First off, I will not presume to be any sort of expert on Judge Sonia Sotomayor, or on any judges (or justices) at all for that matter; so, until or unless I do a lot of research into her legal opinions throughout her career, I won't be touting OR slamming her as a Supreme Court nominee. I can say that I sincerely hope that she is the best possible choice, considering that appointments are for life and, at 54, she could be around for quite some time yet. I am not knowledgeable enough about the subject (or her career) to speculate on whether she is the right pick or not; so that will not be the subject of this post.
What I do wish to discuss, in regards to Sotomayor and her nomination is the criticism of her nomination that has predictably gushed forth from the right (particularly the far right). So far, I haven't heard many compelling arguments against her nomination. Indeed, all the bashing seems to stem primarily from two soundbytes, taken out of context and repeated and repeated and repeated like a broken record, and one case where she upheld the judgment of the lower courts (the Newhaven case).
To discuss the quotes. I don't have the whole thing right in front of me, so I can't guarantee that I have the one they're using word-for-word, but it basically says that, "I would hope that a Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would, more often than not, make a better judgment than a white man without those experiences." (Forgive me, or feel free to give me the full quote, if I am mistaken and added something or left something out.) Granted, this could have been articulated better. However, the bottom line is, I do not think she means to say or even imply that white men cannot have good judgment or interpret the law as it's written. What she does mean to say, and what I personally take away from this (as do many other people I've heard and seen), is that the more experiences we have had throughout our lives, the more able we generally are to understand (and, to use that dreaded word, empathize with) others who are not like us and have not had the same experiences we have had; and therefore, as it pertains to a judge (or a Supreme Court justice), we are often better able to understand the implications and consequences of our decisions on the people they affect.
Conservatives get riled up and scream "reverse racism" (ahem, Rush Limbaugh and cronies) and try to say that she is saying that Latina women are smarter than white men (or anyone else for that matter) or are better suited to be judges. I don't see that at all in this quote (which is, of course, taken out of context, and while I have been unable so far to find the full quote, I have heard--correct me if this is wrong, and please provide the full quote if you have access to it, as I really want to see the whole thing). What I do see is someone remarking on the fact that, in a realm where there are very few women and even fewer minorities, some balance--a reflection of the diversity of cultures and experiences in today's America--is desirable, and could help render better judgments in the sense of interpreting the Constitution in such a way that it protects individual rights--everyone's rights.
Can a white man have good judgment and use it to make wise decisions as a judge? Of course. Can a white man have empathy and be conscientious of the impact his decisions will have on individual people, including women and minorities? Of course he can. We have proven that in the past, with decisions like Brown v. Board of Education... Roe v. Wade.
But all too often, decisions are made that favor the "rights" of corporations (as if these were individual people) over the rights of individuals. Right now, there are political forces that would like to see Roe v. Wade overturned, who would like to see an amendment made to the federal Constitution (and upheld) to prohibit gay marriage, who would like to see our borders closed and prevent immigrants from enjoying the rights that American citizens enjoy, who want to make sure that Americans everywhere continue to carry around AK-47s, even into national parks. And when you get down to it, the Constitution was written well over 200 years ago. When it was written, these topics were not even on the radar. Does that mean we need to live, and interpret our Constitution, as if we were living in 1799 instead of 2009? Because the founding fathers never discussed gay marriage, does that mean we shouldn't, either? Before you answer yes, remember that some of our founding fathers, even as they wrote that all men were created equal, were slave-owners. Women didn't get the right to vote until 1920, and the last laws against interracial marriage were not struck down until 1967. The changes that have been made, more often than not through the Supreme Court, have been good ones; progressive ones; ones that recognize the humanity of minorities and the traditionally disenfranchised rather than rejecting their humanity in order to "conserve the law as it is written."
Empathy and compassion for individuals and underprivileged groups is a major part of making those kinds of progressive decisions. "Empathy" is not a dirty word. Without it, we might still talk about all men having equal rights even while trading slaves and denying women the right to own property or to vote. However upset some people may be that "traditional values" seem to be fading, any reasonable and well-intentioned person would have to admit that, overall, our laws have progressed in giving people rights and protection. The courts are part of the system of checks and balances and part of their role, a major part, is to protect the minority from the will of the majority when it endangers their rights and personal liberties. When we have people on the Supreme Court who can empathize with the "underdog," so to speak, we have better chances of continuing to overturn laws that hurt the minority in order to placate the majority.
