Sotomayor and the future of the law

By Kevin Price

The hearings regarding Sonia Sotomayor's appointment to the Supreme Court are among the most interesting I have seen in quite some time. Not only does this particular appointee stir controversy when it comes to specific issues (e.g., Abortion, which is always a hot topic), but she brings a complete paradigm shift on the way the court conducts itself. In particular, this judge raises the question, "will justice remain blind?" Justice being blind is one of the fundamental rules of law that has guided this Republic. It is being seriously challenged by Sotomayor.

Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL), the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee, has provided some of the most important questions to Sotomayor in her goal of changing the way people are judged in a courtroom. Session stated in his questions to Judge Sotomayor:

"In 1997 when you came before the Senate and I was a new senator, I asked you this. In a suit challenging a government racial preference in quota or set-aside, will you follow the Supreme Court decision in Adarand and subject racial preferences to the strictest judicial scrutiny," close quote. In other words, I asked you would you follow the Supreme Court's binding decision in Adarand v. Pena. In Adarand, the Supreme Court held that all governmental discrimination, including Affirmative Action programs, that discriminated by race of an applicant must face strict scrutiny in the courts. In other words, this is not a light thing to do. When one race is favored over another, you must have a really good reason for it, or it's not acceptable."

"After Adarand, the government agencies must prove there is a compelling state interest in support of any decision to treat people differently by race. This is what you answered: "In my view, the Adarand court correctly determined that the same level of scrutiny — strict scrutiny applies for the purpose of evaluating the constitutionality of all government classifications, whether at the state or federal level, based on race," close quote. So that was your answer, and it deals with government being the City of New Haven."

"You made a commitment to this committee to follow Adarand. In view of this commitment you gave me 12 years ago, why are the words 'Adarand,' 'Equal protection' and 'Strict scrutiny' are completely missing from any of your panel's discussion of this decision?"

Sessions essentially established that Mrs. Sotomayor lied when she sat for approval to the Court of Appeals in 1997. She lied, knowing that she would possibly be appointed to a higher court and that her radical decision against blind justice would likely be over ruled (which it was in Ricci vs. DeStefano). Also, 80 percent of her decisions have been overturned by the Supreme Court. She is a radical jurist who will now be defining precedent in the Supreme Court. The future of the law will be one in which racism will be sanctioned.

Much of the concern lies in statements that she has made about "wise Latina" females making better decisions than white males. What motivated her to make, what can easily be described as a racist statement? She told the Senate Judiciary Committee that it was for audiences made often made up of minority women and she "was trying to inspire them to believe that their life experiences would enrich the legal system, because different life experiences and backgrounds always do." In essence she is trying to inspire future Judges. These will be Judges who consider racism as an acceptable framework for making legal decisions. There is much more at stake in these hearings than a future justice, but the legal system itself.

© Kevin Price