Politics as usual - or, Sonia Sotomayor and the SCOTUS

[ravyn440]

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

Comments

[ravyn440]

Do you know what she was referring to when she made that statement?

Yeah. This is the full paragraph that contains that quote:

"Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O'Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. 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."

I agree with her statement that gender and national origin may make a difference in how one views a court case. I think that is an obvious truth, and I don't really have any problem with that part of it, because it's our experiences that shape who we are and how we see the world - but I do NOT think that these things should influence the decision that one comes to. The *law* should influence the verdict.

And if there's no universal definition of wise, then there can be no universal definition of better, and why would she not hope that a white male, a black female, or anyone else sufficiently qualified would reach just as good of a conclusion as a Latina woman? Do we not want the best (whatever that means) people we can get on the SCOTUS, regardless of color, gender, and all that stuff which continues to artificially divide us? Personally, I don't particularly care whether or not those people are straight white men or multiracial gays and lesbians - but I don't want any of them thinking that somehow their life experience as whatever they think they are is going to make them more likely to reach a "better" decision than someone else who isn't "one of them."

Judges are supposed to be as impartial as possible - that's why they're judges - and on this point I find myself reluctantly agreeing with Chief Justice Roberts, who said that in his court, if the law says the little guy should win, then the little guy wins, but if the law says that the big guy wins, the big guy wins. One's personal feelings about the matter should have nothing to do with it.

If you'd like to read the whole speech, the NY Times has it online (this stuff is all from page 5, with some carryover in context from page 4):
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us/politics/15judge.text.html

As for Obama... I guess it depends on what you think are the most important issues. For me, it's civil liberties and the economy. I think his decision to close Guantanamo sounded great, except that he has no actual plan for doing it, he's keeping open the detention facility in Afghanistan (which is even more removed from potential judicial oversight than Gitmo), and, most importantly, his administration, just like GWB's, seems to think that it's OK to detain people indefinitely without trial even if they've never committed a crime - just because the government thinks they're dangerous. If that doesn't scare the piss right out of you, I don't know what would. Maybe Obama's a good guy and he won't use this on anyone except the "bad people" - but a) even rat-bastards deserve due process, and b) what about the next President - will he or she be so benevolent?

I'm also not at all happy with his handling of the economic crisis; I see Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner as a puppet for the banking industry, and that's a situation we're going to be paying for for a long time to come - because Obama and friends aren't willing to stand up to the mega-banks. Too big to fail? Try too big to exist. Clinton and GWB created much of this mess, but I just don't think Obama's been doing the right things to get us out. Over $1 TRILLION in taxpayer money has been flushed down the toilet in support of zombie banks and failing automakers.

..continued..