The editorial board has previously stated that the United States is best served when the Supreme Court is balanced ideologically; that a judicial nomination in the moderate tradition of Sandra Day O’Connor would represent a commitment to the best interests of all U.S. citizens. With the recent passing of Chief Justice William Rehnquist and the subsequent nomination of John Roberts to succeed him, it is clear that the president is not committed to this idea. Moreover, President George W. Bush seems to want to further politicize, thereby diminish, the court by adding Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to the “short list” of potential nominees to fill Justice O’Connor’s spot.

Time and time again President Bush has failed at being the leader the United States needs. The president has proved proficient at espousing political dogma rather than providing real results and representation. In times like these it almost seems pointless to point out inequity and speak out; however, it is exactly because of times like these that U.S. citizens must not remain complacent. U.S. citizens cannot afford to fall victim to their own disenfranchisement.

It is precisely for these reasons and many more that another fellow woman must replace the first woman on the Supreme Court. Not only are women the most populous gender in the United States, they also outnumber men seeking degrees. In 2001 women made up 56 percent of the U.S. undergraduate population with projections indicating that number will rise through 2013. Women are, at the very least, grossly underrepresented on the bench. If another woman does not replace Sandra Day O’Connor, that would leave Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg as the sole woman on the nine-member court. With so many women’s rights issues sure to make their way to the court this term it is ludicrous not to have a woman in mind for the position already.