Yes, of course biography matters in a judge
According to Judge Sonia Sotomayor, biography matters. President Obama’s nominee for the Supreme Court believes a person’s gender, ethnic background and upbringing will inevitably affect how he or she interprets the law.
She is absolutely correct.
The jurisprudence of Clarence Thomas is inescapably informed by his personal history, both as a black man and as someone who lifted himself out of poverty. Likewise, the rulings of Antonin Scalia are informed, even if subconsciously, by his strict Catholicism. Chief Justice John Roberts grew up as the son of a Bethlehem Steel executive, an upbringing that at some level had to color his outlook on issues such as management-labor disputes.
After all, Thomas, Scalia and Roberts are human, and we do not stop being human when we don a judge’s robe. Furthermore, the law is not a mathematical construct. Two plus two always equals four no matter who adds it up, but the law is a human construct, subject to human interpretation. So it matters which human does the interpreting.
In a 2001 speech, Sotomayor made the same point, noting that “there can never be a universal definition of wise.” Then came the sentence that opponents want to hang around her neck:
“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.”
Read that carefully. Sotomayor expresses hope that her life experience would make her a better judge than someone who did not have that same experience. There’s nothing controversial in that thought, as the example of Sandra Day O’Connor demonstrates.
In 1981, O’Connor was nominated to the Supreme Court by Ronald Reagan, in part to honor a campaign pledge to name a woman to the court. (Apparently, he saw wisdom in diversity).
Part of O’Connor’s appeal was her biography. She had grown up on an Arizona ranch and had political experience as majority leader in the state Senate. As a woman, she was also a legal pioneer of sorts. After she graduated third in her class at Stanford Law in 1952, no California law firm would hire her (although one did offer her a job as a legal secretary.)
In 1982, soon after joining the Supreme Court, O’Connor wrote the majority opinion in “Mississippi University for Women et. al v. Hogan.” The ruling, which held that the public university could not bar men from enrolling in its nursing program, might seem obvious today, but a quarter-century ago it was not. It came in a narrow 5-4 ruling, with O’Connor casting the deciding vote.
In the opinion, you can hear O’Connor’s gender and biography speaking.
The law, she writes, “must be applied free of fixed notions concerning the roles and abilities of males and females. Care must be taken in ascertaining whether the statutory objective itself reflects archaic and stereotypic notions.”
And if the objective of a law “is to exclude or ‘protect’ members of one gender because they are presumed to suffer from an inherent handicap or to be innately inferior, the objective itself is illegitimate. MUW’s admissions policy lends credibility to the old view that women, not men, should become nurses, and makes the assumption that nursing is a field for women a self-fulfilling prophecy.”
Almost two decades later, in her 2001 speech, Sotomayor said she agrees that “judges must transcend their personal sympathies and prejudices and aspire to achieve a greater degree of fairness and integrity based on the reason of law.” She strives for “constant and complete vigilance in checking my assumptions, presumptions and perspectives.”
However, she also acknowledged that is a goal to be aspired to but never achieved by mere mortals.
The Founding Fathers knew that as well. If they believed it possible for a judge to rule solely on the basis of written law, unaffected by personal background, history, experience, etc., we would need only one such wise judge on the Supreme Court, just as baseball requires only one umpire for the simple duty of calling balls and strikes.
Instead, the original Supreme Court convened with six members, a number that has since grown to nine. From the beginning, our Founding Fathers understood that court interpretations are just that, interpretations, and that no single person can overcome their own biases. Biography matters, and the best interpretations are those created by people with disparate backgrounds and life experience.
It’s the nearest we can get to wisdom.
UPDATE: Over at Washington Monthly, Hilzoy tackles the Ricci v. DeStefano firefighter case out of New Haven, involving race and promotions. Basically, Hilzoy writes that Sotomayor and the other appellate judges on the panel followed existing law and precedent in that case, even if that existing law and precedent did not produce the outcome that many would want.
In other words, Sotomayor did not act as an “activist judge” who rewrote the law to reach a desired outcome. That should make her the sort of judge that conservatives say they want.
Except, of course, not.
