Hispanic Justice
"I will seek somebody with a sharp and independent mind and a record of excellence and integrity," President Barack Obama said in commenting on whom he will nominate to replace retiring Associate Justice David Souter. But President Obama now has an important opportunity to pick someone who, if approved by the Senate, will lead to a Supreme Court that more truly reflects the composition of the American population.
America has been enriched by its diverse Hispanic culture. But this culture has been under represented in our government. Today more than 40 million Hispanics live in the United States, our nation's largest minority population. And, according to recent projections, more than 100 million Hispanics will live in this country by the year 2050, or about 30% of the population. Hispanics are a vibrant collection of cultures and political views. More than three-fifths of the U.S. Hispanic population is of Mexican origin; the other portion includes Puerto Ricans, Dominicans, Cubans and people from throughout South and Central America.
U.S. Hispanics are doctors, lawyers, athletes and laborers. Hispanics are American soldiers who serve in Iraq and Afghanistan. They serve as police officers and fire fighters. These men and women are our heroes too. They pay taxes, and own or rent homes. Their children attend our schools and many want their kids to live the American dream. While some Hispanics are third and fourth generation families, still millions more are new arrivals who speak little if any English. They read Spanish language newspapers, listen to Spanish language radio stations and live in tight knit communities. Nonetheless, they make up a booming portion of our economy.
Of his potential Supreme Court nominee, President Obama said, "I will seek someone who understands that justice isn't about some abstract legal theory or footnote in a casebook; it is also about how our laws affect the daily realities of people's lives, whether they can make a living and care for their families, whether they feel safe in their homes and welcome in their own nation." He continued, "I view that quality of empathy, of understanding and identifying with people's hopes and struggles, as an essential ingredient for arriving at just decisions and outcomes."
In many ways, the Hispanic hopes and struggles are unique. There are important legal questions around immigration, discrimination and rights to a decent education and health care that call for a Hispanic perspective in our nation's highest court. How can the Supreme Court be truly "empathetic" if its composition does not reflect the the diversity of America? It is time for a Hispanic justice to be seated on the highest court in our land.
From a political perspective, Republicans are likely to oppose whomever President Obama chooses. Should the candidate be Hispanic, such opposition is likely to further alienate their party that has struggled nationally for Hispanic votes. Hispanics are an important voting block in states such as California, New York, Arizona and Colorado. But they may play a decisive role in less populous Southern and Midwestern states in coming elections. Therefore, Republican opposition to a Hispanic nominee just for ideological reasons would be extremely risky.
In the words of our Constitution, "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
"We the people of the United States" includes all of the people of this country. And the strength of America has always come from the diversity of its people, its ideas and experiences. I, therefore, urge President Obama to nominate the first Hispanic Justice for the U.S. Supreme Court. And, by so doing, President Obama can make history again.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Absolutely Joe!
Ok how about Heraldo Rivera he's a lawyer...a
http://www
HuffPo columnists and posters are all about the identity (must be hispanic, a woman, black, gay) of the next SC justice. I don't see the Constitution mentioned much at all.
As for Mr. Obama's "empathy" criterion, that is inane. It's tantamount to saying you want umpires to be synmpathetic to the identity of the batter when they decide strikes and balls, rather than to rule according to the written rules..
Your premise is absurd. The job is to interpret the Constituti
"We the people of the United States" includes all of the people of this country"..
Please be clear, because this issue cannot be shrouded by race.
I don't care if we get an Hispanic on the court as long as he/she isn't religious - the last thing we need is for the SC to be almost entirely Catholic!!
I understand the point you're making Joe. Of course, it goes without saying that whoever President Obama picks should be intelligent, knowledgeable, and, as Obama himself said on Friday, a person with the right type of "understanding and empathy". That goes without saying, so the haters on this thread need to calm down.
What you're saying, is that in addition to all of the things that people take into account (geography, academic background, legal opinions, etc.) gender, race and ethnicity should also be taken into account...
As an African-American, I would have absolutely no problem a Latino on the High Court. In fact, I welcome it. Like you wrote above, "There are important legal questions around immigration, discrimination and rights to a decent education and health care that call for a Hispanic perspective in our nation's highest court. How can the Supreme Court be truly "empathetic" if its composition does not reflect the the diversity of America?"
It's been 64 years after the landmark MENDEZ v WESTMINSTER case that involved a Latino family suing several school districts, and the California Supreme Court agreeing with their position. In fact, MENDEZ v WESTMINSTER provided the legal underpinnings of the historic BROWN v TOPEKA case 9 years later.
I agree Joe: its time for a Hispanic Justice.
in this diverse country there is no reason the ultimate arbiter of law should also be diverse -- and it isnt. i am all for picking anyone that is qualified and capable and open minded
we already have two unqualified closed minded nightmares on the court (Scalia and Thomas).
But not Roberts or Alito?
Some of Roberts' legal arguments are so painfully bad, his logic so tortured and insulting, that even Scalia has had to write separate concurring opinions, agreeing with the end result but blasting the legal underpinnings of the majority opinion.
I have an even more novel idea... how about Obama nominating the most qualified candidate.
What would make the person most qualified? Certainly there is a pretty large and diverse group of qualified candidates that the President could choose from. He wasn't and isn't the most qualified as measured by some.
It is always so.
'Qualified' meaning exactly that - qualified as determined ultimately by the POTUS.
EXACTLY ...
And if all things are more or less equal? What, it's not okay to have a tie-breaker? "Hmmm... these two candidates are evenly matched, both terrific, but I can only pick one and also value diversity on the Court, which we don't really have". Done. Tie broken. Is there anything really so wrong with that?
