So much has already been written on this, but I do not believe it has been talked about here and I want to know what you think.
Today is the first day of the Sonia Sotomayor Supreme Court Justice nominee hearings. The major attack point to her is her notorious quote, below:
“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”
There are two things that I really dislike about her saying this.
First - I would expect any judge to have the ability to remain objective and use personal experience only as it relates to sharpening his/her axe of that very same objectivity . I know untangling personal experience from independent analysis would be extremely hard for a judge, or anyone. But there are only 9 justices at the top. We can surely find 9 out of a population of 300 million who are able to remain objective, no matter the circumstances.
Second - To me, she is saying that she will reach conclusions which favor minority groups, being a Hispanic woman. She would rephrase that to say that they are more fair conclusions. But as she showed in her upholding of the appeals court decisions in the New Haven Fire Department case (which was overturned by the very Supreme Court she is going towards), she favors minority groups. This is simply reverse discrimination. Even though white males have dominated this country since its founding, they are still human beings and citizens. They are very productive and make up the majority of the male population of the country. There is nothing innately evil about white guys.
So if the fire department institutes an exam for promotions and only white males score high enough to earn extra money, so be it. You cannot take the exam back and come up with some other measure just because no minorities did well on the test. What about the white, competent, qualified firefighters who met the fire department’s requirements?
If a white male judge favors white males in court cases, that is unjust and he should not be a Supreme Court justice. If a Hispanic woman favors minority groups in court cases, that is just as inequitable as the white judge she is so groundlessly contemptuous towards.
What do you think?
Last 3 posts by Eric
- Social Security Finally Bankrupt? - February 4th, 2010
- Business Cliches - January 15th, 2010
- Conan O'Brien - January 12th, 2010
I covered most of my points in an earlier post (http://tinyurl.com/pwee5n), but since then remain conflicted.
I can’t argue with her breadth of experience. And despite the “big quote” she has often ruled against a minority person when race was not one of the factors of the suit (i.e. a hispanic person suing a company for securities fraud, where race has no bearing).
I also think that the criticism of her membership in an “women’s only” organization is off target since I think it reflects a generational gap. I know older people who I would consider racist/sexist (or at least biased), but I know VERY few people my own age that I could say the same for. Sure, I think its hypocritical the we have TV stations like BET, and it would be considered horrendous to have a WET. But the bigger issue is that I wouldn’t see the relevance… I mean, a TV station dedicated to bringing programming based on the lightness or darkness of someone’s skin???
In other words, I don’t think my generation sees the same issues in a biased/racist view as an older generation. I look at this Sonya debate and don’t necessarily “get it”. It’s like Jim Brown going off on Tiger Woods recently about not “sticking up for black issues” more often. Jim Brown grew up in an era where skin tone was a factor, Tiger Woods has grown up when it is not.
But the crux is that this older generation will be making laws based on their thinking patterns, not ours. And because of that we have to make sure we understand and agree with their philosophy. (Just did a big circle)
Regarding the firefighters case, I thought the most relevant fact was that part of the exam was an oral exam administered by current and former fire chiefs/marshalls/etc and this group was over 2/3 minority. So, if they thought the exam was fair for the white (and hispanic) guys…
Me again. Had one other comment.
Ms. Sotomayor has said that she is not an “original constructionist”, or in other words, she does not believe that one needs to decipher the intent of a passage of the Constitution AS THE FRAMERS INTENDED THE PASSAGE TO BE INTERPRETED. Getting away from a debate on loose vs strict interpretation, she is the first to ever admit this. I don’t like it.
Just as the best way to judge a politian is their voting record, the best way to judge a judge is by their verdict record.
Five out of the six cases she ruled on resulted in the Supreme Court overturning her verdicts saying she was wrong in the interpretation of law.
That enough is grounds for disqualification to me.
I just think she is ugly and don’t want to see her ugly mug all the time.
Originalism is the only fair way to interpret the Constitution. Liberals like to view it as a “living document” that evolves with society. What is the point of creating a Constitution that will govern if it is constantly changing? Why wouldn’t we just create laws and change them as we please? Constitutions are created to be above the laws and to judge the validity of the laws enacted under it. Why have the Constitution if it can be contorted to validate any law?
Originalism is important not just because the Founders were the ones who wrote the Constitution and obviously knew what they intended, but also because it gives an unbiased starting point, external to the justices on the court.
In the interpretation of the Constitution, every judge must have a starting point from whence to interpret the document. If the judges feel the need to move beyond the plain language of the document, then it only makes sense to have one point of origin, instead of nine.