Also, conservative columnist Rod Dreher, having now read Sotomayor’s 2001 speech in context, withdraws his earlier criticism of the judge and admits he was wrong.
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
235 comments Add your comment
Pokey
May 28th, 2009
1:34 pm
So when the Supreme Court rules against her(again!) Ricci opinion won’t be following exisiting law and precedent? Her Ricci decision is indefensible. Plainly, she believes in the racial spoils system and that should be enough to disqualify her as a judge on any level.
Pokey
May 28th, 2009
1:38 pm
JB,
Would you have voted to confirm Roberts and Alito?
Dave R
May 28th, 2009
1:44 pm
Debbie, the problem is that both sides are all too willing to take one comment out of context and destroy a nominee because of it. To deny this reality is being intellectually dishonest.
Do I think Sotomayer is a racist because of her comment? No. I don’t have enough information to make that judgment. Do I think it was an unfortunate comment to make from someone who is supposed to be impartial regarding the law? Yes. Do I think she will make a lousy Supreme Court justice? Yes. That is my opinion based on some of her rulings, not because Hope & Change nominated her.
But the whole “you Republicans love to take one comment out of context” line is laughable when you know very well that if a white Republican nominee said the exact opposite, you and every other lib on this blog would be on him/her like white on rice.
It would be nice if you could at least be intellectually honest about this.
Jake
May 28th, 2009
1:46 pm
Debbie – Me too. I want someone that passed the exam, regardless of their race/gender. That’s the qualification part of the Sotomayor argument. Is she qualified to be a SC justice or is she just getting the job because she’s female and Latina? I think she’s very qualified. I see her speech as saying while she strives to overcome her natural biases (presumably in favor of affirmative action, minorities and women), she doesn’t think anyone completely overcomes their upbringing. Personally, I’ll take a little affirmative action if we can keep Roe v Wade.
DebbieDoRight
May 28th, 2009
1:57 pm
Dave R: I AM trying my best to be intellectually honest — but I can’t discount the fact that a large portion of my and judging by some of the comments on this board, and a lot of other people’s comments and reactions are tethered to their life’s experiences!!
For instance, two years ago when the Don Imus/Rutgers controversy came about — there were a lot of comments not this board by people of non-color who just didn’t understand why a lot of black females were indignant over his comments!! (Imus later on apologized and said he was just trying to be cool and didn’t mean anything by it)
Were they insensitive? No, I don’t think so — it’s just that their life experience couldn’t understand what the heck the fuss was about!! It’s the same with racial profiling. I have 5 members of my family who are in law enforcement; and they’ll tell you point blank that YES there is racial profiling!! However, a large part of the non-color population believe that it’s a myth! Why? Because it’s not in their reality. They’re basing their opinions on THEIR life experiences!!!
Another example: I’m in an interracial marriage. When my hubby lived in california he and I could walk down the street and no one would bat an eye here in Georgia it’s totally different. I get stepped to by black men who put me down for being with a white man, while they have a white woman on their arm! So my life’s experience dealing with the “other” interracial relationship will be different from ——heck I don’t know Kobe Bryant’s per se. (that’s probably a really BAD example……good thing I’m studying to become a TAX LAWYER — I don’t have to wax poetically on a subject, just state laws, by-laws, and precedents).
DebbieDoRight
May 28th, 2009
2:13 pm
there were a lot of comments not this board
That should read “there were a lot of comments ON this board”…….sorry!!
josef nix
May 28th, 2009
2:18 pm
Pop test time for the ethnically aware multi-culturalists:
1) Who was the first American Indian to run for congress?
2) What is the significance of Fisher v Allen?
3) Who was the first American Indian Senator?
4) What is the highest office yet held by an American Indian?
5) Who is Bud Adams?
Answers:
1) Mushulatubbe, Mississippi Choctaw, 1830
2) Mississippi Supreme Court ruling of 1834 recognizing the right of women to own and dispose of property in their own names separate of men, ruling that Chickasaw law superseded British law, incorporated in the state constitution of 1839, a “first” for women’s rights
3) Robert Owen, Cherokee, 1907 representing Oklahoma. Owen was author of the bill creating the Federal Reserve, a bill he later came to repudiate, calling it a mistake.
