There is quite a buzz in the news as the Judiciary Committee prepares to interview Judge Sotomayer and make a recommendation for her appointment to the Supreme Court. While nothing is certain, it is probable that she will be a Supreme Court Justice in the very near future. At the same time there is the concern over some statements she made that are now being publicly dissected and examined.
The statement that has received the most attention is her comment on a statement that had been made by former Supreme Court Justice O’Connor “a wise old man and a wise old woman reach the same conclusion.”
Judge Sotomayor stated that she didn’t agree, that "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." (This is from the Associated Press as of 28 May).
This brought the following response from former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich:
"Imagine a judicial nominee said 'my experience as a white man makes me better than a Latina woman.' Wouldn't they have to withdraw? New racism is no better than old racism. A white man racist nominee would be forced to withdraw. Latina woman racist should also withdraw."
Mr. Gingrich makes an excellent point, though I suspect Judge Sotomayor will be confirmed nonetheless. As to those who will argue (and probably already are arguing) that this is a sound bight taken out of context, I would respond that the remark was made during a presentation Judge Sotomayor gave at the University of California Berkeley School of Law. Generally, when professionals give a presentation they spend time preparing for it, to include framing responses for various questions. This should be particularly true if you are a judge giving a talk at a law school. Remarks made in that context cannot and should not be dismissed as off the cuff sound bites.
That being said, it is another remark that Judge Sotomayor made at that presentation that is more serious. The remark is: "Our experiences as women and people of color affect our decisions."
It is true that our experiences can affect our decisions. But, in fact, that is exactly what the law is NOT supposed to do, nor is a judge supposed to be partial based upon his or her own perspectives. The law, and judges as the arbiter of the law, is supposed to be impartial to all other influences, including their own.
The law must be applied evenly, impartially and fairly. Judge Sotomayor appears to be defending her ‘right’ to give judgments in which her own personnel experiences will and should be allowed to affect those judgments. Judge Sotomayor needs to explain herself.
The motto of the United States is ‘E Pluribus Unum,’ ‘Out of many one.’ At a wide range of levels it means that we all come together and become equal. We were Irish or English or German or Senegalese or Argentine or Vietnamese or Chinese. We were black or white or brown. We were Catholic or Lutheran or Jew or Hindu. But now we are one. We forget the divisions of the old world and build a new world, and a better society here. We are still Catholic or Jew or Muslim, we are still Irish descent or Malawi descent. But from society’s perspective, from the law’s perspective, we are all simply Americans.
Teddy Roosevelt spoke many years ago of the need to end what he called ‘hyphenated Americanism.’ Just five years ago, another man, Barack Obama, echoed that call, reminding us that we are all Americans. In the exact same sense, a judge is not, cannot be, must not be, a ‘white judge,’ or a ‘male judge,’ or a female judge,’ or an ‘Irish Catholic Judge,’ or any other kind of judge. A judge must be ‘just’ a judge.
This nation has been on a journey for almost 233 years to establish, as is written on the Supreme Court Building ‘Equal Justice Under Law.’ Justice, as we are often reminded, is blind – blind to such things as color, race, religion, income, gender, political party and a host of other things, including personal perspectives. In the near future, when she is likely to be sitting inside that building, Judge Sotomayor needs to remember that.
The statement that has received the most attention is her comment on a statement that had been made by former Supreme Court Justice O’Connor “a wise old man and a wise old woman reach the same conclusion.”
Judge Sotomayor stated that she didn’t agree, that "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." (This is from the Associated Press as of 28 May).
This brought the following response from former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich:
"Imagine a judicial nominee said 'my experience as a white man makes me better than a Latina woman.' Wouldn't they have to withdraw? New racism is no better than old racism. A white man racist nominee would be forced to withdraw. Latina woman racist should also withdraw."
Mr. Gingrich makes an excellent point, though I suspect Judge Sotomayor will be confirmed nonetheless. As to those who will argue (and probably already are arguing) that this is a sound bight taken out of context, I would respond that the remark was made during a presentation Judge Sotomayor gave at the University of California Berkeley School of Law. Generally, when professionals give a presentation they spend time preparing for it, to include framing responses for various questions. This should be particularly true if you are a judge giving a talk at a law school. Remarks made in that context cannot and should not be dismissed as off the cuff sound bites.
That being said, it is another remark that Judge Sotomayor made at that presentation that is more serious. The remark is: "Our experiences as women and people of color affect our decisions."
It is true that our experiences can affect our decisions. But, in fact, that is exactly what the law is NOT supposed to do, nor is a judge supposed to be partial based upon his or her own perspectives. The law, and judges as the arbiter of the law, is supposed to be impartial to all other influences, including their own.
The law must be applied evenly, impartially and fairly. Judge Sotomayor appears to be defending her ‘right’ to give judgments in which her own personnel experiences will and should be allowed to affect those judgments. Judge Sotomayor needs to explain herself.
The motto of the United States is ‘E Pluribus Unum,’ ‘Out of many one.’ At a wide range of levels it means that we all come together and become equal. We were Irish or English or German or Senegalese or Argentine or Vietnamese or Chinese. We were black or white or brown. We were Catholic or Lutheran or Jew or Hindu. But now we are one. We forget the divisions of the old world and build a new world, and a better society here. We are still Catholic or Jew or Muslim, we are still Irish descent or Malawi descent. But from society’s perspective, from the law’s perspective, we are all simply Americans.
Teddy Roosevelt spoke many years ago of the need to end what he called ‘hyphenated Americanism.’ Just five years ago, another man, Barack Obama, echoed that call, reminding us that we are all Americans. In the exact same sense, a judge is not, cannot be, must not be, a ‘white judge,’ or a ‘male judge,’ or a female judge,’ or an ‘Irish Catholic Judge,’ or any other kind of judge. A judge must be ‘just’ a judge.
This nation has been on a journey for almost 233 years to establish, as is written on the Supreme Court Building ‘Equal Justice Under Law.’ Justice, as we are often reminded, is blind – blind to such things as color, race, religion, income, gender, political party and a host of other things, including personal perspectives. In the near future, when she is likely to be sitting inside that building, Judge Sotomayor needs to remember that.
No comments:
Post a Comment