Sotomayor: Supremely Poor Judgment

Supreme Court Justice Nominee, Sonia Sotomayor, is set for review by the Senate Judiciary Committee.  On the plus side, her advocates want to focus on her life story and her background:  

• Born in South Bronx 
• Yankees fan
• Hard-Working, Dedicated Parents
• Tragic Loss of her Father while Young
• Inspired to a Law Career by Stories of Nancy Drew
• Diagnosed with Diabetes as a Child
• Eventually to Become a Supreme Court Nominee

 

Her story is the American story.  Humble beginnings and childhood hardship that spur us on to greatness in our adult lives; it's a common theme that resonates throughout our great nation--the Land of Opportunity.  It is precisely the reason so many people immigrate to the United States.  It is a story only possible in a free-market society.

In all of this common ground, what do we find that distinguishes Justice Sotomayor from the rest of America to qualify her to be a Supreme Court Justice?  In reflecting on her life story, we have neglected to reflect on her judicial record.  In all fairness, President Obama's standard for nominating a SCJ is empathy, and while it makes for great Lifetime Movies, our Supreme Court needs to major in judgment, not feelings.  By the "life story" standard, my dad (who is an accomplished and successful small business owner) would make a better addition to the Supreme Court.

If not a "life narrative" then what should qualify a Supreme Court Justice?  The answer should be obvious: her experience, conduct, and rulings on the bench.  With more than a decade of experience on the appellate court, we should be able to learn a lot about her philosophy; so why isn't anyone talking about her experience?  For example: 

• 60% of her decisions have been reversed by the Supreme Court.  Clearly she feels some obligation to keep the Supremes busy, but such a high reversal rate is a glaring red warning light that she does not belong on the Supreme Court of the United States.
• In a recent case, Ricci v. DeStefano, empathy trumped judgment when she ruled against Ricci, an applicant to be a firefighter who scored the highest on the test but was denied the job because he was not black.

What about her personal philosophy?  Opponents to her nomination are making a big deal of two of her recent quotes:

• “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,”
• “court of appeals is where policy is made. And I know — I know this is on tape, and I should never say that because we don’t make law. I know. O.K. I know. I’m not promoting it. I’m not advocating it. I’m — you know.”  See the video below.

Perhaps much should be made of her comments.  One does not need a Psychology degree to figure out that she means what she said about making policy from the bench.  Notice in the video, that when she catches herself and realizes what she said, she does not retract her statement with strength and clarity.  Rather, she makes light of her statement recognizing that she should not have said it on tape, "you know."  

She says she would judge with empathy, which sounds nice if you are a defendant.  But isn't justice supposed to be blind and impartial?

Supreme Court Justices serve lifetime appointments.  A justice on the bench who does not understand the basic separation of powers as provided by the constitution can not exercise appropriate judgment when interpreting the constitution.  By her record and her own admission, Justice Sotomayor sees the constitution and the American rule of law as nothing more than a basis for change, a platform on which she can stand to establish policy.  If she wants to be a legislator, she should run for office where she can be held accountable by her constituents.  The judicial bench is not the place to establish public policy.  An examination of her record and her personal philosophy easily supports the assessment that this justice is not Supreme Court material.