Judging the Judge: Sonia Sotomayor Nominated to High Court

President Barack Obama has nominated Judge Sonia Sotomyor, of the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, to be the first Latina (if confirmed) to serve on the bench of the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS). She may have led a life that relates to the image of what is the American dream of coming from nearly nothing to being one step from one of (if not the) most prominent position in the country. However, her qualities as a Second Circuit judge might be a hinderance to her qualifications. While she most likely will and probably should be confirmed to the court, there are issues that I feel that the Judge should respond to and explain. Let me point out what I feel should be answered:

1. IDENTITY POLITICS - “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion [as a judge] than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.” — Judge Sonia Sotomayor, in her Judge Mario G. Olmos Law and Cultural Diversity Lecture at the University of California (Berkeley) School of Law in 2001

Judge Sotomayor by this type of thinking is linking herself with the wing of the Democratic party that subscribes to the ideas of identity politics. This is typical of the type of reverse racism that may have led to her decision in the Ricci v. Destefano case. Rather than looking into the constitutional issues that were raised in Ricci, Sotomayor may have used her personal beliefs to in essence reversely descriminiate against white firefighters. I think the Judge has to answer to questions over how her racial identity or beliefs will play into her decision making. This is not because she is hispanic (I myself am hispanic) … it is because she has said statements like this. I would question a white male nominee who said he might make a better decision than that of a latina, or a black person. Statements like these should be questioned no matter who says them. It shows at least some level of racial bias, and that does not belong on the high court.

2. IMPARTIALITY - Sotomayor also referred to the cardinal duty of judges to be impartial as a mere “aspiration because it denies the fact that we are by our experiences making different choices than others.” And she suggested that “inherent physiological or cultural differences” may help explain why “our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging.”

Watching the White House staff and pundits talk about Sotomayor, we see that those who wish to see her swifty and easily confirmed constantly want to move away from criticism and talk about Sotomayor’s background of growing up in the Bronx and her education at Princeton and Yale Law. Supreme Court Justices are supposed to uphold the law, interpret the Constitution and its overall and general original intent. What is her position on the interpretation of the Constitution.

3. JUDICIAL ACTIVISM – In a video, Sotomayor says, “All of the legal defense funds out there, they’re looking for people with court of appeals experience because it is…court of appeals is where policy is made…and I know, and I know this is on tape and I should never say that because we don’t make law I know [audience laughter] … um, I, okay, I know, I know….I’m not promoting it, I’m not advocating it, I’m, [audience laughter] you know [Sotomayor laughter] okay.”

Does she really believe that the Court of Appeals is where policy should be made? What then is the purpose of the Congress or government all together. She knew that her comment was wrong (I will post the video later) because she turns to others and says that she shouldn’t say it and finds it funny. She needs to account for that, because again, the Supreme Court is not supposed to legislate or make policy, it is supposed to interpret the Constitution. There is no place for judicial activism, perhaps this is why 90% of Sotomayor’s cases that have come before the Supreme Court have been overturned. Perhaps it is because she doesn’t have a good grasp of what legal interpretation should be. Perhaps its because she has been too much of an activist, and attempting to make policy. She needs to answer questions on this.

Soon, I will post and comment on some of her more notable cases and reversals. Sotomayor may have the credentials on paper, but other statements and actions might actually disqualify her. Stay tuned.

Breaking: Two Withdraw Because of Tax Issues

Today, two nominees to serve in the Obama Administration have withdrawn their nominations because of tax related issues. Those two were: former Sen. Tom Daschle withdrawing his nomination to be Health and Human Services Secretary (also nominated to be W.H. health czar) and the nominee to be the first Chief Performance Officer Nancy Killefer (also nominated for deputy director of management at the Office of Management and Budget). This appears to be a break down in the vetting process that was used by the Obama Administration in naming nominees for these positions. Let’s break down the issues each of these nominees had against them that led to this duo of withdrawls today.

This from the Associated Press:

Daschle, the former Senate Democratic leader and a strong backer of Obama’s presidential bid, said he would have been unable to operate “with the full faith of Congress and the American people. … I am not that leader, and will not be a distraction” to Obama’s agenda, he said.

Obama had given Daschle two jobs — to be White House health czar on top of the post leading the Health and Human Services Department — and Daschle is relinquishing the czar post too.

So the ammount of money that Daschle “inadvertently” didn’t pay to the IRS (between 2005-2007) was $128,203 and $11,964 in interest for a grand total of $140,167. But the tax issue is not the only one that hounded Daschle on the Hill, it was also questions about his relation to special interests in the health field. There were question about speaking fees from those interests and advice he gave to health insurers and hospitals that may have lobbied the government. These two issues fly in the face of the new ethical era that Obama claimed he was bringing to Washington. The nomination and confirmation of Timothy Geithner also is a fly in the ointment of this new ethical era Obama announced. He was dodging taxes that regular Americans are always held accountable for. Both Geithner and Daschle paid up either right before or after their nominations were announced. So they knew what they were doing or had done was wrong and knew it would be an issue. Would they have paid up if they were not being nominated to these posts? It seems Dems are fine with higher taxes for everyone because they don’t pay them anyway (and that isn’t a statement about Democrats as a whole or collective, just on these high profile folks that have had sunlight shined on their actions).

Nancy Killefer’s issue wasn’t as huge as Daschle or Geithner’s. In 2005 the District of Columbia placed a $964.69 tax lien on Killefer’s DC home because of her failure to pay unemployment compensation taxes for household help (two nannies and a personal assistant). And even though this is not to the level of Daschle and Geithner, Killefer felt it would be a distraction. And to be honest it would. Regardless of the ammount of taxes that haven’t been paid, Killefer was to oversee government spending and effectivness of government agencies, as well as deputy director of management at OMB. She obviously couldn’t manage her own household budget and tax issues.

This is a quick Welcome to Washington Mr. President. If you set the bar really high … be prepared to meet it because you will be called out on it.