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

[rwext]

the function of a Supreme is that of an umpire,, not a fan, owner or player...s­he or he applies the rules to the incident..­..Pres Obama needs to pick that person... Obviously , he can find those qualifications in latino , woman, Asian et al as diversity is needed , but based on qualifications , not the horrendous affirmative action

[Lisa-G]

You got the headline wrong...it should read "Latina." No more men of ANY ethnicity until women as a group get their half. One over or one under; it doesn't matter. I agree the woman needs to be a woman of color, but when it's time to replace others on the court, I don't think white women should be excluded. The main point is: no more men of ANY color.

It is time for true balance and equity to rule the day.

[blairtone]

Another bloody racist as well as gender basher!

[Lisa-G]

You obviously have a problem with equality, and you're calling me a gender basher...t­hanks for the laugh. How you got "racist" out of my call for women of color to serve on the court is particularly special...­Nice Job!

[Pleneras]

What's latina que latina? NO SUCH ETHNICITY.

[Mar23]

I`m absolutely a progressive, but I still don`t think we should select our Supreme Court justices based on ethnicity. That is far down the list of considerations for me. Further, the Supreme Court is such a tiny body that trying to skew for ethnicity creates the most articial environment imaginable.

[Namezook]

Pres Obama is rumored to be looking for a woman to replace Justice Souter. Many names have been tossed around - thought it would be interesting to see what the potential candidates would be like on the court - based on their names. Based on her name, potential Supreme Court Nominee "Sonyia Sotomayor" will be extremely observant. NOTHING gets past her. During the vetting process, SHE will most likely be the one asking the questions. Sonyia tends to be demanding and needs to have her voice & opinions heard and implemented. If she's on the court, Sonyia will enjoy telling her fellow justices how they should be voting & how they should be doing things differently. She's stubborn, needs to feel important & she'll completely irritate her fellow justices.

Another potential Supreme Court Nominee "Leah Ward Sears" has a completely different personality. Based on her first name, Leah is friendly and truly wants to be included and seeks other people's approval. She'll be more of a team player than a Sonyia. She has the personality that is charming, talkative and she gets along well with men. Her middle name makes her smart, assertive and daring. Her last name makes her additionally smart and assertive. Overall, she has a much more accommodating nature than a Sonyia. While she has a mind of her own and an independence to her, her first name makes her willing to compromise with others - as long as it's logical.

[hunt49]

Based on her name?!?

As a scientist-­practicion­er psychologist, I cast thee out in the name of Science. Begone!

[PresidentRobertBooth]

"The selection of a Latino/a would be a first and would send a powerful message to the nation"

Yes it would, that selecting someone based on racial group isn't really a good thing to do.

A Hispanic justice...­.a gay justice...­.a black woman justice...­.a white justice who likes WWE....etc­..

Hey, how about just finding a justice who understands the constitution?

Then....if they happen to be white, black, brown....v­egan....et­c....then that would be a minor detail

I think that's more reasonable.

[noudidnt]

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

[kgb999]

What a totally racist way to choose a supreme court justice.

[rwext]

what we have come to expect form progressives

[noudidnt]

So what? Olympia Snowe and Barb Boxer sent the President a letter asking him to pick a "woman".