Wednesday, June 3, 2009

Could Abortion Doctor's Murder Become an Issue in Sotomayor's Confirmation Process?

Could Abortion Doctor's Murder Become an Issue in Sotomayor's Confirmation Process?
Posted by Frank Smith at 3.6.09

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

"I have a dream: that my four little children will one day live
in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their
skin, but by the content of their character."
- Dr. Martin Luther King

Can you imagine if the President of the United States nominated a judge to the U.S. Supreme Court who said this:

"My experience as a white man will make me a better judge than a Latina woman would be."

Or could you imagine if that same judge ruled from the bench to deny 18 African-American firefighters a promotion just because of their skin color?

That judge would be called a bigot -- and in my judgment, rightly so! Would there be any doubt that he would be FORCED to WITHDRAW his nomination for the Supreme Court?

None.

There are only two options for how we govern ourselves – by laws, or by the will of those in power. The rule of law represents objective, dispassionate knowable standards that are applied and enforced equally to all citizens regardless of their background.

The will of those in power represents subjective, fleeting standards that are never fully known by any and are applied purely to satisfy the wishes of a small, concentrated group in power.

True justice is blind. It does not consider one's religion, wealth, race or in this case sex, family origin and ethnicity. To do so would be unjust.

To put someone on our nation's highest court who believes these traits should be considered in cases before the court, would be wrong.

Judge Sonia Sotomayor has proven, by her own admission, that she is such a judge. Knowing this, President Obama should withdraw her nomination to the Supreme Court.

Consider what Judge Sotomayor said about how her being a Latina woman will affect her decisions as a judge:

"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."

You read that right -- Judge Sotomayor said that her experience as a person of a particular sex and ethnic background will make her a better judge than a person of another sex and a different ethnic background!

When did that view become acceptable?

If Civil War, suffrage, and Civil Rights are to mean anything, we cannot accept that conclusion. It is simply un-American. There is no room on the bench of the United States Supreme Court for this worldview.

The checks and balances between the three branches of government are designed to prevent any small faction of society from exerting undue influence over the rest of us. If President Obama will not withdraw his nomination, then the Senate has a duty to ensure that judges with who hold these beliefs are not confirmed to serve on the Supreme Court.

June 3, 2009 at 1:18 PM
Anonymous said...

The Central Question: Is American Justice No Longer Blindfolded?
The fundamental issue at stake in the Sotomayor discussion or nomination is not her background or her gender but an issue that has implications far beyond this judge and this nomination: Is judicial impartiality no longer a quality we can and should demand from our Supreme Court Justices?

President Obama apparently thinks so. Other presidents, Republican and Democrat, have considered race and gender in making judicial appointments in the past. But none have explicitly advocated the notion that judges should substitute their personal experiences for impartiality in deciding cases. And certainly none have asserted that their ethnicity, race or gender would make them a better judge over a judge from a different background.

Here is how President Obama explained his criteria for appointing judges earlier this year:

"We need somebody who's got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom, the empathy to understand what it's like to be poor or African-American or gay or disabled or old - and that's the criterion by which I'll be selecting my judges."
No Group Has Benefited More From Impartial Justice Than the Less Fortunate
With these words, President Obama is cleverly inviting his critics to come out swinging against empathy for the less fortunate among us. But Americans are smarter than this.

We understand that the job of a justice is to enforce the law, not the rule of empathy. And we understand that when a judge substitutes his or her personal experiences for the law, the law becomes what he or she wants it to be, not what the people, through their elected representatives, have decided it should be.

Most tragically, it is this principle of judicial impartiality - of justice, not just for the rich and the powerful, but for all - that has most benefited the vulnerable and the downtrodden in America.

No group has needed or continues to need justice - that can't be predetermined by wealth or privilege - as much as the less privileged. President Obama doesn't seem to grasp that, by weakening judges' adherence to the rule of law, he is also weakening the very foundation of equal justice for the less fortunate Americans he wants to help.
The "Court of Appeals is Where Policy Is Made"

June 3, 2009 at 2:22 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Web Tracking
Online Florist