professionals. For example, newspapers do not comment on male nominees’ domestic abilities or lack thereof, nor do they comment on their physical appearance. Yet both Justices Kagan and Sotomayor were critiqued by these publications for being childless and overweight! Beyond these obviously misogynistic comments, women have also been held to a different professional standard, needing to have significantly more professional experience than their male counterparts to be considered equal. For example, Kagan was criticized in the media for her lack of trial experience, yet some previous male justices also lacked trial experience, including William Rehnquist. In fact, some previous male appointees did not even have law degrees! Their experiences, the authors show, are indicative of the continuing double-standard against which women must struggle. This double standard is further illustrated through an analysis of the 2018 Kavanaugh confirmation hearings and Trump's shortlists, which have functioned the exact same way as earlier shortlists, that is, giving the appearance of diversity and equality to the nomination process, while in reality maintaining the status quo. Thus, despite the Me-Too Era, women continue to encounter significant barriers in the professional world. My one critique of the book is that its organization into two parts—one presenting the biographies of the women and one using their lives to illustrate the harm of shortlisting and tokenism—results in significant repetition of information that at times detracts from what is otherwise a compelling narrative of a century-long battle by women to achieve equal representation in the field of law. I would like to thank NetGalley, the publisher, and the authors for a free copy of this book in exchange for a fair and honest review.

  3. 4 out of 5

    Gretel

    I received a review copy from the publisher in exchange for an honest review. I should start by saying that I'm not from the US and thus had some but not profound knowledge about the Supreme Court. I certainly knew Ginsburg and know how important she is to keep some semblance of balance and upholding civil rights within the country. Looking at who has been appointed Justice, both being despicable human beings but one of them a proven rapist. And while a woman publicly faced humiliation, scrutinit I received a review copy from the publisher in exchange for an honest review. I should start by saying that I'm not from the US and thus had some but not profound knowledge about the Supreme Court. I certainly knew Ginsburg and know how important she is to keep some semblance of balance and upholding civil rights within the country. Looking at who has been appointed Justice, both being despicable human beings but one of them a proven rapist. And while a woman publicly faced humiliation, scrutinity and attacks, her rapist got the position which just shows how the differences between genders: women need to excell on godlike levels while men can advance their careers by being less than mediocre. If we also account for intersectional problems, speak the racial divide, then the topic becomes even harder. Shortlisted tells the stories of the women that were, as the title says, shortlisted to become Supreme Court Justices but ultimately not appointed. The authors illustrate how the nomination of women were often used for political stunts and tokenism but when the time came, the presidents would not pick the women 99% of the time. Even the most stellar records, like that of Amalya Lyle Kearse, would end with the same result. Kearse's case is an especially interesting case because she was a woman of colour nominated for the Supreme Court prior to Sotomayor. In fact, she was nominated twice and was ultimately not appointed. The authors also show how any kind of excuse is used to paint the women as less than the male candidates: they have children or are childless; they are too old or too young; women are too emotional; and so on an so forth. It's the same old trite BS we all know and the authors back this discrimination up with archival records and facts, showing how gendered and racial bias make it nearly impossible for women, particularly for women of colour, to not only be shortlisted but actually be confirmed as Justice. The biographies of women that were ultimately not selected are enhanced by an analysis of the women that did make it and are currently Justice: Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Kagan, showing the reasony why they succeeded. The authors then offers possible solutions and while the ideas are surely not exhausted, they do give a first impetus in starting to think how the system can be changed. And that is the important part: the system needs to change, not the invidiual. From better employment conditions, such as child-care, to institutional reforms, like a system of accountability, a manifold of factors contribute. Although I do think that in the forseeable future it might be difficult due to the current misogynyst administration that women might get far ahead. But it's a fact that to get more women into higher positions, there need to be more women in every part of the judiciary system. In the last four years we've seen a great number of young and progressive women enter politics and my hope is that the stories within this book combined with current social justice movements ignite a new wave of progressive, diverse and inclusive lawyers, judges and Justices. And, additionally, it would be important to remove those that have been put in place by criminals and who also committed crimes. Sadly, I doubt that there will be actual accountability and repercussions but all I can do is hope. All in all, a fantastic read that summarises the history of women shortlisted for the Supreme Court, contextualising the biographies within a broader political and cultural setting. It shows how racism and sexism are intricately connected factors that influence how women are greatly disadvantaged. By looking at current women who hold the position as Judges, the book also shows how they succeeded and the scrutinity they suffered and how we can learn from their stories to change the system for future generations.

