Sonia Sotomayor-Is She Qualified?

President Obama has put forth his first nomination to the Supreme Court. If this is the type of judge he will be appointing, we are in trouble. Sonia Sotomayor is a disturbing pick, for several reasons. She appears to believe that judges make policy, her decisions have been overturned by the Supreme Court 60% of the time, and she values “empathy” over sound legal reasoning. I will be expanding on the importance of this issue in a few days. For now, I would like to share the information I have been able to gather so far and explain my fears.

• In a 2001 speech for Berkley’s La Raza Law Journal, she had this to say- “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 [Sandra Day] 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 that I agree with the statement. First… 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.” The big problem with her reasoning , is not that she acknowledges that a person’s background will influence their decision. It’s that she appears to think it’s a good thing. Judges have a huge responsibility. A good judge, must strive to keep personal experiences and biases out of his decision making. (Also, I think this statement is pretty racist. Flip the words Latina and white, and man and woman, and I’m sure everyone would think it was racist.)
• The courts are to objectively decide cases. In order to be objective, there must be a standard. That standard is the Constitution. As soon as a Justice strays from this document, or allows for a looser interpretation (the living constitution theory), all objectivity is lost. We allow the Supreme Court to have the final say in legal matters. We must be sure that the men and women on the bench are dedicated to the standard, or we will be left at the mercy of the whims of men who answer to no one. Sonia Sotomayor has this to say about objectivity- “The constant development of unprecedented problems requires a legal system capable of fluidity and pliancy. Our society would be strait-jacketed were not the courts, with the able assistance of the lawyers, constantly overhauling the law and adapting it to the realities of ever-changing social, industrial and political conditions; although changes cannot be made lightly, yet law must be more or less impermanent, experimental and therefore not nicely calculable. Much of the uncertainty of law is not an unfortunate accident: it is of immense social value.” Sounds nice, until you really think about the implications.
• When you read this quote, you have to visualize her giggling with the audience as she says it. I posted the video below, as well. “All of the legal defense funds out there, they’re looking for people with Court of Appeals experience. Because it is — Court of Appeals is where policy is made. And I know, and I know, that this is on tape, and I should never say that. Because we don’t ‘make law,’ I know. Okay, I know. I know. I’m not promoting it, and I’m not advocating it. I’m, you know. Having said that, the Court of Appeals is where, before the Supreme Court makes the final decision, the law is percolating. Its interpretation, its application.” HAHAHA- I have no idea what my job is, but I’ll do what I want anyways, and you can’t stop me. Charming.
• She has had several cases overturned by the Supreme Court. I will be the first to admit, I don’t always believe the Supreme Court makes the right decision, so I don’t condemn her on this fact alone. She has a reputation among those who have worked with her (former prosecuters, clerks,and colleagues), of not making especially clean, well-organized arguments. Some believe she lacks the understanding of basic legal principles. One former colleague, Ralph Winter, said in a footnote that she mislead (unintentionally) litigants by quoting a law improperly. After her involvement in the controversial case of Ricci v. Destefano, fellow Clinton appointed Judge Cabranes opposed the decision on the grounds that the reasoning contained “no reference whatsoever to the Constitutional issues at the core of this case.” I’m going to go out on a limb here. I don’t believe we should EVER consider ANYBODY for the court who doesn’t have a reputation for sound legal reasoning. This is the Supreme Court!! Anyone who is nominated ought to be an expert on the laws of this nation and the implications of those laws.

This is not about a conservative bashing a liberal nominee. She does not meet the requirements to sit on the Supreme Court. She doesn’t understand the role of judges ( or understands and doesn’t care), she doesn’t restrict herself to objective reasoning, and she doesn’t have an exceptional grasp of our laws. Sorry, mediocrity doesn’t cut it for this position.