4) US Vice-President Charles Curtis, , Kiowa, 1928, Hoover administration
5) Founder, Owner, Chairman of the Board, President and Chairman of the Board of the Tennesse Titans/Oilers NFL franchise, Cherokee
Didn’t know? Why not? Aren’t you culturally sensitive, White, Black, Hispanic?
hryder
May 28th, 2009
2:27 pm
Truely dishearting that the vast majority of the media reporting on various aspects of life seem to be incapable of understanding that they possess the bias of the totality of their life’s experiences. The Supreme Court Nominee stated that she understands these inherent bias. We would be a much enhanced society if the majority of the populous understood this rather than under half. Yet the general society in the USA is the one on the face of the earth in which more people would prefer to reside than any other. This also speaks volumes of those residing within its borders who would like nothing short of its complete demise.
RetLTC
May 28th, 2009
2:36 pm
Are these the same people that didn’t stand up to it for 8 years when GW was driving the economic bus right over the cliff? No, not humping your leg today RW. It’s all in fun.
Copyleft
May 28th, 2009
2:42 pm
Dave R: No, you haven’t answered the question. You’ve simply announced that the affirmative-action rule is unjust.
What you haven’t tried to explain is WHY and HOW it’s unjust.
Chris Salzmann
May 28th, 2009
2:54 pm
RetLTC May 28th, 2009 12:34 pm SAID: The beauty in this @@ is that she is Latina AND imminently more qualified and experienced than any of her sitting soon to be peers at the time of their nominations. She’ll cruise to confirmation. Republicans are between the proverbial rock and hard place on this one. Obama got ya and he got ya good.
Chris SAYS: Couldn’t have said it better myself. She’s MORE THAN QUALIFIED plus the 2 LAYERS OF added icing on the cake: LATINO and FEMALE!!! Now the Republican Party, if they oppose her (and their unofficial spokespersons i.e. Limbaugh, Hannity, O’Reilly and FOX News already do) will lose the rest of the Latino vote for the foreseeable future. So good bye 2010, 2012, 2014 and 2016….AT LEAST. One Republican analyst estimated that they need 40% of the Latino vote to win any Presidential election. Now, they’re going to be lucky to get 10%-15%. And guess what: the Latino population is growing with each passing year!!!
The new Republican Party slogan: KEEP ON DIGGING BOYS!!!
Dave R
May 28th, 2009
3:03 pm
Copylefty, you’re being unusually dense today . . . even for you.
I said that if Sotomayer used the 4/5ths artificially-generated rule of discrimination, without endeavoring to find out if the test was in any way skewed to another ethnicity, race or gender (as she appears t have done in this case), then her ruling is unjust and should be overturned.
If there is proven discrimination, I’m all for ruling against it (affirmative action not being the way to solve that problem) and making sure there is a level playing field for all. But to LOWER standards for the achievers who actually worked hard and passed the test, especially when it comes to public safety such as firefighting, in order to fit into some arbitrary percentage is simply inexcusable.
Dave R
May 28th, 2009
3:07 pm
Chris, instead of parroting the “She’s qualified” line time after time, try this:
Tell us why you consider her qualified to serve on the Supreme Court.
Make the case. The silence will be deafening.
But here’s the kicker. Don’t use any comparisons to any current or former justices on the Supreme Court. Make the case that she is qualified based on her judicial accomplishments and rulings based on the U.S. Constitution.
Go ahead. Make the case.
The silence will be deafening.
RetLTC
May 28th, 2009
3:08 pm
Thank you Chris! Jeb Bush gets it. He has endorsed a Latino candidate over Charley Crist. But it will take more than Jeb Bush to undo the damage caused by Rush, Hannity, and the nativist, ethnocentric, xenophobic, wing of the republican party. And yes Chris, they’ll surely keep digging. They still think targeting and bashing Latinos will get them elected. And one more beautiful thing. It will be Latinos that get to shovel the dirt into the grave. RIP GOP.
