(back to home)The Verdict Against the Judge
The election of Barack Obama as president of the United States is a historic milestone for America, transcending previous racial prejudices. Unfortunately, President Obama’s nominee to the Supreme Court, Judge Sonia Sotomayor, has made statements and court decisions that indicate preferential judgment based on race and gender.
We first question Judge Sotomayor’s understanding of the role of the courts and the legal system, especially her view of the timeless principle of equality before the law. America’s tradition of common law jurisprudence has long held to the principle of equality before the law, demanding that all must be subject to the same laws; that no one may have special legal privileges. Engraved on the face of the United States Supreme Court Building are the words “equal justice under law.” Equality before the law dates to the dawn of Western Civilization. Equality before the law has been the basic standard of justice for thousands of years in dozens of cultures. Equality before the law led Americans to reject racial partiality. It is the duty of a judge to transcend personal prejudices and to refrain from favoritism. The Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and the immutable rights of man, teach us to transcend personal feelings and preferential treatment. In several speeches and decisions, by strong implication, Judge Sotomayor has seemingly abandoned equality before the law as the standard of impartiality. In so doing, she has substituted the rule of law for her personal feelings. Consider Judge Sotomayor’s words from a 2001 speech at Berkeley School of Law:
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.
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.
I wonder whether achieving that goal [impartiality] 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.
Second, we question Judge Sotomayor’s view of the role of the court system and judges in the political process. Her philosophy that personal and emotional standards should be employed when creating legal decisions as well as her view that an unelected, unaccountable court system should actively work to change matters of policy directly contradict fundamental principles of law and are, in addition, overwhelmingly rejected by the American public. A November 2008 survey found that 70 percent of voters want judges who “will interpret and apply the law as it is written and not take into account their own viewpoints and experiences,” instead of judges who “will go beyond interpreting and applying the law as written and take into account their own viewpoints and experiences.”
As Chief Justice Roberts said, a justice should be an impartial umpire, not a player in the game. A Justice must give everyone equal treatment under the law. Sotomayor’s words lead us to doubt her ability to rise to this standard. At a Duke University panel discussion held in February 2005, she declared, “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.” To complete the analogy, we fear Sotomayor may be closer to a ball player than to an umpire.
President Obama declared that one of his primary considerations for Supreme Court nominees is “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.” Clearly, this is a quality found in the statements of Judge Sotomayor. Empathy, however, while a laudable goal, is an empty standard, unless it is directed by underlining philosophy or ideology.
Finally, we take issue with the judicial record embodied in a number of the controversial, unorthodox and, consequently, often overturned decisions, issued by Judge Sotomayor. For one example, consider Judge Sotomayor’s decision in Ricci v. DsStefano, which was recently overturned by the Supreme Court. In it, Judge Sotomayor, along with two other judges, threw out the results of race-neutral fire departments promotional exams because they did not yield enough high scores from African-American firefighters. As Clinton appointee Judge José Cabranes noted with some frustration, Judge Sotomayor's “empathy” with New Haven's position was so relentless that she took unprecedented procedural steps to bury the claims of the firefighters. Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s judicial record is one which truly expresses her consistent desire to promote and express personal opinions on matters of policy, while ignoring fundamental legal principles and traditional judicial impartiality – hallmarks of a well-qualified American jurist.
We, in the tradition of Lady Justice, believe that justice should be blind. Unfortunately, the evidence suggests that Judge Sotomayor does not hold this belief. For this reason, therefore, we oppose her nomination to the Supreme Court of the United States.