어제자 JTBC 손석희 왜곡보도

"미국 연방 대법원의 여성대법 긴즈버그(RBG)가 대법관 아홉 명 중 여성은 몇 명 필요하냐고 물어보면 늘 "전원" 이라고 답하곤 합니다.

그 일화를 굳이 떠올리지 않아도 법이 누구의 관점에서 만들어졌는가는 우리를 항상 고민하게 만들지요"

손석희의 앵커브리핑

https://mnews.jtbc.joins.com/News/Article.aspx?news_id=NB11680684

가디언지에 실린 법조계 성평등, 여성진출에 관한 오피니언 기사 발췌

Justice Ginsburg's distant dream of an all-female supreme court 전원이 여성인 대법원의 먼 꿈 

So now the perception is, yes, women are here to stay. And when I'm sometimes asked when will there be enough [women on the supreme court]? And I say when there are nine, people are shocked. But there'd been nine men, and nobody's ever raised a question about that."

Ginsburg's comments, which were made last month, ruffled some feathers – but she's right. As she herself pointed out, for most of the supreme court's history, all of the justices were men and no one "ever raised a question" about that. The court isn't like Congress or a corporation where there are hundreds of people serving and female-only representation would suggest a serious (and probably intentional) imbalance. There are only nine justices on the supreme court. It's not unreasonable to think that, at some point, nine of the finest legal minds in the country would belong to women.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/nov/30/justice-ginsburg-all-female-supreme-court

이 글 중 밑줄 친 하단의 부분만 따 보자

The court isn't like Congress or a corporation where there are hundreds of people serving and female-only representation would suggest a serious (and probably intentional) imbalance. 

이것을 고려하여 보면

There are only nine justices on the supreme court. It's not unreasonable to think that, at some point, nine of the finest legal minds in the country would belong to women.

대법관은 법에 따라 판결하는 대법관일 뿐이기 때문에 9명 전원이 여성이 되더라도 이상할게 없다. 대법원은 국회나 회사가 아니기 때문에 '몇명정도 비율이 적당하냐'는 질문은 말이 안된다

즉, 여성 남성의 대법관 비율이 중요한게 아니라는 뜻.. 취지를 왜곡하여 짜깁기 보도.