A Latino for the Supreme Court? It's Time

Replacing Justice David Souter will be no easy feat. Although there are a number of issues to consider, the opportunity to diversify the Court to reflect the composition of the nation is particularly salient. There is no doubt that there should be impartiality in the courthouses, but part of judicial temperament also includes sensitivity and understanding of different groups and cultures. Lack of exposure to other cultures affects the outcomes of judicial decisions. This could explain why, as research repeatedly demonstrates, minorities receive the worst treatment from the courts overall.

The judicial branch is the least diverse of the three branches of government. Only four percent of federal judges are of Hispanic origin. This is echoed in the Supreme Court -- one of the least diverse in history. Of the nine justices, eight are men. All were on appeals courts. Six of them graduated from Harvard Law School and only one of them is a person of color.

In 2000, both candidates running for President promised that they would prioritize giving consideration of a Latino for the next appointment to the Supreme Court. Latinos waited. There were two opportunities, but neither time was it seriously taken up. In effect, 220 years after its creation, when Latinos account for 15 percent of the population, Latinos are still waiting.

It is not just about having a Latino in the Supreme Court for the sake of it. It is about having someone on the highest Court of the land who can speak about the law as it affects Latinos -- the fastest growing group and largest minority -- with an understanding of the history and challenges this community has faced. It is also about portraying such views with the empathy and authority that can only come from first-hand experience.

The urgency to include a Latino on the Supreme Court stems from the uniqueness of the life experiences that Latinos -- both U.S. citizens and immigrants -- face today: a steady rise in human and civil rights violations; the rapid growth in detentions and subsequent criminalization of the community; invalid deportations; an expansion in discrimination; a drastic increase in hate crimes; a growing tide of racial profiling by local police that enforce immigration laws, as well as de facto exclusion and bias in the public policy and political arenas.

But this is not only about politics. The Supreme Court plays a central role in the legitimacy of our governing institutions, and the fact that we never have had a Latino hurts democracy and creates barriers to fairness and justice in the nation. An unbalanced, non-diverse judicial system affects the way in which people see American society, and it is no secret that courts are out of touch with their communities.

A diverse judiciary would make positive contributions in a number of areas. It would help improve public confidence in the legal system by improving the quality and comprehensiveness of judicial decisions. It would also more subtly increase respect for the law by reducing the visible bias against minorities and by providing role models for minority groups.

In decades past we would hear the argument that there were not enough qualified women and people of color to pick for such an important position as this. Today this obtuse excuse does not hold water. President Obama himself is the best example, particularly when it comes to credentials.

There is a deep bench of women and people of color with strong legal qualifications, integrity and judicial temperament that also are confirmable, unifying and non-controversial to serve on the Supreme Court. They carry with them the legitimacy necessary to dispense justice with quality, along with a strong record and demonstrated interest and experience. There is no doubt that the President should fill this position with the best qualified person. Why not a Hispanic?

The selection of a Latino/a would be a first and would send a powerful message to the nation. In 1967, President Lyndon Baines Johnson appointed Thurgood Marshall as the first African-American to serve on the Supreme Court. Until his retirement in 1991, Marshall strove to protect the rights of all citizens, but particularly the voiceless American and the immigrant. A little more than 50 years later, President Obama -- the first African-American president in history -- can make history once again. Our nation is stronger because of its diversity, but not always sensitive to injustice. This is not just a fight for Latinos, it is a fight for the heart of the entire nation.

Dr. Gabriela D. Lemus is the Executive Director of the Labor Council for Latin Advancement (LCLAA) and Hector E. Sanchez is the Director of Policy and Research.

Comments

[tomasedison]

This is going to drive the "wall across Mexico" crowd crazy.

[Okieborn]

This Oklahoma Baby Boomer Says Yes Yes Yes Indeedy !!!!!

