Politics as usual - or, Sonia Sotomayor and the SCOTUS
Hey kids... Bet you didn't think I'd ever write anything of substance in this journal ever again. Come to think of it, I didn't either. But now that the great messiah has picked a SCOTUS nominee, I would probably be remiss in my duties if I didn't take some time to say what I think about Sonia Sotomayor as nominee.
First off, let me just say that based on what I've seen so far, Obama the President will not be getting my vote when he runs for re-election. It's almost like the guy had a split personality or something. Obama the Candidate: "we're going to do all these good things and stop doing all these bad things." Obama the President: "we're not really going to do too many of these good things, and we're going to keep doing most of these bad things, just under a different name so we can say we stopped doing them." Would McCain have been any better? Doubtful. We'd probably be at war with North Korea by now if McCain had been elected. Although with McCain, at least we knew we were getting an asshat. Obama gave us a modicum of hope that this time things might be different. Fool me once.... Anyway, I digress. Back to the issue at hand -- Sonia Sotomayor as SCOTUS nominee.
I can't say that I'm not troubled more than a little bit by this statement she made during a 2001 speech: "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." OK, so what does that mean? Does it mean that a white male cannot have richness of experience in life equivalent to a "wise Latina woman"? Does it mean that white men are generally going to be shittier (however you choose to define shittier, presumably based on your political leanings) judges than Latina women? Incidentally, how do we rate one judicial conclusion as being "better" than another? There are a hell of a lot of people in this country that think Roe v. Wade was decided the correct way, and a hell of a lot of people that think it was wrong. Did the justices in that case reach a better or worse conclusion than if they had gone the other way? Depends on your politics.
Anyway, if you read later on in the speech, she says this: "Hence, one must accept the proposition that a difference there will be by the presence of women and people of color on the bench. Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see. My hope is that I will take the good from my experiences and extrapolate them further into areas with which I am unfamiliar. I simply do not know exactly what that difference will be in my judging. But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage." I can accept that; hell, it should be patently obvious to anyone with half a brain.
But to say that inherently one set of experiences (notably, *her* set of experiences) will cause the would-be jurist to "more often than not reach a better conclusion" than some other jurist is elitist, outright inane, and lacking in the precision of language that one should expect from a potential Supreme Court Justice. Just as there is no universal definition of "wise" (another point made in her speech) we cannot have a universal definition of "better." Better for whom? In what circumstances? By what scale? A decision that I think is "better" you might find to be totally abhorrent, and vice versa. And you know what? It's entirely possible that both are consistent with the letter and the spirit of the Constitution.
What about her objective qualifications? She's got a good educational background, and she's got plenty of judicial experience- more than the current Chief Justice, I believe - so I can't take issue with any of that, although whether or not she is the most qualified candidate available is certainly up for debate. I don't have detailed CV on the rest of the Federal Appellate bench, so I can't compare her resume to someone else's - but I think it's a fair statement to say that there are other judges out there that are just as objectively qualified (in terms of years of experience, exposure to cases with far-reaching implications, etc.) if not more so. The point here is that while I think Obama probably picked a qualified candidate, I don't know if he picked *the most qualified* candidate.
And that brings me to part 3.... If you don't think that Obama isn't playing politics and pandering to the Hispanic vote with this choice, you're a fool. The GOP is already on the ropes; imagine the fallout they're going to get hit with if they actually try to actively oppose this nominee, and you can bet your ass that Obama knows this. Not that they'll be able to; if the Dems march in party-line lockstep, barring some sort of major catastrophe (like we find out that Sotomayor is an illegal alien - which, of course, she isn't) it's going to be next to impossible for them to do anything about it other than make themselves look whiny and petulant. It doesn't even matter if they have legitimate gripes with Sotomayor's nomination and aren't just playing the party of NO - an en masse "no" vote by the Republican bloc is only going to fuck them up in the next election.
So, bottom line.... I do not like what I have seen so far of her judicial and personal philosophy, and I do not like Obama's obvious pandering to the Hispanic vote - so on those grounds, I would vote NO as a matter of principle. However, whether or not she's the *most* qualified, I think she is more than adequately qualified, so based solely on that, I'd have to vote YES. Put it all together, and what do you get? I'm on the fence. Hopefully, the American people will get a legitimate confirmation process rather than another donkey-shaped rubber stamp.