And to deny that personal experience is or should be important when coming to decisions and making judgments beggars belief. The conservatives blare that a judge's job is simply to uphold the law according to the Constitution, not to "legislate from the bench," and that one's gender or ethnicity or personal background should play no part in this process. True, perhaps, that in an ideal world, it should play no part in the process. But who would deny that our world is far from ideal? I don't think it is inaccurate to say that we are "the sum of our experiences." It is our own background and experiences that provide us with our perspective on the world. It goes without saying that a white man raised in a middle- or upper-class family, who never had to go without, who had all doors open to him from birth through adulthood, will inevitably have a different perspective on life than a minority women who was raised in a housing project by a single mother and had to struggle to achieve her dreams. Does that mean that the woman is necessarily "smarter"? Of course not--no more than it means she's less "smart." But it does mean that she is aware of the struggles of the underclasses, and will be more likely to take them into consideration when judging laws and interpreting the Constitution. How is that a bad thing?
Those who scream the loudest that one's personal experiences do not, or should not, play a role in the decisions one makes or the way one perceives the law are almost always precisely those whose personal experiences show the least amount of hardship and struggle. When one has never known what it was like to worry about keeping the lights on or keeping food on the table, or not being able to go to college because of the high costs or because of the need to work to help support the family, it is very easy to say that everyone has equal opportunity in this country, and to claim that anyone who dares say otherwise is a "reverse racist".
...And all of this could sound funny coming from me, the WASP who was born and raised in a middle-class family. I never went hungry; my family was never homeless; I never worried about whether I could go to a doctor when I was sick or whether I would be able to go to college. Hell, I never even had to worry about whether I would have a car to drive. So where do I get off talking about personal experiences and struggle?
I sang the same self-righteous song as many conservatives are singing now for most of my life, at least throughout high school and part of college. After all, I grew up hearing that song; naturally I bought into it. Everyone has the same chances, it's a free country, the land of opportunity, and if people choose not to rise to the occasion, it's their own damn fault, and they have only themselves to blame for that. It's easy to believe that, when you have been given everything, and when the few things you've had to work for came easily because you grew up given the tools you needed to conquer those few challenges you would eventually face. It's hard to imagine not having those things, not having been given those tools.
But as I've written about before, having lived in other countries, and having been in numerous friendships and relationships with people from totally different circumstances, raised in totally different ways in families with totally different priorities, struggles and values, and exposing myself to other perspectives through travel, literature, film and communication with people from other walks of life, and finally working in a school with children from a background totally different from my own--all of this has changed my perspective. What I grew up in, and what I was given all my life, I can't erase that; it shaped my perspective before, and I have to fight to keep it from dominating my perspective now. But what my experiences with other people who grew up less privileged than me have given me, above all else, is empathy, compassion and a change in perspective. I am not so quick to judge or criticize as I used to be. Oh, I still judge people, and I still tend to be critical; it's something I struggle with every day. I think, "Why are these people like that? Why can't they just be more like me?" Then I have to remind myself that they come from circumstances different from my own.
How can I (or anyone else) say what I would or would not do, think, believe or say if I had been raised a different way, in different circumstances? Would I see the world the exact same way I see it now if I had been raised in a housing project by a single mother? I think not. It does not mean that someone who grew up in that situation necessarily has a wider or superior perspective; more often than not, their own perspective will be just as limited as someone who grew up with a silver spoon in mouth, though limited in a different way. Those people tend to be less aware of what else is out there, what other options are available, what they could do to improve their own lot or to influence the law.
But that's exactly why it is so important to have people who come from that type of background, but have beaten the circumstances and reached great achievements, to be on our Supreme Court, in all our courts and in the legislature for that matter...and in the executive branch. They will naturally have a much broader perspective, be more conscientious of what everyday people on all ends of the spectrum are dealing with and going through, and hopefully do their best to make sure that our laws help and protect those who are less represented among us.
Does it mean a white man cannot make these decisions or reach these conclusions? Does it mean a white man cannot empathize with their plights and help them? Of course not.
But having a court that reflects who Americans are, and where different experiences and perspectives are available and can help influence the empathy of those already on the court--that can only be progress.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment