Judging Sotomayor?

[unixronin]

Much has been written, on both sides, about the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the United States Supreme Court. President Obama has repeatedly said that he feels the Supreme Court needs her “empathy”. Sotomayor herself has said on many occasions that “a wise Latina woman [...] would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male” when it comes to judging the law.

I have grave reservations about this nomination, and a few minutes ago, I realized how to distil out the central essence of why.

You see, the United States is a Constitutional republic, a nation of law, and the duty of the United States Supreme Court is to be the final judge and arbiter of the nations laws and their rectitude. It is the duty of the Supreme Court’s Justices to make their judgements as fairly, as correctly, and as objectively as they possibly can. Their responsibility is not to judge the ethnic sensitivity of the plaintiff or the hardships faced by the defendant; it is to judge the fairness, the correctness, and the Constitutional soundness of the applicable law itself. If the Supreme Court cannot be objective, it cannot properly discharge its duties and responsibilities.

Yet, our President is nominating to the United States Supreme Court a woman whose strongest and most vital qualification for the position — or so he tells us — is precisely that she is not objective.

Does anyone else see a problem with this?

Comments

[dafydd.livejournal.com]

I would only see a problem with it if you could demonstrate that all of the other 8 justices viewed the law objectively, without any regard to their backgrounds or cultures.

Compared to the 8 justices on the bench, she is unique in her background and attitudes. She is not even remotely unique in applying that background and those attitudes to jurisprudence.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

Somewhat unique. For all her scorn of the powers of judgement of white males, Justice Souter, whom she would replace, is the only white male Protestant justice on the Court.

I'm not arguing that any Justice is, or can be, perfectly impartial. The problem comes when someone is nominated for a position requiring impartiality on the express grounds of partiality. It's as though I were to apply for a position as a chaplain on the strength of agnosticism.

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

I would only see a problem with it if you could demonstrate that all of the other 8 justices viewed the law objectively, without any regard to their backgrounds or cultures.

Did the other 8 justices explicitly state that they would use empathy rather than objective adherence to Constitutional law? Sotomayor has explicitly stated that she would not view the law objectively, so she has a burden of proof they do not face.

Compared to the 8 justices on the bench, she is unique in her background and attitudes.

How is she more "unique" than the other eight justices -- which, remember, include both women and non-whites? For that matter, why is being female or non-white a qualification for the job?