First off, let me just say that based on what I've seen so far, Obama the President will not be getting my vote when he runs for re-election. It's almost like the guy had a split personality or something. Obama the Candidate: "we're going to do all these good things and stop doing all these bad things." Obama the President: "we're not really going to do too many of these good things, and we're going to keep doing most of these bad things, just under a different name so we can say we stopped doing them." Would McCain have been any better? Doubtful. We'd probably be at war with North Korea by now if McCain had been elected. Although with McCain, at least we knew we were getting an asshat. Obama gave us a modicum of hope that this time things might be different. Fool me once.... Anyway, I digress. Back to the issue at hand -- Sonia Sotomayor as SCOTUS nominee.
I can't say that I'm not troubled more than a little bit by this statement she made during a 2001 speech: "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." OK, so what does that mean? Does it mean that a white male cannot have richness of experience in life equivalent to a "wise Latina woman"? Does it mean that white men are generally going to be shittier (however you choose to define shittier, presumably based on your political leanings) judges than Latina women? Incidentally, how do we rate one judicial conclusion as being "better" than another? There are a hell of a lot of people in this country that think Roe v. Wade was decided the correct way, and a hell of a lot of people that think it was wrong. Did the justices in that case reach a better or worse conclusion than if they had gone the other way? Depends on your politics.
Anyway, if you read later on in the speech, she says this: "Hence, one must accept the proposition that a difference there will be by the presence of women and people of color on the bench. Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see. My hope is that I will take the good from my experiences and extrapolate them further into areas with which I am unfamiliar. I simply do not know exactly what that difference will be in my judging. But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage." I can accept that; hell, it should be patently obvious to anyone with half a brain.
But to say that inherently one set of experiences (notably, *her* set of experiences) will cause the would-be jurist to "more often than not reach a better conclusion" than some other jurist is elitist, outright inane, and lacking in the precision of language that one should expect from a potential Supreme Court Justice. Just as there is no universal definition of "wise" (another point made in her speech) we cannot have a universal definition of "better." Better for whom? In what circumstances? By what scale? A decision that I think is "better" you might find to be totally abhorrent, and vice versa. And you know what? It's entirely possible that both are consistent with the letter and the spirit of the Constitution.
What about her objective qualifications? She's got a good educational background, and she's got plenty of judicial experience- more than the current Chief Justice, I believe - so I can't take issue with any of that, although whether or not she is the most qualified candidate available is certainly up for debate. I don't have detailed CV on the rest of the Federal Appellate bench, so I can't compare her resume to someone else's - but I think it's a fair statement to say that there are other judges out there that are just as objectively qualified (in terms of years of experience, exposure to cases with far-reaching implications, etc.) if not more so. The point here is that while I think Obama probably picked a qualified candidate, I don't know if he picked *the most qualified* candidate.
And that brings me to part 3.... If you don't think that Obama isn't playing politics and pandering to the Hispanic vote with this choice, you're a fool. The GOP is already on the ropes; imagine the fallout they're going to get hit with if they actually try to actively oppose this nominee, and you can bet your ass that Obama knows this. Not that they'll be able to; if the Dems march in party-line lockstep, barring some sort of major catastrophe (like we find out that Sotomayor is an illegal alien - which, of course, she isn't) it's going to be next to impossible for them to do anything about it other than make themselves look whiny and petulant. It doesn't even matter if they have legitimate gripes with Sotomayor's nomination and aren't just playing the party of NO - an en masse "no" vote by the Republican bloc is only going to fuck them up in the next election.
So, bottom line.... I do not like what I have seen so far of her judicial and personal philosophy, and I do not like Obama's obvious pandering to the Hispanic vote - so on those grounds, I would vote NO as a matter of principle. However, whether or not she's the *most* qualified, I think she is more than adequately qualified, so based solely on that, I'd have to vote YES. Put it all together, and what do you get? I'm on the fence. Hopefully, the American people will get a legitimate confirmation process rather than another donkey-shaped rubber stamp.