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

[jhetley.livejournal.com]

I sorta fall in line with the other comments -- our current justices have their biases. She would have a different bias. Might lead the combined forces to kick shit out of some different things that could use kicking.

Ain't none of them "objective."

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

True, and there is that possibility. But if Obama, allegedly a Constitutional law scholar, could find no stronger recommendation for her than her "empathy", then I find myself inclined to suspect she must be a poor candidate indeed. Especially after the White House opened the debate by stating, more or less in so many words, that anyone who questions her qualifications and fitness for the seat is a racist and a sexist. If Obama truly felt she was qualified for the position, why would the White House have any fear of any possible objections that might be raised? If Obama feels the need to play the race card right out of the gate to get her in, maybe he should be reconsidering whether she's the right person to nominate for the job.

(I also find the White House's efforts to discourage anyone from questioning her fitness for the position to be hypocritical, considering that Obama is the only President ever to have voted to filibuster a Supreme Court nomination, that of Justice Samuel Alito.)

[beckyzoole.livejournal.com]

Woah woah woah, wait a minute!

Why do you say that Obama "could find no stronger recommendation for her than her 'empathy'"?

I've just re-watched Obama's May 29th announcement of her appointment (you can watch it too (http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/Weekly-Address-The-Experience-of-Judge-Sotomayor/)). The very first thing he says is that "there has not been a nominee in several generations who's brought the depth of judicial experience to this job that she offers".

He then talks about her background as a tough-on-crime Assistant DA in New York City, and as an attorney in private practice specializing in intellectual property litigation and international law. (I looked it up. She was so good at it that she made partner in four years. She also made a name for herself as a fair arbitrator, so much so that Governor Cuomo appointed her to the board of the State of New York Mortgage Agency, and Mayor Koch appointed her to the New York City Campaign Finance Board. Soon after that, she officially reprimanded Koch for not following campaign finance regulations. That's a sign of a person who is fair and impartial!)

Sotomayor's first judicial appointment was to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York; she was nominated by President George H. W. Bush in 1991 and confirmed in 1992. In 1998, Clinton appointed her to the Second Federal Court of Appeals. Her 17 years on the federal bench, Obama says, is more federal judicial experience than that of any other incoming Supreme Court justice in the past 100 years.

He then points out that "her achievements are even more impressive when you consider what she had to overcome in order to achieve them". I think that that's a fair point. To make it out of the projects, a person has to be intelligent and a hard worker. Even more, they have to be dedicated to doing the right, legal thing all the time, even when it's hard, instead of easier but shady routes. Climbing out of urban poverty as she did is a sign of a strong character and extraordinary intelligence.

She graduated summa cum laude from Princeton, on a full academic scholarship. Then got her law degree at Yale, also on a full scholarship, and was one of the few top students to be appointed an editor at the Yale Law Journal.

It isn't until Obama is half-way through the speech that he mentions that Sotomayor "will bring not only the experience acquired over the course of a brilliant legal career, but the wisdom accumulated over the course of an extraordinary journey -- a journey defined by hard work, fierce intelligence, and that enduring faith that, in America, all things are possible".

"Wisdom" is an important characteristic to look for in a judge. This is why we use human beings as judges, not computer programs using LexisNexis.

I think you're setting up a straw man here. Or maybe kicking at a straw man built by Rush Limbaugh?

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

I haven't see the full announcement, but will do so. (Thanks for the link.) The main thing I've heard from the White House about the nomination is "the Supreme Court needs her empathy" and "You can't oppose this nomination without being racist", and those seem to be the main things that the mass media — who still haven't stopped fawning over Obama, and can thus be inferred likely to portray the nomination in a favorable light — keep repeating.

The points you make are valid, and that is a positive sign. As noted elsewhere, the Ricci v. Stefani ruling is not as it has been elsewhere represented. Nevertheless, I'm still bothered by her implication that her background automatically makes her experience more valid, and her decisions more correct, than anyone who doesn't share that background.

As for Limbaugh, I honestly couldn't care less what that ass chooses to bloviate about. He's almost, but not quite, as self-discrediting as Michael Savage.

[beckyzoole.livejournal.com]

I think Limbaugh has a lot of second-tier influence on the media, and it goes like this:

Limbaugh blows hot air out of his hind end. Real news programs report that "Rush Limbaugh says so and so, and the White House responds with.... -- or "and the White House refuses to respond". The response, or lack, is then discussed and pontificated.

I think that that's what's happened here. Limbaugh and Savage set up straw men that the regular media grabbed hold of: "Is it a bad thing that Sotomayor is empathic? What do you think Chet?"

Limbaugh sets the topics we discuss because the media is so afraid of appearing biased that they treat him like a fellow journalist instead of as the mildly entertaining ass-hat that he is.

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

The Supreme Court is not supposed to wander around "kicking the shit out of things." It's supposed to keep our government working Constitutionally.

[jhetley.livejournal.com]

I was thinking of "things" involving unconstitutional acts of the government. Like illegal wiretaps. Unlawful searches and seizures. Establishment of religion.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

The problem here is that the Supreme Court does not properly have the authority to engage such issues proactively. It is reactive; it must wait for a case to appear before it.

I have often considered that, were a miracle to happen that suddenly placed me in the position of the President, one of my first actions would be to convene a committee of Constitutional scholars with a mandate to review major acts of Congress and the White House, including executive orders, and evaluate them for constitutionality, starting at the present day and working backwards. The end goal would, of course, be to purge the body of US law of such things as civil forfeiture and warrantless searches, terminate the illegal wiretap programs, and in general restore compliance with the Constitution and the legal presumption of innocence.

Yes, some of this would make law enforcement's job harder. But in that regard I tend to agree somewhat with William Whitelaw, who would tell law enforcement every time they came to him asking for more powers that they were a bunch of whiners if they didn't think they could do their jobs with the powers they already had.

[jhetley.livejournal.com]

"The problem here is that the Supreme Court does not properly have the authority to engage such issues proactively. It is reactive; it must wait for a case to appear before it."

Although some cases, such as Padilla, have entered the appeal process and . . . come up short. Imprisonment without trial or access to a lawyer . . .

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

Yeah, there are difficult cases that pop up from time to time. But to try to "fix" the problems by throwing laws at them and changing the definitions to let you play by different rules is, in the long run, worse than accepting that your hands are tied for now. However much you [generic you] dislike being unable to pass the bar ands obtain a conviction on someone you're convinced is dirty, you cannot simply adopt a policy of moving the bar. That throws the baby out with the bathwater. Yeah, OK, so you convicted that guy you really wanted to convict; but if you keep on getting convictions that way, you eventually reach a point where everyone is guilty of something because you've lowered the bar so far, and then nobody respects the law any more because your courts have become guilty-if-charged kangaroo courts.