Chris Salzmann
May 28th, 2009
3:14 pm
And about the Ricci case which the conservatives are whining about: Here are the facts:
New Haven administered a test for promotions, and the results of the test essentially made only whites eligible for promotion with no blacks or hispanics eligible. The city deemed that the test had an inappropriately disparate impact on minorities. If you apply a test that has such a disparate impact and you can’t demonstrate that the test really is demonstrative of job performance, then you have committed a Title VII violation. As the panel says, the difficulty here is not that New Haven was engaging in affirmative action, it’s that they were attempting to avoid a potential Title VII violation by certifying the test results.
Judge Sotomayor ruled in favor of New Haven that it would indeed have been in violation of Title VII, AND THAT THEY FOLLOWED THE LAW!!!
It’s really ironic that conservatives rail against “activist judges” but here, they are blaming her for actually following the LETTER OF THE LAW. It’s not up to her to change the law as it’s written. That’s what politicians are supposed to do. I guess you’re only an activist judge when you rule against conservative causes.
Bottom Line: This case is not about affirmative action. Judge Sotomayor declined to legislate from the bench. And Republicans are attacking her for it???
Shocking!!!!
Jake
May 28th, 2009
3:19 pm
Copyleft – You’ve avoided the answer, see my 1:26. Affirmative action is merely current discrimination under the rationale of correcting prior discrimination. Wouldn’t it be more just to kust not discriminate at all? BTW, I’ll take the doctor with the 40 MCAT, you can have the one that got into med school because she was an Afghani and Johns Hopkins promotes diversity.
Chris Salzmann
May 28th, 2009
3:32 pm
Dave R May 28th, 2009 3:07 pm SAID: ………But here’s the kicker. Don’t use any comparisons to any current or former justices on the Supreme Court. Make the case that she is qualified based on her judicial accomplishments and rulings based on the U.S. Constitution.
Chris SAID: And why not compare her to current and former justices??? Because it makes her critics look stupid because her record is better than any of the current sitting justices at the time of their nominations? You aren’t making sense.
BTW, my beloved Wikipedia has a lengthy list of her rulings and accomplishments. Maybe you should take a look see. You might learn something.
Sharecropper
May 28th, 2009
3:38 pm
Sometimes I think the bloggers are so shrill as to be incomprehensible, particularly regarding what they love to refer to as the “mainstream media”. Other times, as now, I join them in full-throated cry. When is our mass media going to react to Newt Gringrich, the disgraced Gingrich, out there accusing a Democrat court nominee of being racist when she answered the same questions in exactly the same weay as Alito and Roberts answered them, but to which the embezzler Newt Gingrich was silent?
Gingrich actually shut down the government in a pique, only to discover that Bill Clinton had the bigger balls and called his bluff. Then he slinked off after being caught stealing from taxpayers for a phony baloney college course in Georgia. He is a sleazy character, Georgia ought to be ashamed, and daily newspapers and television news ought to be all over his case. Are you all still terrified of Republicans?
Jake
May 28th, 2009
3:41 pm
Chris – Re Ricci It’s not nearly as cut and dried regarding the law and Title VII as you suggest. And rather than just stating my opinion is fact, as you have done, I can actually support my argument. The first part of an SC case is the SC deciding whther or not to hear the case. Most cases taken to the SC don’t get reviewed. So the simple fact that the SC heard the case means the law, as it appiles to this case, is not cut and dried. The reality of our judicial system is that the ‘letter of the law’ in this case will be the SC ruling, not Sotomayor’s appeals court ruling. And there seems to be some conjecture that the SC will reverse the circuit court’s ruling.
Dave R
May 28th, 2009
3:45 pm
Thanks for not playing Chris.
One of these days, you’ll be man enough to play with the big boys.
I don’t CARE what wiki says. Those are FACTS. Why do YOU think she is qualified as regards her judicial thinking and her Constitutional thoughts?
Do you LIKE being a parrot?
Dave R
May 28th, 2009
3:47 pm
BTW, Chris, already looked at wiki days ago. Hence my judgment that she is NOT qualified to serve. But then, I used reason and logic for my decision.
Who told you what your opinion should be?
Jake
May 28th, 2009
3:55 pm
BTW Chris one cannot be ‘FEMALE AND LATINO’ because a female is Latina. Keep working on that GED and one day you’ll get a job and won’t have time to blog.