  4. 4 out of 5

    April

    3.5 stars I found this book important in many ways even if I didn't always find it compelling. This tells the stories of many of the women who have been considered for and not selected for the Supreme Court. Because it gives these important and groundbreaking women their rightful place in history, I wanted to hear about them, and they should certainly be given this space and the research into their histories. This is history that needs to be part of the overall narrative. It's a relatively small 3.5 stars I found this book important in many ways even if I didn't always find it compelling. This tells the stories of many of the women who have been considered for and not selected for the Supreme Court. Because it gives these important and groundbreaking women their rightful place in history, I wanted to hear about them, and they should certainly be given this space and the research into their histories. This is history that needs to be part of the overall narrative. It's a relatively small niche, though, so it didn't feel as seismic in my shifting of understanding of history. The authors use the biographical information about these women to make some important points and draw some important conclusions about representation and power and women. This is where I thought the book was most helpful, even if repetitive at times. In order to get to these conclusions, the histories need to be examined or the conclusions wouldn't make sense, but that didn't make the histories at the beginning any more glamorous to read. What I found most interesting is that the conclusions that the authors draw in pushing for equal representation often had little to do with how women would actually rule any differently in court cases, but that representation in proportion to the population itself is important. The women represented here covered many different ideologies, political parties, and backgrounds, throwing into question the idea of a monolithic "female agenda." So what matters isn't how they see the world but that the world hasn't seen women in the same way. That women are often recognized and shortlisted, but often not chosen in their rightful proportions because they are judged on different standards. The authors extend this idea to other women in politics (elected positions), but don't necessarily extend beyond that sphere to minorities and women lower in the power structure. Given the focus of the book, it makes sense... a brief mention or extension could have closed some gaps though (i.e. the idea that many organizations make sure that women and minorities are considered in the initial phases of selection-- often the result of policies to increase diversity-- but that the final positions typically default to white men). Overall, it's a worthwhile read, especially for young women, and especially for young women who are considering law and/or politics. I would also recommend that many voters and followers-of-politics read this for context and to become more aware of their own potentially unexamined biases or to see the biases working in the overall system.

  5. 5 out of 5

    Barbara Sousa

    I picked up the book Shortlisted: Women in the Shadows of the Supreme Court because I wanted to know more about the women who ostensibly had a chance to be a Supreme Court Justice, but were never nominated. For over half the book, my expectations were met – the stories of these women were fascinating and informative, and unfortunately disheartening. So many qualified women were passed over, and I was saddened by how much “tokenism” was involved in the process. Yet each of these stories needed to I picked up the book Shortlisted: Women in the Shadows of the Supreme Court because I wanted to know more about the women who ostensibly had a chance to be a Supreme Court Justice, but were never nominated. For over half the book, my expectations were met – the stories of these women were fascinating and informative, and unfortunately disheartening. So many qualified women were passed over, and I was saddened by how much “tokenism” was involved in the process. Yet each of these stories needed to be told. For me, the book could – and should -- have ended with the stories of those who were shortlisted contrasted with their nominated and confirmed counterparts. Instead, approximately 1/3 of the book was spent on a generalized discussion of the discrimination facing women and minorities when pursuing leadership roles. While this is a valuable topic in its own right, it veers off the topic of women shortlisted for the Supreme Court. The authors would have been better served in creating individual books on the two topics and delving into each of them a little more deeply. Overall, Shortlisted: Women in the Shadows of the Supreme Court accomplishes what it set out to do – memorialize the narratives of the many qualified women who never made it to the Supreme Court. It contains valuable – if highly politicized – information about America’s perspective on women’s role in the judiciary, and the Supreme Court in particular. Examining the lives of these women, and the circumstances surrounding their consideration for the highest court should serve as a lesson for us all. Note: I received an ARC of Shortlisted: Women in the Shadows of the Supreme Court from NetGalley and NYU Press. The above is my honest review.

