"I willingly accept that we who judge must not deny the differences resulting from experience and heritage but attempt, as the Supreme Court suggests, continuously to judge when those opinions, sympathies and prejudices are appropriate." This quote by Sonia Sotomayor, Barack Obama's Supreme Court nominee, is not exactly something you want to hear out of a potential Supreme Court Justice. Aren't judges supposed to take an objective look at the facts rather than let their "sympathies and prejudices" dictate their rulings? Aren't they supposed to judge based on the Constitution? Like most of America, I know very little about this woman, but my initial findings don't give me much indication that Sotomayor will interpret the Constitution as it is written. Read this speech and see for yourself.
In her speech, Sotomayor goes on to say that we need "to figure out how we go about creating the opportunity for there to be more women and people of color on the bench so we can finally have statistically significant numbers to measure the differences we will and are making." I thought justice was supposed to be blind. If that's the case then why does it make a difference if it's a man, woman, black, white, asian etc. on the bench? She makes an argument for different genders and ethnic groups having representation in the courts equal to their percentage of the overall population. I'm not saying that it would be a good thing for the Supreme Court to be made up entirely of black men or white women, but doesn't her advocacy for diversity on the bench undermine the very principle of impartiality upon which the law is meant to be interpreted? I don't understand it.
What does she mean when she refers to "differences we will and are making"? Is there currently a set of laws on the books that significantly undermine a particular group's ability to succeed or compete in this country? Can a Hispanic man not take out a loan, buy a house or go to college in the United States? Do black women have trouble doing these things because the law prohibits them from doing so? I don't believe it does, so why must the courts "measure the differences"? Don't get me wrong, there are definitely groups of people who face socioeconomic disparities and sit on the margins of society. However, these disparities are more often than not a result of cultural and personal factors, not legal. It seems to me that Ms. Sotomayor seeks to give certain groups a legal advantage so as to undermine the cultural and personal factors that exist. The law should provide a framework of equal opportunity, not tilt it in favor of the politically favored.
The Supreme Court does not suggest, as Ms. Sotomayor says, that judges let their "opinions, sympathies and prejudices" influence their rulings when "appropriate." In fact, judges are never supposed to let such factors influence their decisions. Their job is to interpret the law impartially. How does letting ones opinions, sympathies and prejudices keep one impartial? I haven't formed a solid opinion yet, but right now she's not gaining favor in my book.
** Update ** 5/27/2009
Great article from WSJ about Sotomayor. The author says about some judges he mentions within the article that "these men saw themselves as judges first and ethnic representatives second." I think that says a lot. Sotomayor doesn't seem to see herself that way though.
Check out the Thinkers Daily Reading List for your everyday source of all things you need to know.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Judges are human: they have stories and life experiences that have shaped and changed their opinions. If judges were always supposed to be impartial, why would it matter who did the nominating? A better question would be: so who would you have picked? I think Obama made a pretty tactful and conservative move here - she is by no means the most liberal of the judges on the list. Let's be honest, no matter who he named the Republicans would throw a fit. Everything I've read about her seems like she's really moderate. Republicans throwing a tantrum about this pick will only make them look like petulant, sore, losers and Dick Cheney's been doing enough of that for the whole party lately.
ReplyDeleteAlso, cry me a river - old white men have had their day. It cannot be a bad thing to add some diversity into our interpretation of the law, especially when the piece of "diversity" that she belongs to is a majority in a few states now. Their voice and experience deserves to be a part of the law-making bodies in the country of which they are citizens. You can't knock that. It's not just about the decisions she makes, it's about seeing that a Latina woman from the south Bronx can make it based on her education and credentials. That's what America's about, right?
With all due respect Sarah, I dont think Patrick, or anyone is knocking the fact that diversity deserves to be part of the mix. And when it comes to the decisions she makes in court, or the decisions for those that nominate and confirm her, it should have no bearing on where she comes from. If I had a case before the Supreme Court I would hope that a chip on the shoulder or "look what I had to go through" mentality would not dictate the decision that comes from interpretation of the law. I'd also be interested in seeing if you could elaborate on "old white men" having their day. Maybe that is what Ms. Sotomayor thought when she issued this ruling.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=47838
If people are mad because a Latina woman was nominated shame on them. What I have a feeling most critics are concerned about is her ability to interpret and address the constitution in her rulings.
Mike, I think the Ricci case should be seen by the Supreme Court, and it is. Affirmative action cases should be revisited by the Supreme Court. She did not uphold the discrimination of white men, she's upholding the argument that no discrimination took place. It's not a chip on her shoulder - and I think she explains that, as well as what I mean by "old white men have had their day," pretty clearly in the text immediately following the white men/Latina women quote:
ReplyDelete"Let us not forget that wise men like Oliver Wendell Holmes and Justice Cardozo voted on cases which upheld both sex and race discrimination in our society. Until 1972, no Supreme Court case ever upheld the claim of a woman in a gender discrimination case. I, like Professor Carter, believe that we should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group. Many are so capable. As Judge Cedarbaum pointed out to me, nine white men on the Supreme Court in the past have done so on many occasions and on many issues including Brown.
However, to understand takes time and effort, something that not all people are willing to give. For others, their experiences limit their ability to understand the experiences of others. Other simply do not care. Hence, one must accept the proposition that a difference there will be by the presence of women and people of color on the bench. Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see. My hope is that I will take the good from my experiences and extrapolate them further into areas with which I am unfamiliar. I simply do not know exactly what that difference will be in my judging. But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage."
I don't see a problem with that.
Sarah, how did she apply anything relevant in her decision regarding the case? It seems to me, and this is my opinion - nothing more or less, that she feared backlash from minorities and may be willing to circumvent the law to avoid that encounter. The law comes before (or at least it should) opinions and personal experiences for any judge. I'm sure it is a tough position to be in, especially as a minority (which is becoming a less relevant term all over the country to refer to Latinos) but if she cannot at least refer to law and the constitution she is in the wrong field. I wouldn't have an issue if she could have cited law. I think this is a very interesting issue and I feel the reverse discrimination will become a much more discussed topic as our country continues to diversify.
ReplyDeleteI respect your opinion 100%. It is interesting to be able to discuss these kinds of issues.