Is Sotomayor Good Enough for the Supreme Court?
Posted by Andrew L. on 06.16.2009
A brief look at the major qualifications to sit on the Supreme Court
With her confirmation hearings less than a month away, there has yet to be a lot of dirt digging on Sonia Sotomayor. This seems partially due to there not being a whole lot of juicy cases and decisions. The best the news and/or Republicans have done is try and paint her as a racist; a charge which is ridiculous upon its face for anyone familiar with the definition of the word. Now, with Republicans potentially girding for battle, let's take a Lunatic's look at the Supreme Court and the qualifications to sit on it.
I don't know much about Sonia Sotomayor as a judge or person. From what I have read she's considered firmly on the liberal side of the judicial aisle, but not so much so as to be considered radical. Some say since she's replacing the liberal David Souter, the GOP should just let this appointment slide. Republicans so far just seem to be beating the typical party line with regards to "activist" judges and original intent.
As far as the qualifications to sit on the Supreme Court, I think the first most important question is "Can you read and understand the English language?" I don't say this to make a point of Sotomayor's ethnicity. I would apply this to any potential justice. Words have meaning. While there is plenty in the Constitution that is ambiguous, there are specific sections that are clear, concise, and not open to interpretation by people who can read and understand English. Yet, despite this, both conservative and liberal justices like to read all sorts of things into sentences and statements that are not there.
"Shall not be infringed". "make no law". "shall not be construed". These phrases are not ambiguous or open to interpretation. They are clear, concise statements which explicitly lay out limits upon what the government may do. Yet Justices have consistently read exceptions into these statements. The FCC should simply not exist. "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press." Yet, the Supreme Court has ruled that the government's efforts to silence dissent during major periods of war and the ability of the government to regulate the so-called "public airwaves" are somehow consistent with the First Amendment.
The ability to read and understand English I think is a key requirement for any prospective Supreme Court Justice. I also think, instead of asking questions on hot button issues like abortion, affirmative action, gun control or any other red herring issues, the line of questioning should run much more fundamentally. I would love to see a nominee questioned at length about their views of the meaning and scope of the 9th and 10th Amendments. For if these were followed, many of the hot button issues would be moot point.
The Constitution was not written so only lawyers, judges, and politicians could interpret it. It was written so the People could understand it. Just because some person has a law degree and likes to wear a black robe, does not suddenly gift them with some miraculous understanding of the Constitution that the common person lacks. The Constitution wasn't written in legalese; it was written in plain English.
So, given what I have read of Sotomayor so far, she should be denied a seat on the Supreme Court because I believe she would be someone to continue the trend of reading government powers or limitations on the people's rights into sections of the Constitution that are not ambiguous nor difficult to understand.
Of course, that will never happen, and I predict her nomination will sail through the Senate, with only the briefest squeaking from the Republicans. Overall nothing much will change with the Court. In the long term, it is impossible to decide how Sotomayor may affect the court. Souter was thought to be a solid middle of the road conservative choice, and look how he turned out.
How could any politico possibly vote against a female minority? Bothering me is she said "there is clearly no fundamental right to own a gun" - that is pretty plain English. So she stands against the 2nd amendment. She said "the 2nd amendment does not apply to the States". That's pretty clear plain English. She is liberal and FOR individual rights? Maybe her views are colored (?) by being brought up and served in NY.
Posted By: guest (Guest) on June 15, 2009 at 08:56 PM
Actually her view that the 2nd Amendment does not apply to the States is entirely within proper Constitutional grounds. The Bill of Rights, indeed all of the Constitution, where it does not discuss the States directly, indeed, only applies to the federal government.
To argue gun rights against a State, one must use the State Constitution. Although some could say that the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment applies the amendments to the states.
Posted By: Andrew LeCren (Registered) on June 15, 2009 at 11:59 PM
What could be wrong with a women who is superior becuase of her race and wants to take away gun ownership?All hail the exalted one!!!!!!!!!!
Posted By: Joy Behar (Guest) on June 16, 2009 at 12:12 AM
There's no doubt she's racist, and anti-2nd Amendment. But it's ok...she's a liberal. Just like Obama, no tough questions will be asked.
Posted By: Guest#3003 (Guest) on June 16, 2009 at 12:24 AM
Doesn't matter if she doesn't support 2nd Amendment. This current court has already put the issue to bed.
Actually, Andrew, studying the law and the Constitution does give them a better understanding of the law and the Constitution. That's why their required to do it.