  6. 5 out of 5

    Roger Smitter

    The key word of the book is “shortlisted.” Jefferson and Johnson go into considerable depth of analysis to explain how Congress decides how the Supreme Court will fill an “empty “ seat in the Supreme Court. The nine judges have the power to make very powerful decisions that have and will shape our country. . In just a few pages, the authors demonstrate how difficult all of this can be. They are especially focused on why there are so few women on the Court. For example, Obama was the first Presid The key word of the book is “shortlisted.” Jefferson and Johnson go into considerable depth of analysis to explain how Congress decides how the Supreme Court will fill an “empty “ seat in the Supreme Court. The nine judges have the power to make very powerful decisions that have and will shape our country. . In just a few pages, the authors demonstrate how difficult all of this can be. They are especially focused on why there are so few women on the Court. For example, Obama was the first President to nominate two women. The authors provide a short but enlightening history of how the nomination system has kept women out of the Court. Of course it was in the early twentieth before women could vote. They have data about how few women were available to become judges at any level. But they make a powerful case that there are plenty of women lawyers to fill the holes in the Supreme Court. They show that FDR showed some interest in appointing women. JFK appointed to one woman as a federal judge in the system, the first step to the Supreme Court. But it was Reagan who made the first nomination, Sandra Day O’Conner. The authors make it clear that it was a good choice made by a surprise nomination. The book is full of the steps that have been made. However, they end the book with a statement of danger of what we face now in politics. It is a book that lawyers, legal school students, and many others will find insightful.

  7. 4 out of 5

    Madeline Elsinga

    “Women, and especially female minorities, regularly find themselves equally or more qualified than the white men on the shortlist, but they are far less likely to be selected. Shortlists thus project a façade of diversity with their inclusion of women and minorities but function to preserve the status quo.” Thank you to netgalley and nyu press for the ARC of Shortlisted: Women in the Shadow of the Supreme Court by Renee Knake Jefferson and Hannah Brenner Johnson. The first part of the book looks a “Women, and especially female minorities, regularly find themselves equally or more qualified than the white men on the shortlist, but they are far less likely to be selected. Shortlists thus project a façade of diversity with their inclusion of women and minorities but function to preserve the status quo.” Thank you to netgalley and nyu press for the ARC of Shortlisted: Women in the Shadow of the Supreme Court by Renee Knake Jefferson and Hannah Brenner Johnson. The first part of the book looks at the women shortlisted throughout history, specifically focusing on 11 women who were considered before the nomination of the first female Supreme Court Justice, Sandra Day O’Connor. This section was informative given that I had never heard of any of the women mentioned and the authors give a short background of feminist history to put the shortlistings into context. But it was a slow start and felt more like I was reading through Wikipedia pages for each woman, and I didn’t enjoy the book until part 2. The second part of the book was a lot more interesting with evaluating how qualified women are tokens that are put on lists for leadership roles but ultimately passed over to maintain the status quo. The authors evaluate each woman’s experience being shortlisted and how they were portrayed in the media with regards to age, relationship status, motherhood, and physical looks. It was also inspiring that they pointed out that although these women were in the legal profession, the issues of women and especially minority women being put into leadership roles and the criticism from the media spans across all professions. The authors also discuss how we need to do better with our feminism by including all women, not just heterosexual, cis gendered, able bodied, white women. Their calls to action were inspiring and just what I needed after what’s been happening in US politics lately. Although the first half wasn’t the most exciting, I’m still happy to have learned about these lesser known, important women who were sadly passed over for men to serve on the Supreme Court. In the words of the authors, Just think where we would be in terms of equality if we had put women on the Court sooner? Rating: 4/5 ⭐️s

  8. 5 out of 5

    Dan Cotter

    This is an important book. It looks at the issue of women who have been formally shortlisted for the Supreme Court of the United States, with many before Sandra Day O'Connor being political expediency with no real intent to consider the candidates. The authors of this book have provided a very good book that "exposes the harms of shortlisting--it reveals how adding qualified female candidates to a list but passing over them ultimately creates the appearance of diversity while preserving the stat This is an important book. It looks at the issue of women who have been formally shortlisted for the Supreme Court of the United States, with many before Sandra Day O'Connor being political expediency with no real intent to consider the candidates. The authors of this book have provided a very good book that "exposes the harms of shortlisting--it reveals how adding qualified female candidates to a list but passing over them ultimately creates the appearance of diversity while preserving the status quo." No book like this has been done before, and it is a valuable addition to the Supreme Court history. I highly recommend this book.

