Judge Sonia Sotomayor – the wrong woman for the Supreme Court

Rating 4.00 out of 5

Without doubt, I know that this will piss off many fellow Hispanics and Latinos, but it has to be said. Judge Sonia Sotomayor should not become a Supreme Court Justice.

It’s really simple. The reason is blatant and hated by most liberals and Democrats. But we are speaking about the Law, and the ultimate judicial court. Sometimes the simple things are the most important.

Judge Sotomayor stated, as has been quoted often,

“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”

That was in 2001, and part of a 4000 word comment. But it is these 32 words that are vital. Because if a Conservative, a Republican, a White male, or god forbid, all of the above made this same statement any hope of remaining a judge would evaporate – to say nothing of losing the Supreme Court.

That is the honest truth. ‘A wise White Man, with the richness of his experiences, would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Latina Woman who hasn’t lived that life’, is enough of a statement to inflame every Liberal, Democrat, and Hispanic/Latino in the nation. The person uttering that essentially same statement would be called a racist, a bigot, and a disgrace to the legal profession. Every newspaper with even the least liberal bent would be citing this on the front page of the newspaper. Pundits would have nothing else to speak about for a week or more.

So why is it any different for a Latina woman? Especially when we are talking about the Law which is not based on inference but empirical standards. Why is it different when the basis of acceptance is supposed to be the same for every member of the highest court in the nation?

I do not agree with discrimination, in either direction. I do not agree with preferential treatment for anyone. I do not question the abilities of Sotomayor, her upbringing, or her qualifications. There are judges with better resumes, and others with worse. Some made it to the Supreme Court, most have not.

But there is not a single Supreme Court Justice I am aware of that has ever uttered even close to this kind of statement. Because the standard of acceptance will not allow it. Thus Judge Sotomayor should not break that standard.

There are many judges that are qualified, Latino/a, and have never made such a statement. Some might even be female. Why not select them? Because having a Justice that implies racial bias of any degree, further destroys the already broken legal system. And that could be a break beyond repair.

A Supreme Court Justice should be beyond reproach, or as close to it as is possible. There should never be the hint of racial or any other bias. Judge Sotomayor does not pass this hurdle.

Liberals will scream, as if that will nullify the truth of what I have said. Some will curse my name. Others will hate that I am blocking a first for the Court. But I stand by this simple reasoning. Which is no different than what I said about President Obama during the election.

“It’s not enough for a President to be Black. It must be the right man for the position, and if they happen to be Black as well, then it’s a bonus. Because the Office is more important than a historical record.”

I believe that. I said it often through the election cycle. I believe and say it now about the Supreme Court. If the next Justice must be Hispanic, if they must be a woman, then they had better be the right Hispanic woman. Because the wrong one is too much of a danger to be allowed to have the position.

Happy New Year

Welcome 2019January 1, 2019
22 days to go.

2 Comments

  1. Comment as found at Black and White Blog, where I am co-author.

    Logan Calder Says:
    June 1st, 2009 at 8:34 pm e
    your article should be the front page of every newspaper in the country. An absolutely perfect example of accepted racism because of the point of view of the person that made the statement and the perception of that person simply because of skin color, nationality, or gender. Racism should have no color and discrimination should have no gender. Of course we both know she will pass, and get a free pass because of her skin color, nationality, or gender.
    In this case, I believe that gender is the most critical component. Picture a Latino male saying the same statement, but comparing himself to a Latina? (Your example is the strongest obviously). Do you think he would be blasted out of the position? I do, for being sexist. I think only a minority woman could get away with this one and get a pass.
    I guess if our leaders do it, how do we teach not to do it?, how does that statement shape the mind of a young Latina girl who looks up to this woman and reads this quote as some sort of statement of implied truth simpy because of nationality and gender?.
    Her single largest fault, is in the essence of her statement, in that because of her experience she is of the opinion that she is more qualified to make certain decisions than another type of person. If her opinion were fact, then this would also mean that the opposite were true, and she is saying that because of their experience, a White male would make better decisions than her in another situation.
    How can this woman qualify to be a Supreme court judge?? Will she only judge on matters that include Latinas??

  2. Comment as found at 1800blogger, where I am a contributing author.

    Scott Huminski Says:
    June 3rd, 2009 at 7:50 am e
    SOTOMAYOR IGNORANT OF THE LAW

    Sotomayor flunks on getting the most basic principle of appellate law wrong – the Standard of Review.

    In Huminski v. Haverkoch, 11/5/04, 03-7036 2d. Cir., Sotomayor reveals an ignorance of the law by failing to apply the correct standard of review to an important civil rights case. She found appellate review was for reversible error when the correct standard of review for such a case (summary judgment) is De Novo.

    A simple google on, “standard of review for summary judgment de novo” supplies tens of authorities on the issue. I guess Sotomayor would rather be wrong than google on such a rudimentary issue. She also could have assigned her flock of law clerks to research the issue. Further, on a motion for rehearing specifically pointing out her error she did not act and correct it.

    Here is the link to the Sotomayor summary order from this case in which she presided over.

    http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/cb42154f-30e6-47ee-ae7c-d8e4c3acc2e5/1/doc/03-7036_so.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/cb42154f-30e6-47ee-ae7c-d8e4c3acc2e5/1/hilite/

    Where the order states “For the Court”, it refers to Sotomayor and the 2 other judges on the case.

    See a different case of mine, Huminski v. Corsones, No. 02-6201 (2d Cir. 10/07/2004) (“We review a district court’s grant or denial of summary judgment de novo.”)

    – Scott Huminski
    (202) [phone number withheld by me]

5 Trackbacks / Pingbacks

  1. David Letterman, Judge Sotomayor, Speaker Pelosi - all examples of liberal bias | Breaking News Blog
  2. David Letterman, Judge Sotomayor, Speaker Pelosi - all examples of liberal bias | VASS political blog
  3. David Letterman, Judge Sotomayor, Speaker Pelosi - all examples of liberal bias | American Blog
  4. David Letterman, Judge Sotomayor, Speaker Pelosi - all examples of liberal bias | 1800blogger
  5. Can Whites be discriminated against? Was Judge Sotomayor wrong? | VASS political blog

Thank you for lending your voice. We appreciate hearing what you have to say.