In a 2001 speech at the University of California at Berkeley, Judge Sonia Sotomayor expressed a hope that “a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”  Eight years later, shortly before Justice David Souter announced his intention to retire from the Supreme Court, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg complained of being “lonely” on the bench since Justice Sandra Day O’Connor stepped down, and echoed Sotomayor’s sentiment that women can bring a unique life experience to the Court.

It was widely expected that President Obama would nominate a woman to replace Justice Souter, and he did not disappoint.  But why is it so important to have another woman on the Court?  Are women’s “unique life experiences” truly important in judging?  In some cases, it may indeed make a difference.  One obvious example is currently before the Court right now:  Safford Unified School District v. Redding, in which the Court is considering the lawfulness of a school district’s search of a student suspected of having a prescription drug.  In oral arguments, only Justice Ginsburg expressed concern about what she regarded as the “humiliating” nature of the searches; even the more “liberal” male Justices, such as Justice Stephen Breyer, seemed unconcerned about the search’s effect on a teenage girl.  By contrast, five years ago Judge Sotomayor dissented from the Second Circuit’s opinion upholding a similar search; in so doing, she decried the “severely intrusive” nature of the search.  But the importance of a second female justice is less obvious in cases that do not deal directly with issues involving women or discrimination:  do we truly need a woman’s unique life experience in a criminal or antitrust case?  We look forward to discussing these issues, as well as others relating to the nomination of Justice Sonia Sotomayor, during our Twittercast on Sunday, May 31, at 10 pm EST.