[IrisBittencourt]

Part II:

Contrary to your claim, this is purely about bean counting by the Hispanic community and not about the soul of this country. What color or ethnicity is this country's soul? Based on the reaction of the Cuban community to the Elian affair a few years ago, I am not so sure that latinos in America support this country more than their own ethnic group. As 50% of latinos self-classify as white in the census, what makes you think that the white justices on the court are not adequately representing latinos' interests (as they represent the interests of all white ethnic groups). I find it puzzling that white descendants of one of the largest empires in the world that conquered most of the Americas are suddenly claiming to be racial minorities. Who was asleep at the switch and let this happen? Whyu are white hispanics minorities and not white Italians, Poles, Irish or jews? Can anyone explain that to me?

[Pleneras]

Sure. Don't you know by now what those in government say is not always factual? Race? There's only one. HUMAN! The rest is all nationalites. Every country has ethnic groups. Very few are monolithic and even then they have their own way of determinining their own clanship/ethnicity be it by religion or migration. A Puerto Rican is Puerto Rican by Nationality (even if it's still the oldest colony) because it has a nation with their own culture, language, customs, identity. Once a PR or anyone from another country enters another country they are migrant or immigrants who are still nationally and ethnically of another nation. Their children become American if born here or if one is and the parent become a citizen. The children and their children are Americans but the USA is so damn rooted in racism, color AND LANGUAGE that no matter how whiter a Spanish person is from an Italian or german they are separate and unequal in this fake "american pride" category of white. You must recall Italians and italians were not accepted in the past. Because the Spanish speakers were always here since Juan Ponce De Leon set foot and got himself killed thanks to the Taino's telling him the fable of the Fountain Of Youth just to get his butt off the island, the english decendants included the irish, germans, french, polish, etc... to make a fictious larger MAJORITY!

I'm done!

[Pleneras]

Correction that was: italians and irish.

From a self reality perspective, study the "hispanidad" of the church in which the Spaniards promoted the idea that Indian natives were NOW officially blancos out of fear of revolt due to the Haitian uprising. It was a way to prevent them from attacking the crillos aka creoles > which is actually a person born in the new world of european parents. The Creole's child was not a creole like his mom or dad. He or she identified with the nation of their birth rather than those of his/her grandparents european place of birth. Later the so-called mulatos picked up the term crillos aka creole and used the popular term as an identity.

[IrisBittencourt]

Part I:

Who is a latino? Wasn't there a so-called latino attorney general when the famous torture memos that Obama just released were drafted? How about the cubans? Are they latinos? Aren't most of them conservative, anti-communist Republicans? Are latinos in favor of civil rights for all or just for latinos? Weren't Mexicans considered to be whites under immigration laws?

Look, I do not care what color, ethnicity or gender the next justice is. All I care about is the content of their character. Enough with identity politics. As iillustrated by Clarence Thomas, the color of one's skin or their surname has little to do with their political and judicial philosophy. Let's major in the majors and not in the minors. Would you support Alberto Gonzales as Supreme Court justice? Isn't he a latino? If not, stop this nonsense. You should support a jurist based on his or her record not on whether their last name is hispanic.

[Pleneras]

No, his ethnicity is Mexican and Judge Sotomayor is not of Mexican heritage. What's yours? All of them are BORN North Americans. It is a requirement to the Supreme Court. They are Americans, and ethnicities, NOT LATINO, because it's not an ethnicity... is a good factor in determining the makeup of the supreme court for FULL AND EQUAL REPRESENTION.

[ABCD]

Obama will pick a good Supreme court Justice. Regardless of their color and sex or sexual orientation. I am sure of that!

[2morrowKnight]

I agree. Of course Obama is going to pick "someone qualified to sit on the High Court". Look at his administration: from the cooks to the heads of the departments, he has smart, qualified men and women who care about America, work hard for America, and "LOOK" like America.

Yes, Latinos, Asian-Americans, Native-Americans, and African-Americans are employed in what historians call "the most diverse administration in presidential history". In othere words, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation and race are apart of the deliberation, but are no means the deciding factor. This, in effect, is what the authors of the post above are getting at.

As they note above, there is no Latino on the High Court, and yet, matters involving Latinos come before the court. In essence, there is no Latino voice among the justices expressing clarity on an issue, or shining a light on a perspective that perhaps no one is considering.

Justice Bradeis was the 1st Jew to sit on the court, as Justice Marshal was the first African-American and Justice O'Connor was the first woman. You don't think their Bradeis' Jewish identity, Marshal's racial make-up and O'Connor's gender were factored into the decisionmaking process? So the ethnicity of a Latino candidate can be factored in too, along with temperment, intellect, command of legal arguments, etc.

Yes, we need a Latino, and, an Asian-American on the court.

[Travis Cagle]

If we're going with a capable person who has the right demographics for underrepresented people, it would be hard to beat Wilma Mankiller, first female chief of the Cherokee Nation. I think her people have been here at least as long as anyone else.

[Pleneras]

If not Judge Sotomayor then the next best one is Judge Victor Marrero, well known for sticking to the law and not making it up as he goes along. He is the same judge who RULED the PATRIOT ACT was unconstitutional long before those who cry today got on the bandwagon:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/06/AR2007090601438.html

A federal judge struck down controversial portions of the USA Patriot Act in a ruling that declared them unconstitutional yesterday, ordering the FBI to stop its wide use of a warrantless tactic for obtaining e-mail and telephone data from private companies for counterterrorism investigations.

The ruling by U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero in New York said the FBI's use of secret "national security letters" to demand such data violates the First Amendment and constitutional provisions on the separation of powers, because the FBI can impose indefinite gag orders on the companies and the courts have little opportunity to review the letters.

[somefool]

I'm a Lefty, I'm a Latino, I went to an elite law school, but I don't think it's important that Obama appoint a Latino. I also don't think that collums like this are productive. All you do when post something like this is to give the Right a chance to paint whomever Obama picks as the product of a "quota system."

It's likely that Obama will pick a woman but what's really important to me is that he pick a liberal heavyweight who can go toe to toe with extremists like Roberts, Scalia, and Alito. If they happen to be a woman/Latina great, if not I'll live.

[liberalrebuttal]

I'm an African American woman and I support having a Hispanic woman on the Supreme Court. I agree that it's time. The more diversity in Government, the better for all Americans.

All of us.

I hope Obama takes that into consideration. We need a full diverse and full inclusive American Government. Period. There are tons of Hispanic Judges that fit the bill so it's not like talent isn't out there. It is.

[PresidentRobertBooth]

"John Roberts "understands" the Constitution. I don't like his "understanding" of the Constitution"

He doesn't understand the Constitution.

Conservatives never do.

[OnReflection]

The pool of people to choose from for the SCOTUS position is very high at least a hundred candidates nation wide, that have similar excellent qualifications, from what I understand,

Hence the statement that Obama made regarding "empathy", He is looking for additional points of distinctions for the position, from which he has narrowed down to about five candidates.

And one of them is a "Latina",

Only the best for these United States!!

[Virgil Kane]

How about we pick the best person for the job?

[Pleneras]

There's plenty of them.

[RobertHenryEller]

What we need is a brain on the Supreme Court.

If that brain happens to come in a Latino body, great.

I'm sure that there are plenty of Latinos with the right brain for the Court.

So, good luck.

One upside: A great Latino SC Justice will help expunge the memory of Alberto Gonzales. (I know I'll catch flack for that. Yes, it is probably racist. I don't care. I'd like to forget Gonzales long before dementia does the job for me.)

[somefool]

Don't worry about it, I cringe every time Alberto Gonzales shows up in the news.

[hjo4]

The next Supreme Court justice should be the best qualified candidate not because of their race, ethnicity, gender or sexual orientation. Our next justice shouldn't be one who identifies with one group of citizens over other citizens or non citizens as these authors seem to suggest. To attempt to hold President Obama hostage to appoint a Latino to the bench is nothing more than Blackmail. I did not hear anyone suggest that former President Bush appoint a Latino to then bench but because we now have a Black President some are attempting to play "their race card on him". The President must pick the most qualified candidate period. Demanding he select an Latino is just as crazy as Blacks demanding he appoint a Black person to represent us because Clarence Thomas doesn't identify with the African American population at large. Any argument can be made to appoint any person, the only criteria should be that they are qualified to be on the High Court and have ALL AMERICANS BEST INTEREST AT HEART not one group over the other this includes NON CITIZENS. This article suggest the President appoint a Latino for the best interest of Latinos first, then all others. That cannot be the case.