Strict constructionists tend not to believe the meaning of words change over time. Some of the pieces you quote are clear, but words like 'speech' and 'press' are fluid terms that change (and have changed) over of time. Would you have us go back to black folks being 3/5 of a person?
Posted By: The Omen (Registered) on June 16, 2009 at 12:48 AM
Definition of a racism and racist from m-w.com:
racism (n.) 1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
racist (n.) 1. a person with a prejudiced belief that one race is superior to others
"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."
"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 simply do not know exactly what that difference will be in my judging. But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage."
Personally, I don't think she's a racist, just obsessed with race and gender, but there's wiggle room between her comments and those definitions you dismissed.
Posted By: Guest#0266 (Guest) on June 16, 2009 at 01:07 AM
yes this court may have already put the 2nd amenedment issue to bed, but u still have cities like chicago, and dc, who despite having there anit-gun restirction, ruled unconstituinoal, the city council decided to pass even a stricter gun law which is even more restrictive.
plus her ruling aginst riccio and the other 19 firefighters will probably be overttuned, but it's ok to be racsict, becuase she is a liberal, yet if u speak out against obama, on any issue your branded racist
Posted By: coby preimesberger (Guest) on June 16, 2009 at 02:08 AM
...I bet you are a conservative. Conservatives have always been obstructionist of change. If conservatives actually knew anything about evolution (as they tend not to do), they realize that change is a requirement for continued survival. >__>
Posted By: David (Guest) on June 16, 2009 at 04:55 AM
Democrats:
IT'S NOT RACIST IF IT'S ANTI-WHITE!
Gotta love it.... self-hating white people on a quest of political self-destruction and the minority groups, who are no longer minority groups, just helping them along the way.
Meanwhile, if you are WHITE and PROUD you can not say it without being called a racist... though if you dodge the word "white" and say have IRISH PRIDE or ITALIAN PRIDE then you can get around it.
Oh, and I didn't know Sotomayer was THAT retarded on the 2nd... it's pretty damn clear that the founding fathers intended for every adult to be at least ALLOWED to purchase firearms (and yes, that would include handguns), because the founding fathers, no matter how you try to paint them as "slave owning bigots", were absolutely ANTI-FASCIST, but our government now is PRO-FASCIST in a SUBTLE way.
Americans are always willing to give away a little more freedom for a little more security until America 2001-2009 (Bush AND Obama) is more like a Stalinist nation than the former republic it once was.
If you really still think campaign contributions and cigarette warnings are the extent of corruption in this government you need to wake up.
It's not the liberals, it's not the conservatives, it's all of them: the whole system is broken and designed only to perpetuate itself.
Posted By: KM (Guest) on June 16, 2009 at 09:06 AM
"So, given what I have read of Sotomayor so far, she should be denied a seat on the Supreme Court because I believe she would be someone to continue the trend of reading government powers or limitations on the people's rights into sections of the Constitution that are not ambiguous nor difficult to understand."
Please cite your sources. Which rulings or writings are you referring to? Are you referencing commentaries or her actual decisions?
I ask because you preface the column by saying you don't know much about her, then proceed to say she's not qualified. How much do you know about her and where is your information coming from?
Posted By: GaryML (Guest) on June 16, 2009 at 09:44 AM
'...I bet you are a conservative. Conservatives have always been obstructionist of change. If conservatives actually knew anything about evolution (as they tend not to do), they realize that change is a requirement for continued survival'
And changing things for the sake of changing them is not proper evolution. Evolution occurs when change is necessary for the survival of the species, not just so that the animal can feel good about itself for 'bettering' itself.
Posted By: The Man (Guest) on June 16, 2009 at 10:04 AM
Strict constructionists tend not to believe the meaning of words change over time. Some of the pieces you quote are clear, but words like 'speech' and 'press' are fluid terms that change (and have changed) over of time. Would you have us go back to black folks being 3/5 of a person?
Posted By: The Omen (Registered) on June 16, 2009 at 12:48 AM
In general, a direct inference from the use of the words at the time they were written can be extrapolated to current day events/technologies.
For example, Scalia once said on the C-SPAN program "America and the Courts", that he thought wiretapping was perfectly fine because the 4th Amendment didn't specifically list telephone conversations. I think that's amazingly sophomoric for such a supposedly learned Justice.
The 4th Amendment explicitly lists out "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated . . ." That is a pretty all encompassing definition of the right for the time. While it doesn't list phone conversations (a technology that didn't exist), you can clearly see the intent of the amendment is to protect a person's right to not have the government go snooping around in their lives without just cause.
