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

[cipherpunk.livejournal.com]

I find Sotomayor’s attitude troubling not because she is valuing the background of being a Latina — which I think has value — but because she is implicitly devaluing the backgrounds of all the other old, white European–descent males on the federal bench.

On the Eighth Circuit bench there’s a very kind old man named Gerald Heaney. Judge Heaney is one of the nicest gentleman it’s ever been my good fortune to know. He’s a bleeding–heart liberal who has never met a death penalty case he likes. When he was a young man he was an Army Ranger fighting the Nazis in World War Two. He invaded Normandy, where over half his Ranger unit either drowned or was shredded by machinegun fire before they ever reached the beach; he fought at Remagen; he was in Operation Market Garden. He was the operations officer responsible for the planning and execution of the capture of Hill 400 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hill_400) during the Battle of Hürtgen Forest in 1944. The Rangers took ninety percent casualties in that operation; he was one of the lucky unwounded few. Judge Heaney personally buried many of his closest friends there. When V–E day came around he was confined to a hospital when 2nd Ranger was going home. He made a personal appeal to General Patton to be allowed to go home with his unit. When Patton heard of all his campaigns and saw all his medals, Patton told his aide–de–camp to get Judge Heaney anything the hell he wanted — then saluted Heaney and left the room.

(When your exploits impress Patton… good grief. Could there possibly be a stronger endorsement of his career?)

When Judge Sotomayor says she feels a “wise Latina” would make better judgments due to the wealth and breadth of her experiences as compared to a white male, she is implicitly devaluing Judge Heaney’s experiences. Does the breadth and depth of her experiences make her more qualified to make rulings pertaining to military operations, for example, than Judge Heaney’s?

There is a world of difference between saying that her unique background gives her a unique and useful perspective — but I strongly dispute her claim that her perspective is better, and I find that claim to be deeply troubling.

---

I strongly recommend reading Judge Heaney’s Wikipedia entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Heaney). It is stunning reading, simply stunning. Having met the man, I can say that you would never suspect from meeting him just how luminous his personal history is. He’s a quiet, humble and immensely friendly grandfather–like figure.

---

With respect to the objective application of the law, Dad is fond of telling this story about Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes. Justice Holmes was walking to the Court one day and encountered a famous solicitor. “Do justice, sir!” the attorney greeted him. Holmes angrily snapped back, “I will do no such thing! I will enforce the law!”

It’s a shame we live in world that has abandoned Holmes’s principle.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

That is, indeed, the other face of the same coin, and you just put it far better than I know how to.

[fruitylips.livejournal.com]

"I find Sotomayor’s attitude troubling not because she is valuing the background of being a Latina — which I think has value — but because she is implicitly devaluing the backgrounds of all the other old, white European–descent males on the federal bench."

The sad thing is that we have a word for this. It took you a lot of text to avoid using it, tho. This is racism, pure and simple...

[cipherpunk.livejournal.com]

No, it’s actually not.

Imagine Gerald Haney were to be one of the Nisei in the 442nd, a group of Japanese–Americans who fought with great distinction in Europe during World War Two. She would still be devaluing his experiences.

Her word was “Latina.” Her belief that her viewpoint is as much a part of gender politics as racial politics, and also as much as economics, since by her speeches it appears she considers growing up poor to be an inseparable part of her Latina experience.

If it’s racism, then it’s also sexism. Given this, I think it’s more apt to say she’s playing “identity politics” (all of the things that make me me, make me uniquely qualified/privileged over others) rather than to use the less accurate terms of racism and/or sexism and/or classism.

[fruitylips.livejournal.com]

I stand corrected.

"Second, 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."

You are right. It is racist and sexist, pure and simple.

Sorry for the omission.