by Donald Rosenberry

Created on: May 27, 2009   Last Updated: May 29, 2009

Once again we are witness to history within the Obama administration. We now have the first African American president nominating the first Hispanic American to the Supreme Court. What should we make of this? The sad part is that we, as a nation, categorize the President of the United States and his selection for Supreme Court Justice by virtue of their ethnicity to begin with. What we really have is a new president who has nominated an exceedingly qualified judge to the highest bench in the nation. The danger in this is that by identifying the parties by ethnicity allows for stereotyping their beliefs. When it comes to Supreme Court Justices, it has been an inaccurate process at best. Justices have had their beliefs typified only for history to find their decisions once on the bench dramatically different from expectations.

So what should we expect from Sonia Sotomayor as a Supreme Court Justice? We can look to her background for hints, as many have. There are many who are concerned that her Hispanic heritage, coupled with her being a female, actually only the third female to serve on the Supreme Court, will affect her decisions. Naturally, one must conclude this is no different than any other Supreme Court Justice whose decisions are necessarily impacted by their gender, race, and culture, as a nation, we should welcome the addition to the Supreme Court of an intelligent justice from a background divergent from the sitting justices. After all, this is the Supreme Court, charged with the careful and delicate administration of the law of the land. We should demand it take into account every American.

Justice Sotomayor represents a number of individual groups that need representation. According to her official biography, she is female. Her education includes: Princeton University, B.A., 1976 Yale Law School, J.D., 1979. She was raised in what the affluent refer to as a challenging childhood. She was also raised as a catholic. She has dealt with diabetes since she was 8 years old.

What all of this tells us is she can connect with a large number of Americans that the other members of the court are aware of but may not feel truly connected with. The mistake would be in assessing this experience as a controlling interest in her decisions. She has made it very clear in previous senatorial confirmations that she believes her successes were dependant on the fair application of the constitution. To that end, she appears convinced that a level playing field, with the constitution applied equally to all, is the primary purpose of the court.

This nomination may offend individuals from both sides of the discussion. It would mean that while she is sensitive to the needs of Hispanics, immigrants and the financially challenged, she would insist that every American be judged by, held accountable to, and be protected by the same standards. For the extremist on the left and the right, she may be an anomaly. Because of this, there will undoubtedly be, and have already been, challenges to her qualifications; her experience, her previous decisions and even her intelligence. This merely reflects a fear among each notional sector of the one main factor reflected in this nomination. We now have a Supreme Court nominee who reflects women, Hispanics, and those who have had a very difficult financial background. Given the current state of the union, this reporter can't imagine a better choice.

Learn more about this author, Donald Rosenberry.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.