  9. 5 out of 5

    Dale Wyant

    I was so happy this book was written and yet another group of "hidden figures" had their stories told. I would have liked more detail on each of the individual women and agree with another reviewer that the book veered off at the end, particularly in chapter 8 with "strategies" on how to surmount the issue of getting more women on the court. Perhaps that belongs more in a college lecture than a book. Still, these important women's lives need to be widely known, and again, I was glad the authors I was so happy this book was written and yet another group of "hidden figures" had their stories told. I would have liked more detail on each of the individual women and agree with another reviewer that the book veered off at the end, particularly in chapter 8 with "strategies" on how to surmount the issue of getting more women on the court. Perhaps that belongs more in a college lecture than a book. Still, these important women's lives need to be widely known, and again, I was glad the authors did so.

  10. 5 out of 5

    Kaitlin Barnes

    Thanks to the Libro.fm ALC program for a free copy of this audiobook. I thoroughly enjoyed this book! I learned so much and I thought the authors did a great job diving into the nuances of female lawyers and judges throughout history. They acknowledge that women are not a monolithic group and that some of the women shortlisted for positions in the 1930s, 40s, 50s, etc. held racist views. Recommend for anyone interested in judges, women in the law, or SCOTUS!

  11. 4 out of 5

    Stacey

    I really liked reading about the women who were shortlisted for the Supreme Court by various presidents. Sexism was rampant (and in some instances still is), and highly qualified women often were passed by in favor of a man. Even though we have 3 women on the court now (and 1 before them), women have only made up 0.00001% of the number of justices, a number far below many countries. So, when will there be enough women on the court? In the words of the Notorious RBG - "When there are nine."

  12. 5 out of 5

    Liz

    the information was really interesting but the writing is pretty dry and not dynamic. also, fairly repetitive and could have been structured in sections that made more sense and removed the need for so much repetition.

  13. 5 out of 5

    Dee

    more like 3.5 - review to follow

  14. 4 out of 5

    Derek Dupuis

    More textbook-like than I would have liked. Could have been a dissertation or long form essay.

  15. 4 out of 5

    Greg

    The book did well in presenting the cases of women who were shortlisted but not selected to be part of US Supreme Court bench. It also presented few cases of those who made it to the highest court of America, namely O’Connor, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan. The stories are worth exploring especially in this day when the participation of women in society must be encouraged and promoted. While the book presented the injustices and gender bias happened to many of these women, it also presented how m The book did well in presenting the cases of women who were shortlisted but not selected to be part of US Supreme Court bench. It also presented few cases of those who made it to the highest court of America, namely O’Connor, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan. The stories are worth exploring especially in this day when the participation of women in society must be encouraged and promoted. While the book presented the injustices and gender bias happened to many of these women, it also presented how men took part in their successes. What I wish the book could have done better is to elucidate further on how men can increasingly elevate the status of women in legal profession or the society as a whole. The book discussed a lot about the injustices that happened. However, not enough pages were devoted to the strategies to address this. I wish it could have been longer than one chapter. I think it is time to address this issue from cultural standpoint and build the structure that will help promote equal opportunity.

  16. 4 out of 5

    Rachel

  17. 4 out of 5

    Scout

  18. 5 out of 5

    Shannon Vessell

  19. 4 out of 5

    Kimberly Uhuru

  20. 4 out of 5

    Elizabeth

  21. 5 out of 5

    Caitlin Mitchell

  22. 5 out of 5

    Matthew R Hazzard

  23. 4 out of 5

    Shahed

  24. 4 out of 5

    Carrie Zimmer

  25. 5 out of 5

    Lucy Ohlsen

  26. 5 out of 5

    Sara Jane

  27. 4 out of 5

    Kim Stock

  28. 5 out of 5

    SB

  29. 4 out of 5

    Lauren Stewart

  30. 5 out of 5

    Megs McCrary

Add a review

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Loading...
We use cookies to give you the best online experience. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy.