“Sonia Sotomayor: Good Nomination or Bad?”
Sounds like Fox News or MSNBC, reducing a complex, important question to a sound bite.
Nope. It’s the title of last night’s lively discussion at the Westport Library.
TEAM Westport — our town’s diversity council — sponsored the forum, its 4th in a series on race and politics.
In small groups, over 2 dozen men and women debated topics like the political factors that led to Sotomayor’s nomination; her qualifications and temperament, and her potential impact on the Supreme Court.
Among the conclusions:
- Sotomayor’s judicial record is not “pro-Hispanic”
- There is no such thing as a completely objective decision — life experience and background always play a part
- She has more judicial experience than most justices
- Her selection is Obama’s payback to Hispanics
- Stereotyping women, Catholics, Hispanics, liberals, conservatives — or anyone else — is counterproductive
- As a Hispanic and a woman, Sotomayor’s “persona” could change the dynamic on the court, and impact other justices
- Her ability to deal with diabetes is a sign of strength and discipline
- Sotomayor shows her “human-ness” — and may take heat for that
After lively discussion, the question — good nomination or bad? — was unanswered. Opinions were divided.
Just like — hey! — the Supreme Court itself.
Library-goers debate the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court.
For the fourth time in six cases, the Supreme Court of the United States has reversed a decision for which Judge Sonia Sotomayor voted on the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals. If this nominee were a white male, would this not raise questions about whether he should be elevated to a court that has found his previous decisions wrong two-thirds of the times when those decisions have been reviewed?
Link: http://townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2009/07/01/equality_on_trial