Sotomayor a good choice?

Recently, the Chicago Tribune featured an article questioning Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s objectivity in regards to minority issues. Sotomayor, president Obama’s nomination for the Supreme Court, has caused many Americans concern due to her previous conduct in relation to issues dealing with race; many believe she is too radical. When I first heard that Obama had nominated a Hispanic woman for the Supreme Court, I was excited. I was a huge fan of Sandra Day O’Connor, thus, I am excited (from a women’s point of view) to have more female presence on the court. And the diversity she would bring, I thought, would be quite beneficial. However, recent reports have released quotes from various speeches she has given throughout her career; some of these excerpts, it would seem, appear to be very one-sided.

At some points in Sotomayor’s speeches I find her speaking from a more open-minded point of view focused on compromise. For example, in a speech given at Princeton in 1996 she said, “I underscore that in saying this, I am not promoting ethnic segregation. I am promoting just the opposite: an ethnic identity and pride which impels us to work with others in the larger society to achieve advancement for the people of our cultures.” I agree with this.

However, in a response to Sandra Day O’Connor’s comment that “a wise old man and a wise old woman reach the same conclusion”, Sotomayor said (at Seton Hall University law school in 2003): “I’m not so sure that I agree with the statement. I would hope a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would, more often than not, reach a better conclusion.”

Yes, it is true that a white man will have different life experiences than a Hispanic woman. However, saying that these experiences make one or the other more qualified, is quite frankly, ridiculous. Why should she assume that because her perspective may be different, her value in the judicial system is worth more? This sort of single-mindedness worries me. O’Connor, I believe, had it completely right. Above all, the Supreme Court should come together to rule on issues within our country, and not stand as a grouping of nine individuals in which we instill more “value” on some than others because of their race, ethnicity, gender, cultural background, ect. Yes, controversial cases have dissent among the justices because of differing opinions and backgrounds, but that is what makes the system fair; while each member may be different, the court serves as a sort of collective unit of wisdom. Wisdom itself is something that can be possessed by anyone; it is not something that is obtained by one culture over another, but rather, by acceptance. I would love to see the addition of a Hispanic woman to our Supreme Court, but I worry that her assumption of superiority over other members of the court demonstrates an example of disunity that should not be present within such a crucial area in our judicial system.