JamC
May 28th, 2009
4:04 pm
Bookman conveniently forgot to mention that in 2005, Sotomayor asserted that a “court of appeals is where policy is made.” That’s not what the framers of our Contitution intended. The executive and legislative branches make laws and policies, not judges.
This woman is downright scary.
Jake
May 28th, 2009
4:15 pm
Chris – Here’s a little something from title VII that the court’s are trying to interpret through Ricci. “nor shall it be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to give and to act upon the results of any professionally developed ability test provided that such test, its administration or action upon the results is not designed, intended or used to discriminate because of race, color, religion, sex or national origin.” Did New Haven administer a professionally developed ability test? Yes. Was the action upon the results intended to discriminate because of race? I think so; the action of New Haven was to throw out the test results because only whites and one Hispanic passed. IMHO Ricci et al were the victims of reverse discrimination and I believe the SC will overturn the appeals court’s decision. But does that mean Sotomayor is too biased, prejudiced, racist, or ignorant of the law to serve on the SC? I don’t think so. There have been tons of SC rulings in my lifetime where in effect one person decided the law of the land, Roe v Wade hangs on a 5-4 decision. Does that make the four dissenting jurists unfit to serve? Of course not, they just have different opinions.
Chris Salzmann
May 28th, 2009
4:32 pm
Jake May 28th, 2009 3:55 pm SAID: BTW Chris one cannot be ‘FEMALE AND LATINO’ because a female is Latina. Keep working on that GED and one day you’ll get a job and won’t have time to blog.
Chris SAYS: Thanks. I stand corrected. Sorry, but not being a born native of this country does have its inherent disadvantages
Chris Salzmann
May 28th, 2009
4:35 pm
Dave R May 28th, 2009 3:47 pm: BTW, Chris, already looked at wiki days ago. Hence my judgment that she is NOT qualified to serve. But then, I used reason and logic for my decision. Who told you what your opinion should be?
Chris SAYS: I guess I missed that logic and reason. I especially like that little ploy of yours about removing the yard stick to compare her to other justices on the SC. If you used that logic to prove her not “qualified” then it’s patently flawed.
Chris Salzmann
May 28th, 2009
4:44 pm
JamC May 28th, 2009 4:04 pm SAID: Bookman conveniently forgot to mention that in 2005, Sotomayor asserted that a “court of appeals is where policy is made.” That’s not what the framers of our Contitution intended. The executive and legislative branches make laws and policies, not judges. This woman is downright scary.
Chris SAYS: Did you see the context of that remark??? Also, Scalia made essentially the same comment. I don’t hear the right-wing complaining about him? Here are some of the things he said:
“”Not only do state-court judges possess the power to “make” common law, but they have the immense power to shape the States’ constitutions as well. See, e.g., Baker v. State, 170 Vt. 194,
744 A. 2d 864 (1999). Which is precisely why the election of state judges became popular.”"
“”…….In fact, however, the judges of inferior courts often “make law,” since the precedent of the highest court does not cover every situation, and not every case is reviewed. Justice Stevens has repeatedly expressed the view that a settled course of lower court opinions binds the highest court. See, e.g., Reves v. Ernst & Young, 494 U.S. 56, 74 (1990) (concurring opinion); McNally v. United States, 483 U.S. 350, 376–377 (1987) (dissenting opinion).”"”"
You can read the entire story using the following link:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/28/antonin-scalia-judges-mak_n_208531.html
Chris Salzmann
May 28th, 2009
4:47 pm
Dave R May 28th, 2009 3:45 pm SAID: Thanks for not playing Chris. One of these days, you’ll be man enough to play with the big boys. I don’t CARE what wiki says. Those are FACTS. Why do YOU think she is qualified as regards her judicial thinking and her Constitutional thoughts? Do you LIKE being a parrot?
Chris SAYS: I don’t play silly games. As I said earlier, compared to the sitting justices, she has more experience. Also the fact that only 60% of her rulings have been overturned by the SC versus 100% of Alito’s at the time of his nomination.
If the “big boys” want to play in the sand box then, sorry, I must decline.
