Sotomayor

Sonia Sotomayor has said that her method of making a Judgment is different, better, and leaning towards her Latino roots, her lower income roots.

Michael Steel (longtime Republican activist) believes that “We must have a debate about the issues surrounding Judge Sotomayor” and closes with “God help you if you are a white male”.

I think that Judge Sotomayor was telling the truth when

“Court of appeals is where policy is made. I know this is on tape and I should never say that. We don’t make ‘Law’. I’m not promoting it, I’m not advocating it”

This comment does not show us how ‘bad’ the new supreme court judge is, rather, it shows us how good, how ‘In Tune’ and how honest she is. She is pointing-out a reality in the world of law, and while it is strategically unwise because Republicans have latched-on to this comment, it is still the truth.

How rare it is, and how fortunate we are to have a judge who will tell it like it is. Politicians have consistently promoted their own agenda and have systematically omitted the truth on various facets of our world. Yes, Appeals Court doesn’t make law, elected representatives do. But when you brush away the façade of intention you will see the reality that Appeals Courts do make law. The judgments made in those rooms change our application of current laws, and set precedents for future judgments.

The Law has many ‘parts’, and is observed in many ways to different people. To our elected officials the Law is a political battleground in the House of Commons and Senate (House of Commons is the same as Congress for Americans). To the police the Law is a set of instructions on how and when to do their job. It is a manual. To lawyers and judges the Law is an image through the bottom of a Coke bottle. In the middle the picture is fairly clear, magnified, and relatively easy to analyze. The real good stuff is on the fringe, where the image is distorted and hazy.

Appeals court judges operate on the edge, where the Law is not quite as clear. Sonia Sotomayor was articulating that reality. She has spent her career speaking her mind to articulate that reality. The reality she was describing when she said “…” was the simple fact that we are all a product of our environments.

A Latino woman is likely to vote in the way Latino women would. A white male will vote like a white male. Depending on that person’s character and upbringing will be the extent of the polarization of the judge’s opinion. Malcolm Gladwell’s book Outliers is an excellent perspective on how nature and nurture work in human society. Latinos are Latinos, women are women, short people are short people, left-handed people are left handed people, and poor people are poor people. These in combination will make one crazy Latino female, who is relatively short,

“In the District Court you’re looking you’re looking to do justice in the individual case, so you’re looking much more to the facts of the case than you are to the application of the Law, because the application of the Law is non-precedential. So the Facts control.

On the Court of Appeals you are looking to How the Law is developing, so then it will be applied to a broad class of cases. So you’re always thinking about the ramifications of This ruling in the next step in developmental Law.”

She does not speak Heresy, as some have suggested. She speaks the truth, and takes the political punches as they come. Her tendency, so far, is one of political faux pas, not über left ideals. It’s not as if Obama just appointed Khrushchev re-incarnate. She’s Rosie Perez in all her glory.

I think we just struck another blow for free speech, and proper truth, not platitudes and political rhetoric. Her voting may be more in-line with Democratic ideals, but they may also get a nasty surprise if she thinks for herself.

TP

And on a Side note, George HW Bush kissing the reported on the cheek was sweet, and good for him for skydiving at 85.