Sitting justice Sotomayor famously said during her confirmation hearings that she thought it would do the court well to have a "wise Latina" on the bench. Similar remarks have been made about the current nominee K.B. Jackson. She will bring something intangible to the Court that it lacks now.
How does that work, exactly?
Imagine a Mexican "dreamer," brought to this country as an infant, who has worked, studied, and done her best to be a wonderful non-citizen, but is now the subject of a deportation order from INS. She claims not to even speak Spanish, and has never - other than in her first few months of life - been to Mexico. The law is clear; the Constitution is clear; she meets every single definitional requirement of someone who is in the country illegally, and must be expelled.
How would Justice Sotomayor rule on this case, as opposed to, say, Justice Alito? Does a "wise Latina" get to re-write or ignore the Constitution and laws of the United States, if they don't suit the outcome she desires? And if those two mentioned justices ruled differently, and if there IS a correct answer, how does one explain the two vastly different conclusions? Is one of them violating the oath of office?
Same question for Judge K.J. Brown and, say, Justice C. Thomas. Yale University accused of illegal racial discrimination for admitting Americans of black African ancestry BECAUSE they are African American, in violation of Court decisions prohibiting that overt practice. Would Justice Brown circumlocute here way to the conclusion that she clearly would desire? The law is clear, the precedents are clear, the Constitution is relatively clear. How about it?
And on a related point, is it not possible for a "white" justice - say Justice William Brennan - to carry the figurative torch for the Oppressed before the Court? Must the torch carrier be a POC? Why?
The idea that the Court should "look like America" is insidious. The court should be populated with brilliant legal minds, regardless of demographic desirability, and promoting a third-tier legal mind because of her color is an insult to the Court and to the American people. Not that we give a shit about such things.
How does that work, exactly?
Imagine a Mexican "dreamer," brought to this country as an infant, who has worked, studied, and done her best to be a wonderful non-citizen, but is now the subject of a deportation order from INS. She claims not to even speak Spanish, and has never - other than in her first few months of life - been to Mexico. The law is clear; the Constitution is clear; she meets every single definitional requirement of someone who is in the country illegally, and must be expelled.
How would Justice Sotomayor rule on this case, as opposed to, say, Justice Alito? Does a "wise Latina" get to re-write or ignore the Constitution and laws of the United States, if they don't suit the outcome she desires? And if those two mentioned justices ruled differently, and if there IS a correct answer, how does one explain the two vastly different conclusions? Is one of them violating the oath of office?
Same question for Judge K.J. Brown and, say, Justice C. Thomas. Yale University accused of illegal racial discrimination for admitting Americans of black African ancestry BECAUSE they are African American, in violation of Court decisions prohibiting that overt practice. Would Justice Brown circumlocute here way to the conclusion that she clearly would desire? The law is clear, the precedents are clear, the Constitution is relatively clear. How about it?
And on a related point, is it not possible for a "white" justice - say Justice William Brennan - to carry the figurative torch for the Oppressed before the Court? Must the torch carrier be a POC? Why?
The idea that the Court should "look like America" is insidious. The court should be populated with brilliant legal minds, regardless of demographic desirability, and promoting a third-tier legal mind because of her color is an insult to the Court and to the American people. Not that we give a shit about such things.
