Will Sotomayor's Judicial Nomination Validate Discrimination?

Photos

Statue of Liberty - New York City (April 2009)

see larger image

uploaded by GiacomoRoma

• 

  uploaded by GiacomoRoma | add comment

• 

  uploaded by Pythiian1 | add comment

• 

  uploaded by Rhonda J Mangus | add comment

• 

  uploaded by Barry Artiste | add comment

Sonia Sotomayor is facing scrutiny over her possible appointment to the U.S. Supreme Court.  Supreme Court Judges serve life-time terms and never have to go up for reelection; therefore, they wield considerable power in addition to being on the highest panel of judges in the land.  This makes each and every such appointment a potential firestorm of controversy between opposing political factions in American politics. 

This present one pits the liberals versus the conservatives, or so we are apt to believe based on the great media hype surrounding her potential confirmation, but is that really true?  Is it even necessary?  Is it simply the media's way of increasing ratings and public interest in their news broadcasts?  The answer may be a resounding yes, but not always as people might think.

Ms. Sotomayor's nomination is indeed questionable, but it is wrapped in political intrigue as well.  The opposing factions know quite well what it all means even if the American public does not.  You see, both parties covet power.  It is doubtful they fight and covet power for the people's sake, mind you : they appear to evidently covet power for their own sakes, otherwise  wouldn't they be able to come to more sensible terms on a great majority of issues rather than  constantly brawling like pit bulls or like roosters in a cock-fight.  There are, after all, such things as conservative Democrats and liberal Republicans.  Somewhere...there is a middle road -- a road where, contrary to what the media would lead us to believe, the majority of Americans often prefer to travel.      

In this case, however, that middle road has hit a bump, and that bump is history -- Sonia Sotomayor's history.  Her history as a judge has shown some problems of mixing her public life with her private life, and you can't always do that in some jobs, and especially not if you are a judge.  No, judges are not only supposed to be of impeccable character, they must also do their part in our unique system of government in which there are the proverbial "checks and balances" orchestrated by the nation's founding fathers to keep tyranny at bay.  It helps keep any one part of the Federal government from becoming too powerful on it's own.  This is a very important safeguard maintaining freedom for the individual.  This is what Ms. Sotomayor's nomination has bumped up against, not merely a political party nor merely a conflict or disparity between rival factions.  She has snagged her gown on the intent of the nation's founders, whatever her qualifications may or may not be.      

To be a judge is synonymous with "fairness", or at least it should be.  A judge needs to be unbiased in order to render judgements which the people can respect and abide by so as to continue to satisfy people's yearning for justice and willingness to abide peacably in the land.  Look at the nations with the most unfairness, and you will likely find major problems or even civil war.  Sonia Sotomayor has shown tendencies to pass judgements based not on the Law, which it is her duty to merely interpret, but rather she has evidently taken it upon herself to pass judgement based on her own opinion, desires and political doctrines.  If she were a columnist at a newspaper that would be fine, but not in a life-time appointment on our highest Court.  People must know their case will be decided with integrity, not with a political agenda in mind.  How would you like it if your fate was before someone who had already decided against you based on your gender, age, color, etc.?  How would it affect your satisfaction with the final result? 

Now, back to the power thing.  The Democrats knew when they nominated her that they were nominating both a woman and a latino.  There are many other judges they could have nominated, right?  So, why her : was she the best candidate?  I doubt it, considering this present controversy, as there are likely many suitable judges of various ethnicities and genders whom they could have nominated.  The Democrats wanted a controversy, and they wanted a fight.  It is a way to gain more power -- a way to sway the minorities in the U.S. into affiliating with the Democratic party while villifying the Republican Party : Sotomayor is simply a pawn faced with her "chance of a lifetime".  The Republicans must tread lightly for fear of losing potential voters after already taking a beating in the last election.  Therefore, as odd as it may be, the Democrats must choose to uphold democracy in America and overturn their own nominee, for the sake of peace.  You cannot have peace in America based on prejudicial judgement.  You cannot have peace with everyone wondering will their case be treated fairly or not.  You cannot have peace with resentment due to bias in one direction or the other, and you cannot have peace while thinking, "Will she help me win by being biased or will she make me lose by being so careful to not be biased this time like she was the time before."  Gambling with our lives, bias, and private agendas is not sound judgement, and the time for deciding whether any judge will be good in a lifetime appointment is not "after the fact".  Would a sane government hand over its leadership to a known dictator because he promised to do better the next time?  No.  So is the case, here. 

The time for testing her soundness is not in the future, but in her past.  Therefore, it seems to be in the best interest of ALL Americans that Ms. Sotomayor not be appointed to a position on the U.S. Supreme Court.  In fact, she ought to recuse herself and withdraw her nomination, personally, to prevent such a possibility... for the sake of the American people's faith in their highest court.  The American people are not to be mere pawns for politicians' games of power.  We deserve better respect than that.  Let us have fair judges based on their best credentials, objectivity and case-histories.   If that judge turns out to be a minority, then it will be no problem, so long as we all may know that we will be treated with respect and fairness.