My Thoughts on Sotomayor

Although picking Supreme Court judges based on their race, sex, and life story is a route to go, I don't think it is the best way to choose those people who sit at the top of our judicial branch. The Supreme Court is the unit of government that specializes in interpretation of the law and the Constitution, trying to discover if the laws and actions of our government conform to the accepted and legitimate supreme law of the land, the Constitution.

I myself dislike the idea of thinking of the Constitution as a 'living document'- what makes it legitimate is that it was voted on and accepted as it was by our ancestors, not as it was going to be- but even if you are partial to that mode of thinking, you should still be picking judges who can best investigate the growth and changes in the Constitution, not race, sex, or compelling life story. Those by no means disqualify you, but there are other factors to consider.

One is how frequently your decisions, which you have reached after careful consideration and deep thought, are upheld. If your best decisions and your best actions are frequently judged by others to be incorrect, poorly thought out, and bad decisions and actions, then that reflects poorly on you. Your best is being rejected as not good enough, and only the best should be on the Supreme Court, because there is no court higher than that one to correct your mistakes and bad calls.

On this issue Democrat President Obama's nominee Judge Sonia Sotomayor has been reversed 60% of the time by the Supreme Court. 5 of her decisions were worded poorly and decided poorly enough that the Supreme Court was forced to spend their precious time going over her work, and after review, the Supreme Court was forced to sigh in annoyance and overrule her decisions 3 times. From what I have read, that is a high ratio of reconsideration and a high ratio of overturns for a circuit court judge, and that ratio is about to get worse as yet another high profile decision that Sotomayor wrote is about to be taken up by the High Court and overturned in the next month or so.

Another problem that I see with Sotomayor is what lawyers who argue in front of her write about her. Democrats freaked out and were hysterically upset about Justice Alito when he was nominated, and many Democrats voted against him after careful consideration of his record. Although pointing out that Democrats and liberals are total hypocrites is too easy, I think we need to compare what lawyers said about one in order to evaluate the other.

The "lawyers' evaluation" of Judge Alito that appeared in the Almanac of the Federal Judiciary:

Lawyers interviewed praised Alito's legal acumen. "He is exceptional." "He has brilliant ability." Alito is measured and judicial on the bench, according to lawyers. "He has a fine, nice demeanor--he couldn't have keener demeanor." "He is extremely polite and genteel." Alito is normally a moderately ctive panelist during oral argument, said attorneys. "He is fairly active and asks penetrating questions. Questions can be factual or hypothetical in nature." "He is active. He asks intricate questions, both factual and legal. His legal questions often grasp upon the intricacies of the law that you haven't grasped; it's often in your favor." Attorneys remarked that Alito has exceptional writing ability and uthors succinct, but thorough opinions. "His opinions are very detailed, analytical and thorough. His judgment is quite considered." "He is pretty good in terms of his writing."

For comparison, here is the "lawyers' evaluation" of Judge Sotomayor that appears in the Almanac of the Federal Judiciary:

Most lawyers interviewed said Sotomayor has good legal ability. "She is very good. She is bright." "She is a good judge." "She is very smart." "She is a good judge, but not quite as smart as she thinks she is." Sotomayor can be tough on lawyers, according to those interviewed. "She is a terror on the bench." "She is very outspoken." "She can be difficult." "She is temperamental and excitable. She seems angry." Lawyers said Sotomayor is very active and well-prepared at oral argument. "She is engaged in oral argument. She is well-prepared." "She participates actively in oral argument. She is extremely hard working and always prepared." "She dominates oral argument. She will cut you off and cross examine you." Lawyers interviewed said Sotomayor writes good opinions. "Her opinions are O.K, by and large." "She writes very clear and careful prose in her opinions." "Her writing is good." "Her writing is not distinguished, but is perfectly competent."

So, after comparing those two evaluations, I have to come to the conclusion that as a whole, Sotomayor is a competent judge who is okay to good. Is that really the best judge that Obama could come up with? Why would he decide to change the court by nominating an okay judge with a poor track record of being overturned?

Here is my theory. She is Hispanic, and Obama likes to play games with race and try to increase his political power by twisting and capitalizing on racist views. She is a women, and Obama feels that by nominating a women because she is a women he will be demonstrating that he does not discriminate. From the evaluations above, I think that Sotomayor is an angry women who has a bone to pick with the world- just like I think that Obama and his wife are angry people who have a bone to pick with the world (they sat in a church for most of their lives where they ate up this message).

Finally, Sotomayor has racist views- she feels that because of her race that she has certain advantages that others do not, that her race has made her different from other people, and Obama likes this, since he himself thinks the same way (for example, his pastor frequently said that blacks were inherently better at rap because of the color of their skin).

For these reasons, as a Senator, I would submit her fully to questioning to decide if she really does believe those statements of hers and if she is indeed a competent judge. Her race, sex, and compelling life story would play no role in my considerations.