Dave R
May 28th, 2009
4:58 pm
Chris want a cracker?
Do you have a mind of your own or not?
Here’s how this works, Chris. We don’t use a yardstick like comparisons to other people to see if someone is qualified or not. We use reason and logic. As in, try reading a few cases and subsequent opinions she has rendered and tell us why you think she followed good judicial judgment or not, and if they were in line with the U.S. Constitution.
That is what determines QUALIFICATIONS, Chris.
These are not silly games, except to people like you who treat the U.S. Constitution as a punch line. We are talking about how this country will be shaped by law, and whether our freedoms will be protected or destroyed.
Man it up Chris. This isn’t a game.
danjonglee
May 28th, 2009
6:41 pm
I guess having the same views as La Raza will have an impact on your judgement…
GMan
May 28th, 2009
6:53 pm
It should amaze no one that the old, crusty, and dusties think that Sonia Sotomayor based upon a sentence taken out of context is racist. After all, that is how the old, crusty, and dusties think as a learned way of life. If they had their way everyone on the Supreme Court would look just like them!
Steve
May 28th, 2009
7:40 pm
How did Associate Justice O’Connor’s vote in a 5-4 vote become the “deciding” vote? There is no such thing as a “deciding” vote…5 voted one way, 4 voted the other. All five are equal, none are worth more or less than the others.
N.J.
May 28th, 2009
9:28 pm
Of course the Republican statements about the rate at which Sotomayors cases being overturned is based on a complete distortion.
60 percent of Sotomayors cases were overturned by the court. The average of all the other appellate court justices having their cases reversed is 75 percent. Lower than the other appellate court justices.
Next in order for the Supreme Court to ACCEPT a case from the lower appeal courts they have to look at a case and decide that the judge in some way made a judicial error that would in some way make it possible to arrive at a different decision.
A total of 300 of cases heard by Sotomayor in the last 11 years were sent to the Supreme Court for review by the lawyers of those who lost the case. The Supreme Court rejected reviewing 295 of them stating that they would have come up with the same decicion that Sotomayor would have. A total of five cases out of that 300 were accepted for judicial review by the Supreme Court and they reversed three of that five, and agreed with two.
On the whole Sotomayor has an a record of case decisions that are far more in the main stream than either Alito or Roberts, who have issued decisions that are very far out of the mainstream of judicial thought over their entire careers.
There have been times that Scalia, no judicial liberal himself, has scolded Roberts for the pretzel like methods by which he stretches and twists the law to come up with opinions that are totally out of the mainstream to come up with decisions that are virtually the opposite of past precedent by cutting holes though that precedent using extremely non constructionists methods to so so.
Roberts opinion on Roe V Wade does the same thing. He basically states that the government cannot make abortion legal, because the constitution does not state that it is ILLEGAL, therefore the decision to make it legal should not be made. This neglects the obvious, that since there is no historical or constitutional precedent for it having been made ILLEGAL in the first place, there should never have been laws that made it illegal so there would be no need to make it legal again.
This also occured in one of Roberts decisions on electioneering by right to life groups. A case three years earlier. .In McConnell v FEC the Renquist Court upheld the McCain Feingold Acts ban on electioneering communications. Basically the law prohibited Right to Life Groups specifically doing adds to support a particular candidate. That was considered a “campaign contribution”
However just three years later, the court hears FEC v Wisconsin Right to Life, in which Roberts simply cuts holed in the McCain Feingold law saying that he concurs with the McConnell decision, but he is going to make exceptions for THESE advertisements that have to to with right to life. Scalia then simply railed at Roberts stating that “This faux judicial restraint is judicial obfuscation” What the Roberts decision was happened to be one of the clearest and most direct examples of conservative judicial activism since before the Civil War.
What he did was exempt right to life organizations and allow them to do commercial advertisements for particular candidates and political parties, but excluded everyone else from doing so.
