[Peace-discuss] Sotomayor confirmed, so what?

[Brussel Morton K.]

Here are the thoughts of Bill Blum on the Sotomayor story:

Supreme nonsense

Senate hearings to question a nominee for the Supreme Court are a  
supreme bore. The sine qua non for President Obama choosing Sonia  
Sotomayor appears to be that she's a woman with a Hispanic background.  
A LATINA! How often that word was used by her supporters. She would be  
the first LATINA on the Supreme Court! Dios mio!

Who gives a damn? All anyone should care about are her social and  
political opinions. Justice Clarence Thomas is a black man. A BLACK  
MAN! And he's as conservative as they come.

Supreme Court nominees, of all political stripes, typically feel  
obliged to pretend that their social and political leanings don't  
enter into their judicial opinions. But everyone knows this is  
rubbish. During her Senate hearing, Sotomayor declared: "It's not the  
heart that compels conclusions in cases. It's the law."

The former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Charles Evans Hughes,  
would not agree with her. "At the constitutional level where we work,"  
he said, "ninety percent of any decision is emotional. The rational  
part of us supplies the reasons for supporting our predilections."9

By Sotomayor's own account, which echos news reports, she was not  
asked about her position on abortion by either President Obama or his  
staff. But what if she is actually anti-abortion? What if she turns  
out to be the swing vote that overturns Roe vs. Wade?

What if she's a proud admirer of the American Empire and its perpetual  
wars? American dissidents, civilian and military, may depend on her  
vote for their freedom from imprisonment.

What does she think about the "War on Terror"? The civil liberties and  
freedom from torture of various Americans and foreigners may depend on  
her attitude. In his 2007 trial, Jose Padilla, an American citizen,  
was found guilty of aiding terrorists. "The jury did seem to be an  
oddly cohesive group," the Washington Post reported. "On the last day  
of trial before the Fourth of July holiday, jurors arranged to dress  
in outfits so that each row in the jury box was its own patriotic  
color — red, white or blue."10 No one dared to question this blatant  
display of patriotism in the courtroom; neither the defense attorney,  
nor the prosecutor, nor the judge. How can we continue to pretend that  
people's legal positions exist independently of their political  
sentiments?

In the 2000 Supreme Court decision stopping the presidential electoral  
count in Florida, giving the election to George W. Bush, did the  
politics of the five most conservative justices play a role in the 5  
to 4 decision? Of course. Judges are essentially politicians in black  
robes. But should we care? Don't ask, don't tell. Sonia Sotomayor is a  
LATINA!

Given the large Democratic majority in the Senate, Sotomayor was in  
very little danger of being rejected. She could have openly and  
proudly expressed her social and political positions — whatever they  
may be — and the Democratic senators could have done the same. How  
refreshing, maybe even educational if a discussion ensued. Instead it  
was just another political appointment by a president determined to  
not offend anyone if he can help it, and another tiresome ritual  
hearing. The Republican senators were much less shy about revealing  
how they actually felt about important issues.

It didn't have to be that way. As Rabbi Michael Lerner of Tikkun.org  
pointed out during the hearings: "Democratic Senators could use their  
time to ask questions and make statements that explain why a liberal  
or progressive worldview is precisely what is needed on the Supreme  
Court."
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20090806/97d68d18/attachment.htm