KEEPING THE FAITH - In The News
May 27, 2009
Yesterday, Mr. Obama selected Judge Sonia
Sotomayor to fill the seat on the U. S. Supreme Court being vacated by the
retirement of Justice David Souter.
If we lose the rule of law – if we lose the Constitution
to “feelings, ethnicity, gender to ‘I think’” – we have lost everything.
This country, even as we know it today (which is a mere shadow of the
country we once were), will be no more. It is incumbent upon all in the U.
S. Senate – Democrats and Republicans alike -who believe in our Constitution
– who want to preserve “this the last best hope of mankind on earth” to
oppose this nominee with full vigor.
Following are comments compiled by the Heritage Foundation
made by Judge Sotomayor.
Sotomayor in Her Own Words
Issues Facing Latino Judiciary symposium sponsored by the
Berkeley La Raza Law Journal, October 2001:
I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of
her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion [as a
judge] than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.
Yet, because I accept the proposition that, as Judge Resnik
describes it, “to judge is an exercise of power” and because as, another
former law school classmate, Professor Martha Minnow of Harvard Law School,
states “there is no objective stance but only a series of perspectives—no
neutrality, no escape from choice in judging,” I further accept that our
experiences as women and people of color affect our decisions. The
aspiration to impartiality is just that—it’s an aspiration because it denies
the fact that we are by our experiences making different choices than
others. Not all women or people of color, in all or some circumstances or
indeed in any particular case or circumstance but enough people of color in
enough cases, will make a difference in the process of judging.
Judge [Miriam] Cedarbaum [of the federal District Court in
New York]… believes that judges must transcend their personal sympathies and
prejudices and aspire to achieve a greater degree of fairness and integrity
based on the reason of law. Although I agree with and attempt to work toward
Judge Cedarbaum’s aspiration, I wonder whether achieving that goal is
possible in all or even in most cases. And I wonder whether by ignoring our
differences as women or men of color we do a disservice both to the law and
society. Whatever the reasons… we may have different perspectives, either as
some theorists suggest because of our cultural experiences or as others
postulate because we have basic differences in logic and reasoning….
Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or
cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my
colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make
a difference in our judging. Justice [Sandra Day] O’Connor has often been
cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same
conclusion in deciding cases…. I am… not so sure that I agree with the
statement. First… there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second,
I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences
would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who
hasn’t lived that life.
I can and do aspire to be greater than the sum total of my
experiences but I accept my limitations. I willingly accept that we who
judge must not deny the differences resulting from experience and heritage
but attempt, as the Supreme Court suggests, continuously to judge when those
opinions, sympathies and prejudices are appropriate.
Duke University panel discussion held in February 2005
“All of the legal defense funds out there, they’re looking
for people with Court of Appeals experience. Because it is — Court of
Appeals is where policy is made. And I know, and I know, that this is on
tape, and I should never say that. Because we don’t ‘make law,’ I know.
[Laughter from audience] Okay, I know. I know. I’m not promoting it, and I’m
not advocating it. I’m, you know. [More laughter] Having said that, the
Court of Appeals is where, before the Supreme Court makes the final
decision, the law is percolating. Its interpretation, its application.
Sotomayor identifies herself as a legal realist:
Taken from: Hon. Sonia Sotomayor & Nicole A. Gordon,
Returning Majesty To The Law and Politics: A Modern Approach, 30 Suffolk
U. L. Rev. 35 (1996).
The constant development of unprecedented problems requires a
legal system capable of fluidity and pliancy. Our society would be
strait-jacketed were not the courts, with the able assistance of the
lawyers, constantly overhauling the law and adapting it to the realities of
ever-changing social, industrial and political conditions; although changes
cannot be made lightly, yet law must be more or less impermanent,
experimental and therefore not nicely calculable. Much of the uncertainty of
law is not an unfortunate accident: it is of immense social value.
Frank’s thesis . . . supports a pride that lawyers can take
in what they do and how they do it. The law can change its direction
entirely, as when Brown v. Board of Education overturned Plessy v. Ferguson,
or as the common law has gradually done by altering the standards of
products liability law directly contrary to the originally restricted view
that instructed “caveat emptor.” As these cases show, change—sometimes
radical change—can and does occur in a legal system that serves a society
whose social policy itself changes. It is our responsibility to explain to
the public how an often unpredictable system of justice is one that serves a
productive, civilized, but always evolving, society.
For all the latest information on Sotomayor, please
visit our Supreme Court Rapid response page.
Thank you for Keeping The Faith,
Sadie Fields
