by Donald Rosenberry

Created on: June 01, 2009   Last Updated: June 10, 2009

The short answer is an unqualified and emphatic yes! Her academic credentials are impeccable. Her service to the justice system of the United States has also been above reproach and she is well respected by her peers, though for every decision any judge makes there will be those who agree and those who don't. This debate centers on her status as an ethnic minority and a woman. Most of the arguments against her stem from statements she made in speeches, notably a line in her 2001 speech at the Law Center at the University of Berkley which reads: I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." What is missing from most renditions of the statement is that it was a presentation entitled A Latina Judges Voice. The implication that had a white male turned the words around he would not even be in consideration for the position. The logic skewed because it ignores the context not only of that speech, but this nation's history with regard to minorities. Which is also why a lecture entitled A White Male Judges Voice would likely have neither very many sponsors nor attendees.

It is simply a matter of understanding, and I believe her opponents do understand, that all judges are impacted by their life experiences. It is time for this nation to institutionalize the process of equality for all. A woman will necessarily see the plight of Chinese women requesting amnesty because the face one child force abortion policies differently, possibly with greater empathy than the same plight seen by a man. Likewise, someone who has faced issues of discrimination will understand the nuances more clearly than someone who has not. While ethnicity and gender are not the only or even most important characteristics of a judge, they should be considered, and in this case favorably received. Her personal perspective is one the high court should welcome.

The most ironic factor in this debate is the idea that Sotomayor having acknowledged that her ethnicity and gender will play a role in her decisions, some conclude that would mean the application of partiality in favor of minorities and women. Here demonstrated and stated opinions reflect that she has acknowledged that it was specifically the fair and impartial application of the law that allowed her to attain the achievements she has to date. Her decision on the fate of white firefighters whose promotion test was thrown out because no minorities scored high enough is being trumpeted by some as a sign of racism. The same type of claim was once made in a decision that concluded women who couldn't lift the required amount of weightswere excluded from employment as firefighters , citing it as the reason women should not perform that work. The fair and application of the law rightly sought to have the requirements evaluated to see why a firefighter had to carry so much weight as a prerequisite for the job, and ultimately the requirement was eliminated. It is often unpopular to question the mainstream and it requires a variety of vantage points. The more inclusive we as a nation are in selected those who will evaluate our laws and legal system, commensurate with the prerequisite qualifications, the greater our system of justice will become.

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