Integrity, courage, and active participation are the qualities that we need on the Supreme Court. Ethnicity should not be the litmus test for filling the Souter openning. When Antonin Scalia did not recuse himself from Bush v. Gore while his son, Eugene Scalia, represented Bush in the case there is a crisis in Integrity. When Scalia goes hunting with Dick Cheney a party from a case he is actively deciding there is a crisis in integrity. In fact there is a crisis in intergrity every time that Scalia avoids recusing himself when his son, or his son's firm, argues a case before the Supreme Court.
I say let's appoint a native american. They were here first. The hispanics came over, brought their liquor and diseases and virulent Christianity, and committed genocide in their imperialist drive to rape, pillage and plunder the new world..
What I just wrote is both historically accurate, and entirely irrelevant. Stupid, even - in the context of choosing a supreme court justice.
What's more important than picking someone of a particular race, or gender - is picking someone with a particular kind of life experience. This is the first supreme court where all of the justices have come from the pool of federal appelate judges. Those folks all live a cloistered life, and think about life in a certain way.
We need someone with closer roots to the experience of average people in that job - someone who will be able to filter his or her legal decision-making through the prism of what it's like to be a regular citizen, and not one of the elite.
He will no doubt appoint a Hispanic female. During the campaign he talked about how Affirmative Action should be based on income and not race, in a pander to most whites, who oppose Affirmative Action. Apparently, he supports Affirmative Action when it furthers his political goals. Can you say hypocrite? Maybe that's too harsh.
She's a federal judge! Obviously she's qualifed. Just because she's an AMERICAN of Puerto Rican ancestry doesn't mean she should be looked upon as being a handicap! Shame on your ignorance for thinking anyone with a heritage of spanish speakers are unfit for leadership. I know many Latin Americans who will wipe the floor with you in a debate, in literature, math, science, politics, education, etc... NASA is full of Puerto Ricans from La Universidad De Puerto Rico! And your no where qualified just because your in a fictious "white" category.
"in a pander to most whites, who oppose Affirmative Action"
But as he said that, the truth is, most of the beneficiaries of affirmative action have been WHITE WOMEN. Government and private industry figures prove this.
Obama probably does believe that it should be "income" and not "race", but he also knew that the probably a majority of whites (particularly middle-aged to older whites) automatically assume that when a person of color is selected for something, its because of "affirmative action". The press have contributed to this madness. And, as so many whites say that, white women continue to strike "affirmative action gold" with popular programs like TITLE IX, which is responsible for the hundreds of thousands of women (mostly white) who receive sports scholarships from Division I schools. Sarah Palin was an affirmative action baby who got into college under TITLE IX.
So it is ridiculous for you to automatically see the selection of a Latino or another person of color as "affirmative action" when you know you wouldn't do that if he picked a WHITE FEMALE...n
"responsible for the hundreds of thousands of women (mostly white) who receive sports scholarships from Division I schools"
Actually, I should have written, "who have received" instead of "who receive", but my point remains the same.
How exactly would appointing a qualified federal judge to the Supreme Court - one like Sonia Sotomayor who was also elevated by George H.W. Bush - be "Affirmative Action" or hypocrisy?
Not only is it too harsh, it's too ignorant.
The new nominee must be a liberal hispanic lesbian who likes walks on the beach and trips to Mars, otherwise, our divererse nation can never be truly represented.
It's this cr a p about being overlty politically correct that is killing this country. If most the qualified happens to be purple than nominate them for the job.
When you get to a certain level, qualifications are pretty subjective.
There should be some kind of record, somewhere, about what each of these candidates has done over their long careers, wouldn't you think? We could start there...
Ignorant fool no such ethnicity. We'll be in deep doo doo if he every nominated the likes of you.
People commenting on race are missing the point...wh
The point is to provide a different point of view and be more representatative of the diversity of the country...
This is the Democratic approach.
If you haven't noticed, The Republican approach is to provide the ILLUSION of diversity without the substance. Therefore you get a Clarence Thomas, who takes his cues from Justice Scalia, and doesn't have the brains to ask a a decent legal question, apparently.
And you get a Sarah Palin who knows nothing about the world, but was somehow supposed to be equated with Hillary Clinton, in their eyes.
Fortunately only their 20% base popularion drinks their brand of Kool-Aid.
How do you know Palin knows nothing about the world and doesnt equate to Hillary Clinton? Palin got to be governor all on her own through hard work and competance. Clinton had to stay married to Bill and ride his coattails to become senator.
The Katie Couric interviews confirmed that she was woefully ignorant about key elements of foreign and domestic policy issues. Any intelligent person could see that.
If you believe otherwise, you are in the minority..
No one has ever called Hillary ignorant,,,she is a Wellesley grad and appears to be doing a fine job as SOS. I would never vote for her as POTUS, but I'm glad Obama found her a niche.
BTW...I assume you mean "competence", not COMPETANCE.
great so we want a liberal clarence thomas
doesn't matter as long as she is the right race
Yes we need a liberal in the mold of Justic Marshall!
Amazing how you people either colossally miss the point, or do so intentionally.
Nobody is asking anyone to appoint a lesser qualified candidate simply because of his or her race. He is talking solely about a tie breaker should all other things be equal which, due to a host of qualified candidates for the Court, they generally are on the short list.
It's completely reasonable and there is nothing overly PC about it.
Is it a regional thing?
I say Latino
Latino is not an ethnicity, nor is Hispanic. She's an American by nationality of Puerto Rican heritage, as is everyone of a certain heritage other than the native americans.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
