Surprisingly, the nomination of Second Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Sonia Sotomayor by President Barrack Obama to fill an anticipated vacancy on the United States Supreme Court has spurred much controversy. At the center of the controversy is a 2001 speech in which Judge Sotomayor said she would hope that "a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who has not lived that life." Judge Sotomayor’s confirmation to the Court would make her the first Hispanic and only the third woman to serve on the Court in United States history. It is the potential for added diversity and a differing view which makes her appointment unique and important for the future of the United States of America.She was born June 25, 1954, in the Bronx, N.Y., and raised in the Bronxdale housing project by parents from Puerto Rico. Unlike many other federal appellate court judges, she does not hale from a privileged background. Yet, she graduated from famed Cardinal Spellman High School in 1972, from Princeton University summa cum laude in 1976 and from Yale Law School in 1979. While at Yale she served as an editor on the school’s law review –a position reserved for students in the top five to ten percent of the class. Arguably, her credentials exceed that of all of the current Judges on the United States Supreme Court. Definitely, her judicial experience exceeds that possessed by any current Supreme Court Justice prior to their nomination to the high court.
Yet, because of one statement made eight years ago, the so-called champions of the constitution have called her a racist and have argued that her nomination ought to be withdrawn. These champions of fiction have espoused the fictitious notion that America needs rigid Judges who will interpret the letter of the law and are not influenced by race and gender. Nonsense. The fact that she recognizes that her background gives her a different vantage point ought to be applauded, not decried. If anything, her statement gives us hope that she will not be another Justice Clarence Thomas; offering conservative Justices obsequiousness as they dismantle civil liberties and civil rights. Moreover, having a Judge who can empathize with the people their decisions affect just seems to make common sense. The last thing America needs is the appointment of an incurious Queen who looks down from an ivory tower of privilege and crushes the struggles and hopes of everyday Americans.
Just last Thursday, I was arguing an appeal of a seventy-five year sentence in Matagorda County, Texas before the Thirteenth Court of Appeals of Texas. The Court is seated in Corpus Christi, Texas and has traditionally held argument there. However, the Chief Judge and other Judges decided to have oral arguments in cases near to the Counties where the issues in controversy occurred. The Court theorized that having arguments in Matagorda County of cases which occurred near that county would allow greater access to the Court. Litigants and citizens affected by the court’s decision were afforded the opportunity to attend oral arguments. In fact, more than twenty members of my client’s family attended oral arguments. The Thirteenth Circuit’s approach, which is different than most appellate courts, allowed greater inclusion in the process. Interestingly, all three of the Judges on my panel were of Latin decent. Perhaps their backgrounds and life experiences caused them to place value on inclusion. The Chief Judge, who happened to be on my panel, addressed the audience in Spanish prior to the commencement of oral arguments.
Having argued before all-white appellate panels all of my career, their questions were just as pointed and showed the same grasp of the issues. However, there was a sense of fairness that I do not always encounter. There appeared to be little or no questioning seeking to illicit responses to influence other Judges. There was no posturing. They saw the big picture. There was a sense that they were interested in finding out the truth.
We need new ideas and experiences on the high court. If her background and history are any indication, Judge Sotomayor may offer the high court some of that same freshness. Having Justices birthed in interpreting the constitution with antiquated ideas, approaches and ideologies will forever contract our country in infancy. The “Founding Fathers” recognized the need to interpret the Constitution in light of changing circumstances. Thomas Jefferson wrote, "I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors." Obama’s appointment of a unique Justice and his objections to “more of the same” should be SUSTAINED! Whether or not the "good ole boy" network wants to accept it, America is changing. Our nation’s survival and continued vitality are dependent on how well we adapt to that change. Judges like Sotomayor may give us the best opportunity to do so.
3 comments: