![]() |
![]() |
||
|
A Wise Person for the CourtPosted on May 28, 2009So we face the riddle of the wise old man, the wise old woman, and the wise old person. Sonia Sotomayor, Bronx-raised and Ivy League-educated “Newyorkrican” has been nominated to the Supreme Court. What a difference since Ronald Reagan had to reach into a state appeals court to find his “first.” Today the most experienced candidate is the diversity candidate. Unable to attack her credentials, opponents instantly highlighted a sentence from a thoughtful speech on life as a Latina and judge. “I would hope,” she said, “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.” “Reverse discrimination!” cried Rush Limbaugh. “Identity politics!” huffed opponents waving this evidence that her background was her bias, against of course, white men. They would have been better off reading her entire meditation on what life experience brings to the bench. But that doesn’t happen in a politics of sound bites. Indeed, Sotomayor was considering a phrase that Justices O’Connor and Ginsburg have both repeated: “At the end of the day, a wise old man and a wise old woman reach the same judgment.” Advertisement Nevertheless, this swirling controversy around the third woman and first Latina on the court raises an old question about how much difference diversity makes. Or should make. Justice Scalia, for example, has insisted that his religious background has nothing to do with his legal opinions: “Just as there is no ‘Catholic’ way to cook a hamburger,” he said there is no legal decision spiced by his upbringing. True or self-deceptive? Justice Roberts, described as a “relentless champion of the overdog,” may see himself as the paragon of impartiality. It is only newcomers who are challenged as change agents. We know that there is no single “woman’s point of view.” O’Connor and Ginsburg were not ideological twins. Yet, I remember the school sexual harassment case when Justice O’Connor spoke for Little Jane while her peer and classmate Justice Kennedy spoke for Little Johnny. More recently, there was the case of a 13-year-old schoolgirl strip-searched to (only) Justice Ginsburg’s dismay. And when Lilly Ledbetter came to court, there was a shortage of wise men. A study of federal appeals court judges by three university researchers shows that the gender of judges makes no difference in the way they vote most of the time. But in sex-discrimination cases, female judges were 10 percent more likely to rule for the plaintiff. More intriguingly, when men and women decided such cases together, the men were 15 percent more likely to rule for the plaintiff than when they made decisions with only men. Did those women add to the sum total of wisdom? Life experience is not just a matter of gender or ethnicity, or generation. Sotomayor brings to the bench her experience as a poor child, as a diabetic, even (gulp) a Yankees fan. Nor can you always predict how experience matters. “I simply do not know exactly what that difference will be in my judging,” acknowledged Sotomayor honestly. “But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage.” Well, remember that Ginsburg and O’Connor said that “At the end of the day,” the wise old woman and man will decide the same way. They didn’t say which day. Or how we get there. There may never be universal wisdom or gender-neutral experience. But surely there is the possibility that we can see through each other’s lenses. O’Connor in her eulogy to the first African-American justice, Thurgood Marshall, talked about how his stories “would, by and by, perhaps change the way I see the world.” Having him in the room changed things. So too a wise old woman and a wise old man may only get to the same decision if they are in the same room discussing the same case. Again, we ask the riddle: How many more wise women do you need to make a wise person on the Supreme Court? Sonia Sotomayor and counting. Ellen Goodman’s e-mail address is ellengoodman(at)globe.com. © 2009, Washington Post Writers Group Previous item: Why Obama's Court Pick Is Already a Winner Next item: California's Silent Big Spenders Elsewhere: . CommentsAre you a Truthdig member yet? Login now, or register with Truthdig. Add Your Comment
|
A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion. Editor, Robert Scheer. Publisher, Zuade Kaufman.
Copyright © 2009 Truthdig, L.L.C. All rights reserved. |
By tdbach, May 29 at 8:54 am #
It’s hard to imagine two more delusional comments than those by “Hawkeye” and “the waiver” - and from two completely different directions!
Hawkeye sounds like bird with a broken wing complaining that evolution is rigged to favor the fittest. No sh*t, Sherlock. You don’t rise up through the ranks of established power without a good deal of connections to go with your wits. It’s nothing but fantasy to imagine that “one of us” would ascend to heights of power unscathed. Her general leanings are more in our direction than Scalia’s. Be happy about that.
And I don’t know where to begin with “waiver.” What are you arguing for amidst all that weird indignation? That we have an internet ballot to elect a SCJ? Talk about chucking the constitution (which you seem to think is threatened by this nominee)! “EVERY WHITE MALE” [your caps] eh? What in the qualifying phrase “who hasn’t lived that life” don’t you understand? And if you think she’s wrong about appeals court justices not shaping policy (she didn’t say law), you’re not aware of what courts of appeals are all about. Law is written by congress, of course. But it is usually a rough sketch. Where the rubber meets the road, as it were, in the myriad instances of the application of the law, when ambiguity gives rise to controversy, it is in the courts that law takes on real policy implications. It has always been thus. Her humorous “I know I’m not supposed to say that” is a reference to the right’s meme that the left uses the courts to make policy where democracy won’t work. Believe me, conservative judges are making policy every day, just like liberal ones, they just like to pretend they’re not.
Rather than leaping to political outlander (Hawkeye) or Republican (waiver) talking points, why don’t you just read Ellen’s thoughtful article and respond to it?
Report thisBy the waiver, May 28 at 7:42 pm #
When is it okay for a feminist to make a statement speaking down to a man? Statement: “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.”
Just reverse the thinking—years ago when women fought for the same salary as a man—same respect—to be on equal footing for promotions! Women fought for their rights—to correct what was wrong—and make it right! Now—
Are women guilty of doing it to men?
Supreme Court Justice nominee (Sonia Sotomayor) very clearly stated she was better or more qualified due to her working from the bottom up—she had a harder road to walk—a harder time financially. where a WHITE MALE has an easier time getting to where she got in this world.
SONIA SOTOMAYOR CHARACTERIZED EVERY WHITE MALE!
Sonia Sotomayor compared her life story to every WHITE MALE’s life story and came up I WILL HAVE MORE EMPATHY! Sotoamayor viewed a mirror of herself up against every White Male and made her judgment.
Sotomayor was caught on tape speaking about writing or making laws and then laughed and said: “this is being taped—I shouldn’t have said that.” Well, it must have been in her heart. Out of the heart, the mouth speaks.
Maybe the injustice of minority people has been felt so strongly in this Administration some people just can’t wait to write their own laws (our Constitution).
Americans I do like Obama! I don’t agree with his policy of selecting female minorities and excluding a white male. Is there more anger in this world than what Americans realize? If so, then keep your eyes open—make sure in the future we do have an elective process in which our voice will be heard—NOT JUST THE GOVERNMENT!!!!!!!
Report thisBy Hawkeye, May 28 at 7:09 pm #
REF: sotomayor is a puppet politician
it you actually give a damn, it is easy to do a little research with a search engine and it will become very apparent.
the trouble is, barack and rahm has the “next” nominee cued up, whom is much worse. you cannot win.
the two party system sux. another “trojan horse” is what we have taken into the fort. we are truly suckers and, i guess, we brought it on ourselves.
Report this