Supreme Qualification

Is Judge Sotomayor a qualified candidate for the Supreme Court, our highest and most esteemed court in the country? You have arguments on both sides for and against her. Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) has said, "There is a risk in anybody voting for anybody just because they’re a woman or because they are African-American or anything about that individual, You should vote for people based on their qualifications, and in case of the justice, their attitudes about the law, and their impartiality.” Remember Grassley voted against Sotomayor’s 1998 nomination to a federal appeals court but voted for Ruth Bader Ginsburg for the Supreme Court in 1993. He commented: "She is just going to look at the law, look at the narrow interpretation of the law, and leave personal bias out of it – that’s what I’ll be looking for. If she convinces me that she can't leave personal biases out of it … then I’m more apt to vote no."

Grassley is correct that personal bias has no room on the Supreme Court. We look up to this court to keep the laws of this land in check and to review them impartially. They have a heavy burden bestowed upon them and it is not a job I would care for. How well do these people sleep at night? Former Florida state House Speaker Marco Rubio, a Spanish speaker of Cuban descent, already has raised concerns about Sotomayor, calling some of her past comments “troubling,” and he could emerge as a high-profile Hispanic Republican critic of her nomination. Rubio from Miami, who's running in the Republican primary against Charlie Crist for U.S. Senate, made the following comment Tuesday: "The role of the Supreme Court is to interpret the Constitution, not to make law. Given this, I am deeply concerned about Judge Sotomayor's past comment that the courts are 'where policy is made' and look forward to hearing her explanation and defense of that view." Of course he only quoted part of her speech. She did say she was saying this jokingly.

Sotomayor, although an able lawyer, was “not that smart and kind of a bully on the bench,” as one former Second Circuit clerk for another judge put it. “She has an inflated opinion of herself, and is domineering during oral arguments, but her questions aren’t penetrating and don’t get to the heart of the issue.” Is this just idle talk or can this really be true of her. She is known to run on lengthily in her conversations and sometimes does not have open ears. As far as her political views, the liberals are banking she is far to the left, but she was appointed by a Conservative Republican President (Bush #1) to the Appeals Court.

Do the Democrats believe they have the market cornered on appointing an Hispanic to a high position in a Judicial Court? Do you remember Miguel Estrada? Estrada is a Latino. That the Republicans would raise him to one of the highest courts in the country proves that Latinos are welcome in the Republican Party too. They do not have to be beholden to Democrats. Sonia Sotomayor, used to serve on the board of LatinoJustice PRLDEF, which was one of the racial grievance groups that helped to put a stop to the judicial nomination of Honduran-born Miguel Estrada in 2003. Democrats in the Senate filibustered the nomination and a worn out Estrada withdrew from consideration in 2003.

Now LatinoJustice PRLDEF, hailed the nomination of Sotomayor on the basis of her ethno-cultural heritage. "As the second largest and fastest growing population in America, with a large pool of qualified individuals to choose from, it was wholly appropriate for the President to nominate a Hispanic." How contradictory.

Also, she actually would not be the first Hispanic to serve on the Supreme Court. Portuguese Jew - Benjamin Nathan Cardozo was a very well-known American lawyer and Supreme Court Justice. He is remembered for his significant influence on the development of American common law during the 20th century. Cardozo served on the Supreme Court from 1932 until his death.

Why do we need another Catholic on the court? Sotomayor went to Catholic schools and would be the sixth Catholic justice on the current Supreme Court. That is if she is, in fact, Catholic, which isn't clear from her biography. Why are so many Catholics appointed to the Supreme Court. We need a Baptist or Protestant to really ensure and more partial judgment.

The most controversial case in which Sotomayor participated is Ricci v. DeStefano, which is an important “reverse discrimination” case brought by a group of firefighters in New Haven, CT. This case is now being reviewed by the Supreme Court. Ricci v. DeStefano, presents recurring issues regarding proper application of Title VII and the Equal Protection Clause to the civil service. New Haven firefighters and lieutenants claim that they should have been promoted based on job-related examinations and merit selection rules mandated by local law. The City of New Haven has thus far refused because city officials believed that the examination and rules may have had a disparate impact on minorities, although testimony did not show this. A panel of judges including Sotomayor ruled against the firefighters in a perfunctory unpublished opinion. I don’t understand reverse discrimination. Discrimination is discrimination no matter who the party is that is being discriminated against. Reverse discrimination technically would be the elimination of discrimination. The Reverse of discriminating would be to not discriminate.

So back to the issue, is she a qualified candidate? She will be appointed, there is no question there. Only time will tell on what type of Justice she will become. It is not her voice alone that will make the decisions that confront this court, it is the opinion and interpretation of our constitution by the combined group of these nine esteemed judges that will determine our fate. Her voice will be but one that will be heard. Her opinion is but one explosion of thought!