RSS
Home
Obama gets three for one in recent Justice nominee
Print
Email
RSS
Subscribe
.jpg)
Sonia Sotomayor
President’s pick gets empathetic nod from the left, while the right remains ready to strike
Isn’t a Hispanic female empathetic judicial activist, as a Supreme Court Justice, just what the Democratic doctor ordered?
Well today, they got just that, as earlier this morning, President Obama, a constitutional attorney by nature, selected a New Yorker, federal appellate court Judge Sonia Sotomayor. The 54 year-old lawyer, having been born in the housing projects of the Bronx, N.Y. after her parents migrated here from Puerto Rico, during World War II, was the nominee to the federal district court, for the Southern District of New York, appointed by then President George H.W. Bush, in 1991.
However since her ascension to the very prominent Second Circuit Court of Appeals, by President Bill Clinton, she has been criticized by many as being a judicial activist, having many of her decisions overturned on appeal. Yet while President Obama was under fire from many active special interest groups, that played their own parts in getting him elected, he not only had to select a judge worthy of wearing the black velvet robe, yet also one who fit the mold in assuring those groups he had their interests at heart.
Judge Sotomayor surely fits that criterion. As an “empathetic” judge, who certainly has faced and overcome many obstacles to get where she is today, possibly the third woman Justice and first Hispanic, on the Nation’s most high court; that unfortunately is not the criteria in place for those who serve as America’s Justices, reviewing and offering opinions based on constitutional jurisprudence, not empathetic sympathy.
However as the Supreme Court is primarily an appellate court, with original jurisdiction over a small range of cases, with the selection of another, appellate court judge, becoming the sixth Catholic, of nine members, does this pick actually differ from others?
Since the inception of the Supreme Court in 1789, many cases have come before the Court, with many changes to its make-up, yet the long standing tradition of being a life long appointed process, privileged to the President, with the confirmation of the US Senate, has not changed. Yet today’s process has increasingly become very political, in reference to the views and opinions of a judge and their ideologies, yet that should not be a determining factor of a Justice.
While some, such as Chief Justice Earl Warren, have become political busts, as it relates to the way their rulings fell in line, with the President/Party that chose them; others have tried to rule the Courts with an iron fist, such as FDR’s “Court-packing plan”. However as today’s discussion seems to continuously concentrate on the “empathy” one holds, as many rally against the judicial activism of a Court or Justice, name for me one Court that has not ruled on at least one case, without using the empathetic views of being human, whether right or wrong, Democratic or Republican?
From the Taney court and its Dredd Scott decision, to the Warren courts 1954 decision of Brown v Board of Education, many of Justices have decided cases based off of common sense, whether that be labeled “empathetic” or not is I guess left up to those criticizing or analyzing the Courts and their opinions. Yet these detractors also cannot have it both ways.
As they want people who at the end of the day interpret the law and the Constitution, they give preliminary litmus tests to their choices based on their opinion on overturning Roe v Wade. As that may be an important decision to them, this cannot be seen as a primary determining factor on who sits in one of these nine seats.
While I will personally reserve judgment on her qualifications as our next Supreme Court Justice, based off of her background questioning and confirmation hearings, so should others who are so animatedly objective to her placement, based on being given someone who they believe will have the opposite their opinion, on cases they feel essential to the consequences of America’s future.
However how can we possibly honestly separate the powers, stating that the Courts should remain free from politics, yet every time someone is nominated, we have a leftist group of individuals urging the nomination of certain individuals, and the right-wind urging the same? How come they can never agree on the qualifications of judge based on their time, tenure and even geographical make-up, rather than a litmus test on how they “might” vote in possible cases yet to even be determined?
As a former graduate of Princeton and Yale Universities, being the Editor of the Yale Law Review, having been nominated to the courts, by both Democrat and Republican Presidents, living a life of self responsibility and empowerment, giving women and Latinos alike the opportunity of achievement, looking to future-Justice Sotomayor as encouragement, I wonder what the other side of the aisle will use as ammunition, to try and shoot holes in the appointment of a seemingly qualified and fit Judge? It seems to be a problem that as the past saw many Justice nominees placed on the Court within a day, some never having to sit before a Congressional committee, as we felt comfortable in the Presidential pick of Justice; yet today we have to have the person nominated months in advance, to vet, review and scrutinize, possibly holding up the appointment, based on mere politics, through filibuster or other maneuvers, knowing that there are no real Constitutional qualifications holding back the nominee, just real stupid people, giving in to real stupid interest groups and their political agendas!
Remarks in Today’s Articles based on the selection of Judge Sonia Sotomayor:
Republican judiciary member, Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley: "Today the Senate can't just be a rubber stamp for President Obama's nominees.”
Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., said Sotomayor blends "an excellent mind coupled with real world empathy but also passes Justice Potter Stewart's famous test of someone who is neither liberal nor conservative but simply a great judge."
"Judge Sotomayor is a liberal judicial activist of the first order who thinks her own personal political agenda is more important that the law as written,'' said Wendy E. Long, court counsel for the Judicial Confirmation Network, in a statement issued today. "She thinks that judges should dictate policy, and that one's sex, race, and ethnicity ought to affect the decisions one renders from the bench.
Vermont Democrat Patrick Leahy, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said that "when confirmed," Sotomayor will serve "in the mold of Justice Souter, who understands the real-world impact of the Court's decisions, rather than the mold of the conservative activists who second-guess Congress, and who through judicial extremism undercut laws meant to protect Americans from discrimination."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/judicial/2009-05-26-sotomayor-reaction_N.htm
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nation/bal-supreme-court-nominee-0526,0,2782725.story
Related Articles:
Comments
