"Curt Levey, executive director of Committee for Justice, a conservative legal group active in judicial nominations, said that “while it’s fine to let your Puerto Rican heritage influence — or any heritage for that matter — influence your positions when you’re on a board, it’s quite a different story when you’re a judge, and I wonder whether she knows the difference.”
That's it! There's nothing in the article to support the allegation near the beginning that "[H]er critics, including some Republican senators who will vote on her nomination, have questioned whether she has let her ethnicity, life experiences and public advocacy creep into her decisions as a judge." What critics? Cite one. It sounds like the alleged "critics" are actually the Times.
In any case, that assertion, that one's "ethnicity, life experiences and public advocacy" shouldn't effect a judge's decisions, is absurd. Judges are human. They can't slice off their entire life experience and not let it effect their legal analysis. I have no doubt that Chief Justice John Roberts' life experience contributes to his siding consistently with the government, the prosecution, and corporations, as detailed in a recent New Yorker profile. This is exactly why Obama selected Sotomayor - for her life experiences. It's incredibly important to have people of diverse backgrounds interpreting our laws. Each brings a different perspective, just as people from all walks of life come before the Supreme Court to have crucial decisions made about their lives.
No comments:
Post a Comment