Obama’s Poor SCOTUS Pick

3 June 2009

–by Mike Murray

It is incomprehensible that a Harvard-educated attorney such as Barack Obama – one who claims a keen awareness of Constitutional law – would select for the High Court a person dismissive of its commanding tenets. But that is precisely what President Obama has done in nominating Sonia Sotomayor to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Recall that Sotomayor has claimed, within the context of a (supposedly) scholarly panel discussion, that a “court of appeals is where policy is made.” Sure, she immediately edited herself – with a jovial wink and nod to those assembled that indicated: “Yes, I know that judges don’t technically enact laws or establish policy. But we all recognize our power to trump, to ‘overrule’ other branches of government.”

Stunning.

And then there is this statement, issued by Sotomayor in 2001: “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.”

Sotomayor’s defenders claim that the contention makes sense when taken “in context.” Nonsense. Sotomayor’s assertion was issued as pointed rebuttal to this comment, made by Justice Sandra Day O’Connor : “At the end of the day, a wise old man and a wise old woman reach the same judgment.”

There can be no doubt about Sotomayor’s intention. She was emphatically disagreeing with Justice O’Connor; she was forcefully asserting her belief that jurists’ relative abilities to reach reasonable conclusions are inherently dependent upon race, ethnicity, and gender.

Sotomayor flunks – spectacularly – two key suitability tests for judicial service:

1) Knowledge of (and fidelity to) the Constitutional boundaries of court authority. A person such as she, one so obviously disdainful of the checks and balances integral to America’s form of governance, is wholly unfit for office. Given her public remarks on the subject (imagine her private ones), Sotomayor demonstrates an alarming disregard for judicial constraint.

2) Impartiality. Judge Sotomayor’s bias regarding (what she imagines to be) a collective lack of “richness” of experience among people of a specific race and gender is nearly beyond belief. It speaks poorly for America that a person who entertains such stereotypical notions sits in judgment anywhere; it is an absolute travesty that its president has declared her worthy of the highest court in the land.

Sonia Sotomayor reflects the very worst in jurisprudence. She displays an alarming disregard for the limits on legal authority, and she demonstrates personal prejudice. (It should come as no surprise that her rulings are often overturned on appeal.)

Any judge who even hints that it is appropriate to establish “policy” from the bench should be reprimanded. And any jurist who proffers preconceived notions about factors such as race and gender – and who indicates that rulings should be empathetically influenced by them – should be impeached.

Instead, Sotomayor will likely be confirmed as the next member of the U.S. Supreme Court. An overwhelming Democratic majority in Congress (coupled with a lap-dog press corps) makes her confirmation all but inevitable.

President Obama has made a poor decision in selecting Sonia Sotomayor for the highest court in the land. And American jurisprudence will likely be the poorer for it.

Berea Pundit