So the nominee for the Supreme Court thinks that a wise Latina woman would more often make the correct decision than a white male.
Good for her.
See, I don’t agree with very much that she believes in legally. She’s obviously left-wing enough to be chosen for the Court by this sitting president–who is pretty soundly my idealogical enemy.
But good for her.
So much of being a judge is being able to look at the facts–all the facts–and reach a decision. Judges are in the unique position of holding the lives of several people in their hands. All the medical shows are about how surgeons are like God because they have the power of life and death. Nobody really makes a show about Judges are like God–even though they are often moreso. A Judge can change an entire life with her ruling on pretty much any decision. But then her ruling lives like echoes for generations. It can change future lives through precedent.
You better believe that you are making the right decisions. You better be confident in those decisions. You are the end of the line for most folks who see you and that means you had best be as fair and clear-sighted as possible. Sotomayor, a Latina Woman, should believe that her decisions are the wisest and best option. She should hold that confidence in her heart if she’s making any life-changing decisions at all. She should believe they’re better than any other judge in the same position would make.
I believe in the seat of judicial power. It’s the main reason I hate the concept of mandatory sentencing. Why have judges sitting over a case if the legislature has already decided that this or that class of crime merits this or that class of punishment? It’s the legislature doing an end run around the courts.
So white men who think they would make a better choice–or anyone who doesn’t like the idea of there being values to choice–should think long and hard. Are there better or worse decisions for a judge to make? Of course. Should every judge believe that he or she made the best possible choice? Absolutely.
It’s also worth reading what Sotomayor actually said, which is quite different from the out-of-context quote being tossed around. Kat, I think you’d like a lot of it, especially (given what you have just written about the importance and power of judges) this: I am reminded each day that I render decisions that affect people concretely and that I owe them constant and complete vigilance in checking my assumptions, presumptions and perspectives and ensuring that to the extent that my limited abilities and capabilities permit me, that I reevaluate them and change as circumstances and cases before me requires. I can and do aspire to be greater than the sum total of my experiences but I accept my limitations. I willingly accept that we who judge must not deny the differences resulting from experience and heritage but attempt, as the Supreme Court suggests, continuously to judge when those opinions, sympathies and prejudices are appropriate.
You can find the whole speech transcribed here.
I agree that it is important to be confident in one’s own ability, but I disagree with you in why one should be confident in one’s own ability. As a programmer, it is one thing to believe I am a good programmer, it is another thing to believe I am a good programmer because I am a white male.
However, I do believe there is value in diversity, in the sense that people from different backgrounds can bring different things to the table. For instance, a latina bringing in something that a white male couldn’t, and vice versa. It is another thing, however, to believe that a latina as an individual would inherently be superior to a white male, as an individual, at least in many cases.
In other words, there is nothing wrong with believing different ethnicities/backgrounds have different things to offer, but to suggest that one is inherently better than the other…I disagree with. I haven’t read her whole speech, I am just responding to your opening sentence.
I will preface what I’m about to say by this: Being confident in one’s ability and being an experienced judge is one thing. However, I think you are all missing the entire point.
The job of a Supreme Court Justice is to weigh the facts of the case – not provide their personal experience to anything. When you start interjecting your experiences into something, it is no longer objective. And the last thing we need is “empathy” on the bench.
Her well-known quote is hinted with racial overtones…just try switching the “white male” and “latina” or heck, even replace “white male” with “black male”, “black female”, etc…Those words shouldn’t even be leaving her lips. It’s a racist statement – pure and simple. For Obama to be a “post-racial” candidate, he sure did pick someone who loves to inject race alot.
She’s also a member of La Raza, which the name by itself is racist, meaning “The Race”. There is no “The Race”. There’s numerous races and nationalities.
And this quote gets me every time:
She even admitted that she shouldn’t say that – so why did she say it? Because she firmly believes that courts make policy – which is against The U.S. Constitution. Courts interpret the law – not make it. That’s the job of the Legislative Branch.
This woman should never be allowed to sit on the SCOTUS.
The job of a Supreme Court Justice is to weigh the facts of the case – not provide their personal experience to anything.
While this is a nice sound bite, the reason we have judges is because the situations that end up in court (especially the Supreme Court) are usually not so objectively clear. If deciding a court case was as simple as looking at the objective facts and spitting out an objective answer, we’d simply feed the facts into a computer and let it spit out the answer. Unfortunately things are rarely so cut and dry which is why we ask people with human judgment (influenced by their own personal experiences among many other factors) to decide the cases that go into our court system.