Stating the Obvious

Law is not math; it has neither the reliability of a quadratic equation nor the grace of a sin curve. Cases emerge from the pulp and pulse of real life, and their outcomes necessarily shape and mold how individuals and companies conduct themselves.

When a case makes it way to the Supreme Court of the United States, it is unlikely that it has been selected for this level of review only because it presents interesting legal questions; it is more likely that it was selected because the answer to those questions will have a significant, national impact on the lives of women, men, and children.

In his nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor, President Barack Obama has emphasized a related, but controversial premise: that the diversity of life experiences of the people serving on the bench has an impact on legal decisions that emerge from it. Judge Sotomayor is a brilliant jurist with a sharp and independent mind and a record of excellence and integrity as a lawyer, as a prosecutor, and as a federal judge with more judicial experience than any Supreme Court nominee of the past 100 years. She is an outstanding nominee for the high court. Yet her detractors attack her for having stated the obvious: that a judge's life experiences inevitably influence how he or she understands the cases brought before them.

For women and people of color in this country, the courts have been critical to the enforcement of legislative statutes guaranteeing their equal treatment in the workplace and educational institutions. Moreover, the federal courts have guarded the promise of equality guaranteed by the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments to the Constitution. The Court's ability to understand the realities different populations confront is inevitably enriched by the variety of life experiences of its justices.

The absence of broad diversity on the Court has no doubt played a role in key decisions of the past four years with significant negative repercussions for women's health and economic stability -- decisions on which Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the lone woman on the Court, has been a strong voice of dissent. In Gonzales v. Carhart, the Court upheld a ban on late-term abortions, irrespective of the real and certain risk to the health of mothers facing an untenable pregnancy.

In Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., the Court turned the Congressional intent of Title VII protections on their head, ruling that workers facing pay discrimination had no legal recourse unless they had figured it out and filed a claim within 180 days of its occurrence, an impossible standard. And just two weeks ago, in AT&T Corp. v. Hulteen, the Court dealt a blow to the women workers who continue to suffer financial losses because of pregnancy discrimination that preceded passage of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act.

The ideal of impartial jurists with the intellectual prowess to apply the law in the most nuanced situations is not diminished by recognizing that judges' experiences influence their perspective on the issues raised by the cases before them. It was Justice Alito, for example, who stated during his confirmation hearings that he was reminded of his immigrant ancestors when cases involving immigrants came before him. And Justice Ginsburg, referring to a recent case, told USA Today that some of her colleagues on the bench did not quite understand how sensitive a strip search would be for a 13-year old girl.

Will Judge Sotomayor's experience growing up the child of Puerto Rican immigrants in the Bronx, and the challenges she faced entering the legal profession at a time when women were treated far from equal, influence her perspective on the cases before her? Unavoidably.

If confirmed, will she be less rigorous in the application of the law, less respectful of the rule of law and the Constitution because of her unique perspective as the first Hispanic and only the third woman to serve on the Supreme Court of the United States? Absolutely not. Might the Supreme Court's decisions be improved by a diversity of life experience? One would certainly hope so.

Comments

[Acidic]

Yes, we know she's qualified, this is really beating a dead horse if you ask me. Over and over the same stories about the same thing. Find something else to write about.

[Quiana]

Irasema - Your article on Judge Sotomayor is excellent and I totally agree. It appears that her more vocal critics are indignant over her audacity of being proud to be a Latina! They probably lived relatively normal lives and didn't have to struggle and sacrifice and so don't fully understand and appreciate different people or feel their pain and suffering. Because of their lack of empathy, they should be only looking at her education and experience on the bench instead of ignorantly stereotyping her gender and race. But I must say, her being a double minority should add a fresh perspective and more insightfulness (wisdom) to the U.S. Supreme Court. It's only natural that our challenging experiences affect our lives and decisions. Personally, I will be happy to finally see a brown face on this high court! President Obama did promise us diversity (and fairness), didn't he?

[Rog49Thomas]

Two reasons:

It's all about the perceived ideology.