Of course Alito has very ACTIVISTLY supported the idea of faith based initiatives. However Scalia dropped a bombshell on him in Hein v Freedom from Religion in which Roberts and Alito decided that taxpayers could NOT sue the government for using THEIR tax dollars to support religious organizations or any organization, which has been precedent since the 1968 case Flast v Cohen. Since 1968 the courts have ruled that the taxpayers DO have the right to sue in cases where the government uses taxpayer money to support religious organizations. Alito and Roberts, in extreme conservative judicial activism ruled that taxpayers have no right to question how government gives money to religious organizations and Scalia slammed them by joining the opposition, Roberts and Kennedy asserting that all taxpayers have the right to question how their money is spent when it is being given to faith based organizations.
For all their assertions to uphold precedent, the two Bush conservative appointees have made some very extremely activist decisions by making “exceptions” to the law in cases when it involved conservative purposes. These exceptions allowed the laws not to apply to particular conservative groups. So Roberts allowed Right to Life Groups to campaign for Right to life candidates and political parties, but denied pro choice groups from doing the same for pro choice candidates and political parties. This is the heart of judicial activism. Making rulings that make exceptions to the law for people and groups on one side of the political specrtrum and applying them those on the opposing side.
The title “Judicial Activist” is another one of those Republican slur terms which have no substance in reality. If one looks back at the history of Sotomayor and compares it to Roberts, Alito and Scalia, the three conservatives have shown a history of making exceptions towards conservative leaning groups, while strictly applying the letter of the law with liberals and liberal leaning groups.
On the other hand, Sotomayor has been seen to rule for labor in one case, and AGAINST labor in another similar case based on differences in the cases. She has ruled pro-life in the only case that she has heard on the issue, when other statements indicate that she is may be pro-choice though her actual position on abortion is unknown. However among Hispanics in her age group, more Hispanics are pro-life than pro choice, and Hispanic women in her age group are more pro-life than non hispanic women in her age group. However she did write the opinion in a case that opposed the Bush Policy to not give foreign aid to nations that used abortion as part of their planned parenthood policies. Sotomayor’s opinion favored Bush’s position. Basically Sotomayors opinion which supported the Mexico City Policy was opposite of Obama’s recent overturning of the Mexico City Policy. Obama now allows federal money to be sent overseas to countries and organization in those countries that perform abortions or offer it as an option or offer information where women can get abortions and Sotomayor supported the policy to deny it in the opinion she wrote on the case. In another case, Sotomayor upheld the right of pro-lifers to protest when she overturned part of a summary judgement against pro lifers when they caused damage to a clinic that performed abortions or prevented women going to have abortions from entering the clinics. In both cases she supported the government’s rights to favor one position or the other as policy and to change that position and in another she upheld the right of right to lifers to protest at womens clinics as long as they do not destroy private property while doing so.
Copyleft
May 29th, 2009
7:27 am
DaveR: I guess you’ve done the best you can at trying to explain why affirmative action is “unjust.” Unfortunately, you’ve failed. It isn’t. Setting racial-preference rules into place to enable minorities to break into formerly all-white strongholds IS just… your insistence that it’s “unfair” to the privileged majority simply doesn’t hold water.
As for Sotomayor’s qualifications: that’s easy. Her EXPERIENCE. She’s been a court of appeals judge for over a decade, as well as a district judge before that. She ruled against management during the baseball strike and she’s ruled in favor free speech on several cases. She correctly noted that states can set gun-control laws different from the federal level. She struck the middle ground on privacy rights, showing her as a MODERATE, not the “raving far-left loony” that so many ignorant right-wingers instantly assume any time Obama (himself a moderate) mentions someone’s name.
Seems pretty qualified to me. Of course, all of this is an outrage, an absolute ATROCITY, to the wingnuts… but that’s just further proof that she’s a good choice for America. There’s nothing they hate more than a good idea.
josef nix
August 21st, 2009
6:38 am
USinUK–was on my way out the door to do my part in “civilizing” our little “Americans,” you know those from south of the US border here in the Americas, but I couldn’t resist, Irregular Paul sounds like my kind of Southerner, “Yank(ees) are responsible for every ill known to mankind from original sin to global warming.” Come to think of it, he sounds like Jay’s kind of Yankee, “Southerners are responsible…etc.) Post him a Buffy Ste. Marie song or two tonight says the Unmentionable…have a good one…