Sister Sotomayor: Lady Justice

Brenda,
I agree with your post. How would you -- and others -- have felt if Miguel Estrada had actually been confirmed to have been the first Latino justice on the Supreme Court? He was a conservative, apparently, so I'm wondering if Democrats and others on the Left would have given the same "graciousness" to Estrada as they are doing with Judge Sotomayor. Of course, it's a mute issue because Democrats used strong-arm tactics to make sure his nomination didn't seem the light of day. Perhaps he was too pro-life....One hopes that Judge Sotomayor will follow her Catholic and Latino heritage and not be swayed by the culture around her.

BTW: I understand you are now part of the Evangelical Covenant Church. If so....welcome!

"How would you -- and others -- have felt if Miguel Estrada had actually been confirmed to have been the first Latino justice on the Supreme Court?"

Well, first of all, Miguel Estrada was never nominated to the Supreme Court. He was nominated to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Court and his support within the Hispanic community was actually divided with some supporting and some opposing his nomination. His nomination was withdrawn for that court. The following quote from civilrights.org may explain some of the reasons for opposition to his appointment:

"A review of Miguel Estrada's record to date raised serious questions about his commitment to equal justice and civil rights for all Americans. In addition, by refusing to adequately answer numerous questions posed to him at his September 26, 2002 hearing, as well as written questions following the hearing, Mr. Estrada had failed to demonstrate a commitment to the continued vigorous enforcement of critical constitutional and statutory rights in the areas of civil rights and civil liberties."

In other words, he wasn't liberal enough. Liberals would rather see a white person who follows their paradigm, than a minority who doesn't. But at least their tolerant....

I think that your remark is unfair. If there were ever a court in which a committment to equal justice under the law is important, it would be the District of Columbia Appeals Court. If during the course of his judicial career, a judge (Hispanic or not) has compiled a record of being insensitive to equal justice under the law, then I think that his record would be relevant and that his refusal to respond to questions regarding that record would also be relevant. Appeals courts usually hear cases in which there is some indication that the lower courts either failed to consider all of the evidence or in some way did not apply the law in an evenhanded manner.

Though I am not a minority, I would hope that if I ever stood accused of a crime that I would face a judge who would fairly apply the law.

I personally know Miguel Estrada. The Left's opposition to him was a concocted slander against a very honorable man. The Left opposed him because he was not dependably liberal on the positions they hold. His minority status meant nothing to them because he was not liberal. He was (and is) eminently well-qualified to serve as a federal judge. Miguel Estrada is a Honduran immigrant who did not speak English when he came to the U.S. as a teenager. He overcame many barriers to rise to the highest levels of the U.S. legal profession. He argued many cases at the Supreme Court and to hold prominent positions in the Justice in the federal government. He now works for a prominent law firm in Washington, D.C. The quote from civilrights.org questioning his civil rights views is nothing more than a political slam that had no basis in reality. If Miguel Estrada had been liberal, he would have been lionized and quickly approved to the D.C. Circuit. If Justice Sotomayor begins to vote "conservative" on abortion, homosexual rights, expansion of the federal government, separation of church and state, the death penalty, the Left will turn on her because she is not voting the way a "true" Hispanic is supposed to vote. if she does that, the Left will demonize her the way they have Clarence Thomas.

Minnesotan, was Sonia an honourable person? Why was the right so against her?

why was the Left so against Estrada? One was confirmed, the other wasn't. The Left won. period. Just like they did with Bork.

I speak as one who is independent and am glad Sotomayor made it on. I would have also been glad had an honorable man such as Miguel Estrada made it on. But you will not see Sojourners support a conservative minority like they have Sotomayor. It's all about politics...

I rejoice that a female, latino has made it this far. I mourn that a person with her ill-informed principles (or maybe lack of principles, who am I to say which it is) made it this far.

