Your Honor, I object (to you)

Judge Sonia Sotomayor of the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals is the wrong person for the Supreme Court. It has nothing to do with her being a woman or a Latina; it has everything to do with her views, her ability to uphold the Oath of Office she would be required to take, and her judicial temperament. Let's look at each in turn.

Her Views

Let's tackle the most talked-about issue first: her racist and sexist statements about the quality of judgements she makes relative to those of white male judges. In at least 7 seperate speeches between 1994 and 2003, she asserted that a Latina woman (or just a wise woman) with her experience would make better judgements than white males who lacked that kind of life experience. I fail to see how life experience plays a role in interpreting the law; now, if you are CREATING law, I could see how it could make a difference.

Her rascism becomes even more apparent in her ruling against the New Haven 20. In New Haven, CT, the city arbitrarily decided to throw out the results of their carefully-crafted, race-neutral firefighters promotion exam when almost all of the top scorers turned out to be white. The case was thrown out by a local judge but then appealed to the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals. Judge Sotomayor was one of three judges that heard the case. She voted to deny their case, despite the fact that the vacancies for Captain and Lieutenant were temporarily being filled, in some cases, by firefighters who had actually FAILED the exam. That case is on appeal to the US Supreme Court and could be heard later this year.

A panel including Sotomayor ruled against the firefighters in a perfunctory unpublished opinion. This provoked Judge Cabranes, a fellow Clinton appointee, to object to the panel's opinion that contained "no reference whatsoever to the constitutional issues at the core of this case." (The extent of Sotomayor's involvement in the opinion itself is not publicly known.)

She has also shown a willingness to rule against 2nd Ammendment rights. In US vs. Sanchez-Villar in 2004, Sotomayor wrote, "the right to posses a gun is clearly not a fundamental right."

Then, in January of this year she concurred with a judicial panel in Maloney v. Cuomo that the Second Amendment “imposes a limitation on only federal, not state, legislative efforts.” This sentence is not only unnecessary to the overall opinion, but also seems to ignore the Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Heller – outlawing many local gun bans as unconstitutional.

She has also had her decisions reversed by the US Supreme Court in 60% of the cases they have reviewed. If they decided to hear and overturn her on the New Haven 20, that will bring her record up to 67%.

The Oath of Office

According to Title 28, Chapter I, Part 453 of the United States Code, each Supreme Court Justice takes the following oath:

"I, [NAME], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as [TITLE] under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God."

Can Sotomayor fulfill this oath? Not if you believe the opinions of some of the clerks and lawyers who worked with/in front of her. For example:

Michael Bachner, a New York defense lawyer who has handled trials and appeals before Judge Sotomayor, senses a divide in her criminal jurisprudence. She can be "very tough" on white-collar defendants from privileged backgrounds, but is "more understanding of individuals who grew up in a tougher circumstance."

So much for the "do equal right to the poor and to the rich," not to mention the "equal protection under the law" clause of the 14th Ammendment of the Constitution. Also, in a 2005 speech at Duke University, she stated that the Court of Appeals is where policy is made. Not exactly in line with performing all the duties incumbent upon her as a Justice under the Constitution.

Judicial Temperament

Writing in The New Republic, Jeffrey Rosen talks about the people who he interviewed about Sotomayor:

The most consistent concern was that 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." (During one argument, an elderly judicial colleague is said to have leaned over and said, "Will you please stop talking and let them talk?")...Her opinions, although competent, are viewed by former prosecutors as not especially clean or tight, and sometimes miss the forest for the trees...Some former clerks and prosecutors expressed concerns about her command of technical legal details: In 2001, for example, a conservative colleague, Ralph Winter, included an unusual footnote in a case suggesting that an earlier opinion by Sotomayor might have inadvertently misstated the law in a way that misled litigants.

Conclusion

Overall, I think that Sonia Sotomayor is not a suitable choice for the US Supreme Court. Although she will likely be confirmed by the Senate, I do not think she can objectively evaluate cases, get to the heart of the legal issues, and interpret the law in a consistant and impartial manner. I do not expect President Obama to ever select a judge whose views I agree with; however, I would like him to pick the best person for the job, not the one that matches his desired racial/gender profile.