The nomination of Supreme Court Justice Nominee Sonia Sotomayor is not historical only because of her Hispanic heritage. Sotomayor's experience overcoming difficulties and hardships in her childhood is immensely impressive and her entire rise to fame—through Princeton, Yale, and the federal court system—is further proof of the old American adage that hard work in America allows you to achieve the loftiest goal. Yet Sotomayor is impressive not because of her background; she is impressive independent of it. She has excelled in every opportunity given to her.
However, a Senator's vote of confirmation for a Supreme Court Justice should not be made on the Justice's background or experience. Proponents of that particular judicial nomination philosophy typically argue that diverse backgrounds allow for a diversity of experience on the bench. The problem with this philosophy is that it presupposes that a wide array of experiences will necessarily result in an aggregate difference in judicial opinions.
My opinion is that a reading and analysis of the law does and should have only one answer. Justices should read the context of the law, the law itself, and the application of the law by Justices in the past in order to apply the law to a case at hand. If the law is ambiguous about certain cases, it is not the job of Justices to work out those ambiguities.
To fully explain what I mean, let's take the example of homosexual marriage and the legal implications of limiting it. It seems strange to say that homosexual marriage is prevented by the Constitution. Whether the founding fathers were for or against heterosexual marriage is irrelevant since no mention of it is made in our federal founding document. The argument that the 14th amendment protects the right of homosexuals to marry under equal rights is interesting; the problem is that the counterargument that the 14th amendment protects equal individual rights and not the right of a union or partnership between two individuals is equally persuasive. In cases such as these, the Court should not have the power to "make" law. Rather, since this question is not answered by the Constitution, the interpretation should be left up to individual states. If the law is ambiguous, as it is in some cases, legislatures should be given the power to clearly define rough edges. Those who made the law in the first place should be given the power to "make" further revisions of that law in application to specific cases, not a Court whose only power should be to ensure that the law as written is being applied correctly.
How does this apply to Sotomayor? Her minority background and unique experiences should not be used as basis for appointment to the Court. Instead, her experience on the bench and government service extending back decades show that she is qualified to make important legal decisions on the Court. Her past decisions on the federal court have not been entirely controversial and she is more of a centrist-liberal nominee, something conservatives should be relieved about.
Last, I want to address the issue about her tendency to make controversial comments. I am just as appalled as many other conservative commentators by the remarks Sotomayor made about how a Latina should make better decisions than a white man. Such a comment is reprehensible when made by either someone from a majority or minority background. That said, individuals often make missteps when speaking and I think it very shortsighted of conservatives to vilify Sotomayor on the basis of a controversial comment.
Every politician in Washington and conservative radio has had a comment that they probably would like to take back. Sotomayor, as far as I know, probably feels the same way about these controversial comments. They were a mistake and I presume we will see her taking back those comments when testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee. It is telling, however, that the emphasis by the opposition to Sotomayor is on comments she made in speeches and not controversial court decisions that she made.
I have every reason to believe that Sotomayor will make a fine Justice on the Supreme Court. I also think many people will be somewhat surprised, when after several years they realize that she ends up being less of an automatic vote for the liberal wing of the Court and more of a swing vote on several important decisions.
No comments:
Post a Comment