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

[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.