So, I still believe it doesn't take any great legal education to understand the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
Posted By: Andrew LeCren (Registered) on June 16, 2009 at 10:15 AM
"...I bet you are a conservative. Conservatives have always been obstructionist of change. If conservatives actually knew anything about evolution (as they tend not to do), they realize that change is a requirement for continued survival. >__>"
Posted By: David (Guest) on June 16, 2009 at 04:55 AM
What a pointless comment. Your opinion is that Conservatives have been obstructionists for change but you do not offer any actual examples. And what in the world does this have to do with the point of the article?
I understand that the meanings of words sometimes change over time, but "shall not be infringed", and "shall make no law" still means the same thing they meant 200 years ago. Now tell me how a Hispanic woman can do a "better" job than a white male of interpreting those words. Courts and judges do not make the law.
Posted By: Masked Defender (Guest) on June 16, 2009 at 10:17 AM
The author argues that abortion, affirmative action and gun control are "red herring" issues; a charge which is ridiculous upon its face for anyone familiar with the definition of the term. Wait, in the same sentence the issues mentioned are hot button issues.
Can a hot button be a red herring?
Is it possible to write about politics without the arrogant belittling of those whom which you disagree? If all the issues mentioned are not difficult to understand and easily adjudicated, why do they keep coming in front of the court?
Posted By: AdmChesterMynuts (Guest) on June 16, 2009 at 11:44 AM
Can we just accept the fact that living as a white man in the USA is, in general, extremely easy? It really is. So, why all the bitching?
Posted By: KanyonKreist (Guest) on June 16, 2009 at 03:55 PM
GaryML, my reaction to this article is the same as yours. Andrew, there seems to be a huge disconnect between what you think and what you wrote.
Posted By: Shockmaster (Guest) on June 16, 2009 at 05:21 PM
There's no doubt she's racist, and anti-2nd Amendment. But it's ok...she's a liberal. Just like Obama, no tough questions will be asked.
Posted By: Guest#3003 (Guest) on June 16, 2009 at 12:24 AM
Apparently this person missed the entirety of 2008. Never has a candidate been hammered soi hard, so frequently for not only theirselves, but their wife, their preacher, a guy they met like twice, their education, their first job, their heritage, and even hammered for their very ability to speak to a crowd.
Posted By: AdamS (Guest) on June 17, 2009 at 01:36 AM
Mr. L, please take a second to read this comment and hopefully improve your future work. Starting an article like this by saying you "don't know much about Sonia Sotomayor as a judge or person" is strike one. Most reasonable people will no longer listen to you because you admit you are unqualified to talk about the subject.
" I think the first most important question is "Can you read and understand the English language?"
The need to even type this question when looking at the qualifications of a potential Supreme Court Justicem (and a graduate of Yale Law School) makes you seem utterly ridiculous. If you're going to state the painfully obvious while being totally uninformed, maybe you should just keep your writing to yourself.
I could keep going, like when you said "many of the issues would be moot point" or how your second to last "paragraph" is really just a long run-on sentence, but I think I've made my point. You're embarrassing yourself.
Posted By: Scott (Guest) on June 17, 2009 at 12:12 PM
You do understand that statutes are frequently in contradiction or don't cover a specific situation right? Just because you can read one part of the Constitution one way doesn't mean you can read it so as to ignore another part. That's why things aren't so simple. Things are "read in" in order to keep any other part from being obsolete or meaningless. The prevailing belief is every part of a statute has meaning, so you can't read one part out of context, you're forced to read everything so every single word has meaning.
Obviously, you can see problems in this approach. Mostly because meanings change over time, things happen that can't be foreseen, or shoddy drafting. The Constitution is over 200 years old, it's obviously going to have problems. I'd like to think we're not as racist as we were back then, but nobody can deny that over 200 years ago, this country WAS racist and slavery existed so clearly a lot of the clauses were ignored. The founders were definitely racist as we take the meaning of the word now.
It will never happen, but re-writing the Constitution wouldn't be a bad idea. Actually, there's a method for that in the Constitution itself, it's just you can't set limits beforehand, so nobody wants to do it. The other method is to continue making amendments of course. A lot of countries re-write their constitutions. Some countries don't even have a written one, such as Britain iirc.
Posted By: Guest#3203 (Guest) on July 21, 2009 at 07:46 PM
STAY CURRENT