And about trying to create a defeat for the President to get him to moderate even more his policies.

If President Neo had appointed Rush or Joe the Plumber, these same folks would be gushing about how qualified the nominee was.

[dancucich]

.

As a white male, I tend to agree with her statement about the desirability of a judge who possesses a broad range of life experiences with persons and cultures that are very different from their own.

I believeJudge Sotomayor would also agree that a wise white male who has lived a hard-scrabble life, with many diverse experiences, would probably reach a better decision than a Latina Woman who has led a sheltered or insular life.

Some critics seem blissfully unaware that all judges,,including conservative judges, are fallible human beings, who also view life and the law through their own set of cultural filters.

Judges are not dispassionate judicial automatons of flesh and blood, who reliably and invariably reject and discard their own lifetime of personal experiences, predilections, and attendant filters to arrive at decisions which are unquestionably apodictic.

IJudge Sotomayer also stated that said she did not think any person is totally free from making observations through the filter of their own race, gender, and culture-which is refreshingly honest and indisputably true.

Some critics appear to be unconscious and oblivious to their own cultural filters through which they view life as well as the law.

I prefer a jurist who is honest and self aware, to one who is self deceived enough to declare that he or she always faithfully follows the law-regardless of their own values, feelings, preferences and predilections-as if the law, can only yield one reasonable interpretation.



Sincerely,

Dan Cucich,
Atlanta, Georgia

[MerhabaAbi]

Dan,

I especially like the way your last paragraph summed up the true arguement for and against Judge Sotomayer. She's not blind to her own perspectives.

Respectfully,
Little Brother

[NoFactsJustTruth]

Sonia Sotomayor WILL be the next SCOTUS Justice, and those bigoted or otherwise hypocritical detractors will have plenty of time to stew in their closed-minded imaginary fears.

[oncethere]

Right, both liberal and conservative judges bring their life experiences and emotional responses to their judging. The difference is that liberal judges acknowledge the role gut feelings and personal experiences play (though they strive for impartiality), while conservative judges deny that their gut or emotions play any role in their decision-making. In the general scheme of things, Denial rarely leads to good judgment.

One other note. I have noticed that only far-right or far-left politicians, intellectuals, radio hosts, claim, repeatedly and loudly, that their views represent "objective" truth and reality.

[valkyrie607]

"Sine curve."

Not "sin curve."

I wonder what a sin curve looks like...

[Rog49Thomas]

probably a lot more interesting that the graphical representation of a geometric function.

and yet another example of how liberals are undermining the morality of our great nation.

It all starts with a simple first act - removing that jacket in the oval office

then some bare arms

and the next thing you know we're dancing on bibles and wife swapping

or maybe that's dancing with our wives and bible swapping

in any case it's pretty chilling to think about

[Dale07]

I agree with the author, can't help who you are and life's influences, which leads me to believe
the judge might just have a different stance on abortion. I think it's assumed by most that she will stand for abortion rights, but I wouldn't be so sure. If she stands against abortion I wonder if her supporters will turn? Time will tell, I have no doubt she'll be confirmed.

[TJCole]

Irasema answer me this of Sotomayor..!

1. Does she adhere to the perversion of Corporate "Personhood..?"

2. Does she adhere to the perversion and heresy of the Unitary Executive..?

3. Are you so sure 6 Roman Catholics such as myself, will not when the proper case presents itself, over turn Roe V. Wade..?

How can anyone support this highly intelligent, perfectly nice woman with inarguable great experience until they can answer these questions..?

[Rog49Thomas]

I thought liberals were for equal treatment of all our citizens regardless of lifestyle, religion or national origin.

GM, KBR, Enron are persons under our law.

Can you imagine the pain they feel when you call them perverts?

And what about the impact on their offspring - those subsidiaries and affiliates - many born in foreign countries?

Since the very days of the founding of this great republic, it's been our national tradition for folks like you and me to extend a helping hand to the more fortunate among us.

Let's not turn our back on more than two hundred years of history!