Supreme Court Wars

A bitter struggle has broken out in the United States over the nomination of a liberal judge for the Supreme Court. American conservatives hope to block her appointment.

When Barack Obama announced his nomination of New York judge, Sonia Sotomayor – liberal, energetic and of Latin American extraction – to the Supreme Court of the U.S., he must have known the political battle was on. Nothing fires up American political parties more than a Supreme Court appointment. As soon as Sotomayor’s name was mentioned, liberals applauded euphorically and conservatives, after a moment of shock, began mobilizing their troops.

Whoever sits in the White House tries to reshape the court in accordance with his own philosophy, because it’s here that many great disagreements are decided one way or the other. The disposition of the prisoners at Guantanamo or the right to abortion, for example. Or the right of homosexuals to marry, or whether Congress has the right to prescribe auto emission standards for all 50 states.

The court hears a maximum of about 150 cases per year. Most of them are deadly dull, but four or five of them involve the core of the U.S. Constitution and America’s national identity. Presently, the court is made up of four conservatives and four liberals. The ninth voice, that of the moderately conservative judge Kennedy, is often the one that tips the balance in decisions. Because Sonia Sotomayor will be replacing a liberal justice, her appointment won’t upset this balance.

Then why all the controversy? Because justices are appointed for life and are, therefore, in a position to set the course long after the serving president has left office. The 54-year-old Sotomayor might serve practically forever, as long as she stays healthy and doesn’t want to retire. The oldest sitting justice right now is 89.

George W. Bush was able to nominate several judges, and he chose relatively young and extremely conservative judges. They will have influence for many years to come. Now it’s Obama’s turn, and he will, in all likelihood, gradually have the opportunity to replace all four liberals, some of them already elderly and ailing. Sonia Sotomayor will be the first in this rejuvenation exercise.

That’s why Republicans and their supporters have been rummaging around since Sotomayor’s nomination, through her speeches and any articles published about her, looking for something, anything, that might be used against her; preferably a hangman’s noose.

An acrimonious campaign is again being waged in America. Democrats and Republicans both have set about raising millions of dollars and putting out advertisements and television spots. They’re assembling campaign staffs, collecting material about the candidate and are lobbying the Senate, which must approve the president’s selection, in preparation for the great battle.

The battle lines are clear: To conservatives, Sotomayor is a liberal activist who will seek to make policy from the bench. For liberals, on the other hand, she’s an empathetic but circumspect jurist who holds strictly with the letter of the law and harbors no fantasies of major reversals.

The president, himself, has said she has two qualities he finds convincing: her professionalism and her biography. Her 17 years as a judge makes her far more experienced than any other nominee in the past century. Sonia Sotomayor, daughter of Puerto Rican immigrants, grew up under conditions of poverty in New York. Her father died young, and her mother worked multiple jobs in order to provide for her family. They repaid her by becoming successful.

She made it into elite Princeton University, as well as Yale Law School, and, thus, like both Obamas, is the embodiment of the American dream. Anyone growing up with such experiences certainly thinks and speaks somewhat differently from the pampered kids living in white suburbs. But sometimes they both overshoot the target and chose the wrong words or embarrassing expressions.

That’s why Republicans immediately jumped on two of Sotomayor’s speeches. In one, she admitted to helping make policy from the bench on occasion. “I told you so,” came the cry from conservatives, “she wants to circumvent Congress and make laws from the courtroom!” In another speech, she said, “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.” Right-wing commentator, Rush Limbaugh, immediately responded by calling her a racist.

Sonia Sotomayor’s comments weren’t especially artful, just as Obama’s comment about poor white people clinging to their guns and their religion was also ill chosen. Nonetheless, in the final analysis, Sotomayor is correct. Naturally, a judge’s own experiences will shape his or her judicial outlook. Whoever has personally experienced a hard life will probably tend to be more sympathetic toward others with similar experiences and will consider whether anything can be done to help in the future.

This tougher life is, of course, no guarantee of wiser decisions. A living example of that sits on the Supreme Court today: Clarence Thomas, the only black justice. Still, in this case it’s certain that judges of Sonia Sotomayor’s caliber will be good, not only for America’s Supreme Court, but for courts all over the world.