High Court Hysteria

Recently President Barack Obama has announced his first appointment to the United States Supreme Court. As many now know the appointee is United States Second Circuit Appeals Court Judge Sonia Sotomayor. Sotomayor is praised for being an example of the "American Dream". Sotomayor's story finds her growing up in a South Bronx housing project. Her father was a manual laborer who died when she was nine years old. Her mother worked and raised Sotomayor and her brother in the housing complex. She matriculated through high school and made her way to Princeton University where she graduated summa cum laude. From there, she went on to study at Yale Law School. From her mere education background most casual observers would assume she had the preliminary level of qualifications for the job.

She was originally appointed to a federal bench position by George H.W. Bush. This came after she served many years as an assistant District Attorney in New York and after she served as a partner in a corporate law firm. As with all things Washington though, a debate must ensue to see if indeed Judge Sotomayor is qualified to sit on the highest court in the land. This debate shall prove to be an interesting one as the critiques being thrown at her may have a bit of legitimacy to them but at the end of the day could be the same gender bias that many professional women deal with on an everyday basis.


Some of the initial critiques against her have included the argument that she uses the bench as a place to bully from. For conservative, libertarians, Republicans and whoever will stand to take issue with this point, let us consider the behavior of justice Antonin Scalia. Scalia has been consistently one of the most conservative judges often offering the dissenting opinions. While it is his job to offer dissenting opinions, the blantant disrespect he has shown for his peers and those who argue before him can not be described as anything other than bullying. In the event those who are Scalia supporters (who are also likely to be Sotomayor critics) will not acknowledge the bullying from the bench that Scalia does, whatever Judge Sotomayor has done should not even enter the conversation.

Another critique that has initially surfaced about Judge Sotomayor is that she is not the smartest of judges. It will be interesting when her critics discuss her intelligence while reconciling the intelligence of Justice Clarence Thomas. Thomas, who has been called many things, has yet to be called the intellect of the court. One can argue that the opinions that Justice Thomas has wrote have left alot to be desired. Even Judge Sotomayor's colleagues all refer to her opinions as "competent" at the least. Furthermore if the United States is to place such high regard and value to institutions such as Princeton and Yale than the citizens should acknowledge their products as our foremost thinkers. Crowds did not rush to question the intelligence of Justice Alito, and he was a product of those same institutions.

As the debate over the worthiness of Judge Sotomayor to sit on the bench ensues I hope it can stay on topic. I would like to think that the arguments on both sides will be civil and based on the origin, interpretation, intention and application of the law. The Senators in their confirmation hearings should seek to asses whether or not Ms. Sotomayor has the ability to make the best decision based on the information provided. Hopefully the country can engage in this type of debate and not penalize professional women for the same aggressiveness and ambition that men are praised for. I hope during the debate that a woman can have emotions about something without looking overly feminine or not mentally strong enough for the position. If the United States has that type of debate than I'm sure the confirmation or the rejection of Judge Sotomayor will be legitimate.