Manolo for the Big Girl Fashion, Lifestyle, and Humor for the Plus Sized Woman.

May 5, 2009

Oh. Hell. No.

Filed under: The Fat's in the Fire — Miss Plumcake @ 11:34 am

Oh man, I don’t EVEN have it in me to deal with this today.


Justice may be blind, but not when it comes to weight. Paul Campos reports on the bizarre campaign to find a woman to replace David Souter on the High Court—as long as she’s thin. 

“For some men, the only thing more intolerable than the sight of a powerful woman is the sight of a powerful woman they don’t want to sleep with.


  1. Jeebus H. Christ.

    All those people who pooh-poohed the concept that if you’re a professional woman who is NOT a model/actress, that if you’re a professional woman, people will judge you mercilessly on your weight regardless of what else you’re qualified to do???

    Comment by littlem — May 5, 2009 @ 1:48 pm

  2. (bangs head repeatedly against brick wall)

    The qualifications list for Supreme Court Justice are not the same as those for supermodels. I don’t give a crap whether Souter’s replacement is male, female, black, white, asian, latino, fat, thin, tall, short, or possessed of freaking webbed toes so long as that person is possessed of a fine legal mind and a sense of justice.

    The size of the waistline has no effect or influence on the power of the intellect.

    Comment by Twistie — May 5, 2009 @ 1:59 pm

  3. Twistie: You are officially my heroine. Seriously, you know what one thing I never, ever think about when I’m plowing through SCOTUS opinions for class, in my two (done on Monday!!! Reward: New haircut) years of law school? What the person writing the opinion looks like. Example: Justice Jackson was one of the best justices ever, IMO. I have no idea what he looked like.

    Picking someone just because they happened to be born a certain way is stupid. Or am I the only one that remembers Harriet Miers, picked because she was a loyal Bush supporter and female yet somehow, not qualified? The only decent issues I’ve seen raised are as follows: Why does everyone have to be a Harvard/Yale graduate because other schools turn out just as good if not better lawyers, and two, it might be nice to have someone with state court experience, since Souter was the only one who did and state court experience is kinda important.

    Of course, I was also told by a Lawyer of Epic Idiocy that my curly hair was “unprofessional” once. And a friend of mine was told that her (conservative, black slightly past knee length and not at all tight- just well tailored) skirt suit was “distracting.” People.

    Comment by Genevieve — May 5, 2009 @ 4:11 pm

  4. Here are the two things I know about the appearances of the current Supremes: one of them is black. One of them is kinda cute and wears glasses. Are any of them chubby? Skinny? Tall? Short? One-legged? Hermaphrodite? Couldn’t tell you.

    What’s important to me?

    Someone who interprets the law as written and doesn’t bring his/her own agenda to the game.

    That is all.

    Comment by class factotum — May 5, 2009 @ 6:29 pm

  5. Oh. And, Lord have mercy what is WRONG with these people?

    Comment by class factotum — May 5, 2009 @ 6:36 pm

  6. I’m not sure which is more appalling–to be rejected for being unattractive, or to be wanted merely for being attractive. Ugly is as ugly does.

    Comment by wildflower — May 5, 2009 @ 6:45 pm

  7. I find it troubling that anyone involved in anything that has to do with the Supreme Court or lawmaking of any kind is suddenly worried about that judicial gang being photogenic. Let me correct myself: the men can look like whatever they want, but the women have to be babes or no go.

    Is Sylvio Berlusconi running every country now? There is always some little man trying to find ways of saying “No Girls Allowed (except as sex toys!)” in every profession.

    Comment by chachaheels — May 6, 2009 @ 8:34 am

  8. This is the result of our country being celebrity-obsessed. We expect everyone, including now those in public service, to look like Hollywood movie stars, or models. If they don’t, somehow they are suspect of being merely human.

    Comment by Mimi Stratton — May 6, 2009 @ 10:41 am

  9. Oddly, I haven’t seen any objections to their *looks*. I’ve seen just as bothersome objections on the basis that fat people are less healthy and will therefore serve shorter terms. If length of life is that important, maybe all potential justices should be screened for all life-shortening health issues: no smokers for sure, nobody with high cholesterol or heart disease, no asthma or high blood pressure…but no, this is *really* about men hating fat women again, just using the cover of health concerns to pretend their insults are respectable.

    Comment by Kai Jones — May 6, 2009 @ 1:51 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Powered by WordPress