As usual, Andy McCarthy cuts to the chase. The rest of us have been asking ourselves variants of the question “Is someone who consistently demonstrates that he does not believe in impartial justice, a.k.a., the rule of law (not men), qualified to be a Justice of the Supreme Court?” Andy goes back behind that high level question to ask: “Is Sonya Sotomayor Qualified to be a Juror?” Here are some standard instructions handed out to prospective jurors:
You have two duties as a jury. Your first duty is to decide the facts from the evidence in the case. This is your job, and yours alone. Your second duty is to apply the law that I give you to the facts. You must follow these instructions, even if you disagree with them. . . . Perform these duties fairly and impartially. Do not allow sympathy, prejudice, fear, or public opinion to influence you. You should not be influenced by any person’s race, color, religion, national ancestry, or sex.
Do you want a judge, let along a Justice of the Supreme Court, whose primitive, tribal view of what counts as justice would disqualify her from a place on a lower court jury?
Yes, of course. A pretty argument but I would observe that she’s up for judge, not juror.
And we have made a whole literature out of judges who *are* influenced by “race, color, religion, national ancestry, or sex.” And money. And influence itself.
Having recently sat in on a civil case to decide on an amount for damages, the one point that was reiterated over and over to the jury (by the presiding judge and BOTH the attorneys for the defense AND prosecution) was that SYMPATHY MUST NEVER ENTER INTO ANY DECISION. It was acknowledged that the jurors would bring their personal life experiences into their review of the facts, however, SYMPATHY must not enter into their final determination based on those facts.
This was stressed as the jury was selected, during both opening and closing arguments, as well as during final jury instructions.
Blindness – meaning no sympathy – is the most basic fundamental of our judicial system. Anyone who thinks otherwise is excused from jury duty, and should never be sitting on any bench in any courtroom.
“And we have made a whole literature out of judges who *are* influenced by “race, color, religion, national ancestry, or sex.” And money. And influence itself.”
Human beings are constantly tempted to favor the members of their own group. We are, however, supposed to make an effort to overcome our sinful inclinations. Sonia Sotomayor, in her heart of hearts, rejects this core doctrine of Western Civilization. We are to surrender to our baser instincts—unless you are a white person.
OF COURSE we all “Bring our life experience” into the courtroom. That in itself is neither good nor bad.
The question is whether this life experience is used to help determine the truth about the facts and the law, or whether “experience” is a euphemism for “helping people like me instead of being impartial”.
Other things being equal — if judicial experience, talent, etc., are equivalent — I would like a supreme court which is diverse in race, sex, and life experience. Why? Because different life experiences, ideally, mean that different points of view will help determine the truth. Remember the scene in “12 Angry Men” where the man from the “lower orders” who knows how a pocket knife is used gives essential facts to the rest of the jurors?
The problem is when diversity becomes the ONLY criterion — trumping both judicial prowess and the desire for finding the facts. It is the usual case of turning the less important criterion into the all-important one.
We live in a time when the Constitution is at Stake.
We as a nation should be concerned with the preservation of that Great document. A document that has made us so great a nation and so great a blessing to the entire world. Our personal differences, what ever they may be (race, gender, religious beliefs etc), should NOT be the criteria of choosing a Supreme Court Judge. But rather, That judge should be appointed and allowed to stay in office based on his or her dedication to to uphold the Values of “The Constitution of The United States of America.”
The Constitution is at risk. Will Sonya Sotomayor uphold it as it is written? Or, will the Supreme Court continue to wield power they, in fact, DO NOT HAVE! This is not “good behaviour”(see “The Constitution of the United States of America, Article III, Section 1). This is, in fact, UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Our liberty is at stake. Will she take it from us if elected or appointed?
The authority of the USSC is not based on Art. III. It is not even based on McCullough v. Maryland. It is based on the popular belief in the Rule of Law and the objectivity of the judges. This debate works nicely to undermine that basis. Perhaps it is time.
Greetings:
I grew up in the Bronx a bit before Judge Sotomayor. I’m still ambivalent about her nomination and forthcoming elevation to the US Supreme Court. Much has been reported about her experience as a “Latina” women, but what I would like to ask her about is what does she think happened, and why, to the Bronx in the late ’60s and ’70s. In case you and your readers are unaware, large parts of what were to be called “the South Bronx” were given a Dresden-lite treatment in which a viable housing stock was, bit by bit, put to the torch and subsequently depopulated. I can’t imagine that anyone who grew up in the Bronx in that time was unaffected by that disaster.
“Do you want a judge, let along a Justice of the Supreme Court, whose primitive, tribal view of what counts as justice would disqualify her from a place on a lower court jury?”
And? The punchline, please.
What sort of evidence do you have (which is of course the implication of your question) that Sotomayor has a “primitive, tribal view?”
You have no such evidence, of course, or else you would have offered it.
David Sucher, I was going to call you a “liar,” but somehow that pithy four-letter word just doesn’t do justice to your offense. It’s as if we were in a room, looking out a picture window at a monsoon-style storm. I say, “It’s coming down like cats and dogs,” to which you counter, “What sort of evidence do you have (which is of course the implication of your statement) that ‘It’s coming down like cats and dogs’? You have no such evidence, of course, or else you would have offered it.”
The woman has made many public statements expressing her racism and contempt for the rule of law; even the New York Times has quoted her and linked to the videos. For but two widely quoted and widely available statements, she said that a “Latina woman” (her redundancy, not mine) is inherently superior in judgment to a white man, and that non-English-speaking Hispanic “immigrants” have a right to come before a Spanish-speaking, Hispanic judge.
Sucher, the first law of lying is plausibility.
On second thought, I will call you a liar. But you are also a very stupid man.
Many have missed the point here. The Founders set up our country so that the JURY BOX could actually judge the LAW iself. It is one of the last defenses the people have to counter judicial tyranny. It is only in the last few decades that judges have commenced to giving ‘instructions’ to the jury. In some cases, judges have REMOVED the jury and continued the trial! In some cases, the jury has asked the judge to provide them with the LAW in writing, yet the judge has refused to do so saying, “Trust me, it exists, and I don’t have to provide you with the law. YOU have to follow MY ‘instructions’.” This is TYRANNY, plain and simple.
With views such as Sotomayor professes about the founders not intending jurors to judge the law, and with her views that the Bill of Rights, and specifically the second amendment, “does not apply to the states”, and with her advocation that all “judges everywhere” consider foreign law in their judgment of United States law, what kind of judge do you think she will make when your representatives in Congress vote for her confirmation on the Supreme Court?
I’d say its time to DEAL with this situation. Better start letting your state reps know that they MAY NOT regulate a God given RIGHT!
It is the duty of a juror to find a person INNOCENT, even if he has broken the law, if the LAW is unconstitutional! It’s called jury nullification and it is a DUTY, not just a RIGHT of the People!
“… a lawyer one time told me that in law school they try and teach you not to worry about right and wrong but just follow the law and I said I wasn’t so sure about that.”
http://www.friesian.com/nullif.htm