Gender & Justice: Why Women in the Judiciary Really Matter

Gender & Justice: Why Women in the Judiciary Really Matter. By Sally J. Kenney. New York and London, UK: Routledge, 2013. 310 pp. $35.95 paper.Political scientist Sally J. Kenney's recent book, Gender & Justice: Why Women in the Judiciary Really Matter, does more than simply make the case for a gender diverse judiciary. She also suggests how to accomplish this by using case studies from a variety of countries as examples of what has and has not worked. Ultimately relying on arguments used to diversify American juries, Kenney criticizes some feminists' strategies, including reliance on argu- ments that women will somehow judge cases differently. Instead, Kenney persuasively makes the case that using arguments that gender diversity strengthens the legitimacy of the judiciary is more effective and does not lead to the same essentialist pitfalls that result from arguments regarding differences between male and female judging.Kenney suggests that gender is best understood as a social process (p. 41). Arguments about differences between men and women are both essentialist and not supported by the work of political scientists who examine American judges' voting patterns. As Kenney's painstaking review of the literature shows, she is correct in this assessment. Aside from sex discrimination cases, there is little evidence that women decide cases differently than men. Yet, political scientists and other feminists continue to focus their efforts on this difference. Kenney acknowledges concerns that if women do not make a difference in case outcomes, why bother appointing them (p. 43)? It takes Kenney several chapters to address this question.Kenney takes the reader through some examples of attempts to diversify the bench, including the experience of state and federal court judges, and judges in the United Kingdom and European Court of Justice (ECJ). Kenney begins with Rosalie Wahl, the first woman justice appointed to the Supreme Court of Minnesota. Wahl's case marshaled the emotions of women in Minnesota, cre- ating a harmonic convergence whereby the governor, who was committed to appointing a woman, had the backing to make Wahl's appointment a reality. Kenney's reliance on emotions as a rallying point is somewhat ironic. While eschewing essentialism, Kenney suggests that women candidates are most successful when they emotionally connect with other women and feminist men. This plays into stereotypes that women are more emotional and less rational, a misperception (along with the myth that women are less qualified) often used to keep women off the bench.Using the Carter Administration as an example, Kenney's chapter on the federal bench is particularly edifying in identifying a successful strategy for appointing women. President Carter appointed a record number of "non-traditional" judges. The com- bination of an executive branch that was dedicated to diversity, including insiders within the administration who persistently pushed for women judges, along with pressure from outsider femi- nist groups, led to these successes. Kenney is clear that feminists who argue against becoming insiders, because the inside is inher- ently patriarchal, are wrongheaded. As the Carter example shows, insiders can act as valuable allies in bringing about feminist reforms, including diversifying the bench.In Chapters 5 and 6, Kenney moves to the experience of the United Kingdom and the ECJ. These chapters are somewhat con- fusing to read because Kenney jumps back and forth in time in describing various attempts to appoint female judges. …