We have congress men/women who:
1. don't understand economics and therefore make things worse even when they intend to make them better.
2. don't understand the constitution and the liberty it was intended to protect, though they swear an oath to protect it

And as for the justices, for most of them anyway, I'm not sure we can say they don't understand the constitution, though it may be true. Given the path they had to take to become a justice, I'd certainly hope they're well educated in this area. But, given some of their decisions, it certainly appears they've decided they don't give a rip about the constitution, which means they don't care if we remain a free country. And as for Sotomayor's decisions, well, is she a justice or a political activist? Not the kind of person I want as a judge.

Brenda

To summarize your position: regardless of her opinions you are thrilled that she is on the Court because she is a latina. Did I pretty much get that?

I think that pretty much summarizes my concerns over affimative action.

To suggest the opinions of a member of the Supreme Court are unimportant but her sex and ethnicity are is borderline insane. Brenda, are you aware that all members of the Supreme Court do is express their opinions?

What did she say about affirmative action?

Does it occur to you that such joy that she articulates actually represents something. And it is that joy she is sharing with you and not anything particular about how the Supreme Court?

Some raise what seems a legitimate question about there would have been similar joy with M Estrada (or someone else). But there is a flip side to that question. If such an achievement would give rise to such joy--what is it about conservative Republicanism that is so painful that would take away the possibility of joy??

It is similar to the pain of a family member having to testify against another family member in court to send them behind bars for the rest of their life.

Step back for a minute--try rereading the post from a Christian sister who has experienced joy--and see if you can share a moment of joy.

Please.

I can be quite sympathetic to both "sides of the aisle" as I think they both have some basic instincts that are right (and some wrong). I think the nation as a whole has waded into some very deep water. Quite confused. We've left any strong moorings and are adrift.

Republicans/conservatives, for their part of the story, are flailing about in the breeze. Some think they have "found their voice" by shouting at Obama real loud. They confuse volume with having something to say. I believe a serious question for the conservative Christians who conceive of themselves as part of the Republican core is to ask whether their presence has resulted in a party that with moral clarity and courage to bring justice to bear on the critical issues of our time? What has been the fruit of this "Christian voice?"

All that to say, I don't think the right has a clue why they opposed her. I know they have two comments as the reasons they give. It's flailing in the wind, trying to act on principle, without knowing what it is.

How does a party, that in recent decades, has opposed civil rights legislation in the face of egregious discrimination--find its voice in a principled opposition to affirmative action? Do they feel somehow that conservatism is not viable if everyone has equal access to opportunity and success?

Too much of our political ruling class was born, nurtured, and replicated in the wrong party: The P&M party. Power and money (with a bit of sex on the side). These classic vices--vices of the nations--bear fruit. A cowardly and confused nation hiding behind a mountain of debt, laws, bureaucracies with a nuclear missile on the top.

Can't anyone make a decision without it being labeled right or left, conservative or liberal, Republican or Democrat? I refuse to be put in one of those boxes and for the most part it is not helpful to put others in such a box. Yes, there are some who seem to be walking billboards for one or the other of these idealogies and they are pretty easy to spot But for the most part, simply assuming someone acted in a certain way because of their own or other's political leaning is uninformative.
If you like or dislike Sotomayor, like or dislike Estrada for reasons other than having been labeled on one side or the other, that is what I would like to hear. But up to this point, if I knew nothing about them, all I would have learned here is that one is supposedly liberal Latina female and one is a supposedly conservative male Latina.

What really should count is job performance, personal integrity, and intellect. From what I have read of Sotomayor, her decisions have been based on the law and not her personal inclinations. I think she will have a positive impact in part because of her unique background, not because it will indelibly taint her decisions but because she will at times bring a new point of view to the issues.

First of all there is no such thing as "Latino Culture." Each culture is separate and distinct. There is Mexican culture, Puerto Rican culture, Cuban culture, etc. About the only thing these cultures have in common is the Spanish language. As a Mexican-American, the election of Judge Sotomayor really has no effect on me. She is Puerto Rican. I am insulted at the fact that all Spanish speaking people are grouped together as one culture just because the white liberal culture thinks its convenient.