"[T]here has been surprisingly little discussion of the fact that [Ketanji Brown Jackson] would join Justice Amy Coney Barrett as the court’s second working mother."

Writes by lawprof Melissa Murray in "Another Working Mom for the Supreme Court?" (NYT). 

While Democrats have touted [Jackson's] sterling qualifications and the historic nature of her nomination as the first Black woman to the court, few have leaned into her identity as a mother, as the Republicans did with Justice Barrett.

Murray knows there are 2 big differences. One is that Barrett has 7 children — and the youngest was only 8 at the time of confirmation, 2 were adopted (from Haiti), and 1 has Down Syndrome. Jackson, by contrast, has 2 children, ages 21 and 17.  

The other big difference is, as Murray puts it: "Democrats may be less inclined to flag a nominee’s family status as evidence of professional accomplishment or acumen." What I'd say there is that liberals and progressives are more likely to criticize people who call attention to a woman's status as a mother: Why are you talking about the fact that a woman is a parent when you don't talk about men that way?! In fact, I have to wonder about Murray, touting Jackson's momhood. Does she write NYT columns about the dadhood of male nominees?

What's the point of stressing that a woman is able to further her career while also having children? Is it that she has super capacity for hard word and long hours? If that's the point, I need to know if the children's father stayed home with the children. I don't assume he did not. Did he take a less demanding career and handle more of the childcare work? Or were there 2 high-powered careers and hired childcare? If so, how elite was that childcare compared to what ordinary Americans can afford?

If you want Jackson's supporters to "lean[] into her identity as a mother," those are the kind of questions you're inviting. And you'll also invite the comparison to Barrett, the one with the 7 children. And you'd better be careful not to stumble into sounding as though you're trying to one-up Kagan and Sotomayor, who have no children.

But Murray thinks that "leaning into Judge Jackson’s status as a working mother could serve several ends, further burnishing her impressive credentials and varied professional experiences, while rebutting charges that diversity is the only reason for her nomination."

Why would her being a mother rebut the "charge" that "diversity is the only reason for her nomination." That sounds more like an effort to credit Jackson with an additional diversity factor — motherhood — and to take a backhanded swipe at Kagan and Sotomayor. Is there some idea that the Court needs a liberal woman with children to offset the conservative woman with children?

By the way, Ruth Bader Ginsburg had 2 children. Sandra Day O'Connor had 3.