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

[lonewolf545.livejournal.com]

Dred Scott as an example of objective evaluation? The Justices in that case admitted that ruling that free blacks were citizens was anathema because to do so would afford them all of the rights and privileges free whites enjoyed, and letting blacks travel freely, associate with whom they chose, and to buy and carry guns without permit or pass just would not do.

Unixronin has already pointed out that under the actual law, Proposition 8 had to be upheld because it was passed in the appropriate manner under the state Constitution. Any judge who had ruled against it would have been in violation of their oath of office and worthy of impeachment. That California's Constitution is easily manipulated and Proposition 8 is likely a bad idea are different issues, which the courts can not and SHOULD not decide.

[ilcylic.livejournal.com]

But it's not the answer I wanted! *whines*