Charlotte Observer, Huffington Post----
The U.S. Senate is holding a confirmation hearing for Judge Sonia Sotomayor, President Obama's nominee to the Supreme Court. As the top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, I have pledged that this hearing will be fair and respectful – but also thorough and rigorous.
If confirmed, Judge Sotomayor will have the power to define the meaning of our Constitution for the entire nation. This is an awesome responsibility – determining the rights and freedoms for every man, woman and child in America.
This is our one chance to get it right. It is essentially a lifetime appointment.
That's why we must have a national discussion about the role of a judge and what kind of justice belongs on our nation's highest court.
We must look to what has made our legal system the envy of the world. At its heart is the Constitution. While the courts of many countries run roughshod over people's rights, American courts are tightly bound to the words of the Constitution and must defend the rights of every single American – regardless of a judge's personal feelings.
Courthouses across our country feature the image of a woman with a blindfold weighing the scales of justice. She wears the blindfold so that she can judge her cases without bias or favoritism. This ideal is emblazoned on the Supreme Court building with the words “Equal Justice Under Law.” Equal justice is the foundation of our remarkable legal system and the bulwark of our shared freedoms.
But President Obama and Judge Sotomayor have expressed a very different view of judging. This view says that justice should not be based only on the law and the Constitution, but that it should take a judge's personal and political feelings into account.
President Obama says that when “constitutional text will not be directly on point,” the critical ingredient for a judge is the “depth and breadth of one's empathy,” as well as “their broader vision of what America should be.” But when a judge shows empathy toward one party, do they not show prejudice against the other?
Judge Sotomayor has stated her belief that impartiality may not be possible in “all or even most cases,” that “personal experiences affect the facts judges choose to see,” and that judges “must not deny the differences resulting from experience and heritage but attempt… continuously to judge when those opinions, sympathies and prejudices are appropriate.”
But if you or I step into a courtroom, shouldn't we be able to do so with confidence that we will get a fair day in court no matter the background, experience, or politics of us or the judge?
We should keep this in mind as we consider the one-paragraph ruling of Sotomayor and two other appeals court judges in the New Haven Firefighter case. Eighteen firefightersstudied for months to pass the city's promotion exam. They did. But the city junked the results because the outcome didn't meet the appropriate racial quota. Sotomayor sided with the city and even denied the firefighters a trial. The Supreme Court rejected the ruling.
For years, Judge Sotomayor was a leader at the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund while it fought aggressively to pursue racial quotas for city hiring. Is Judge Sotomayor's ruling against the firefighters an example of her failure to set aside her biases and rule impartially?
Contrast the philosophy President Obama and Sotomayor have advocated with the plain words of the Judicial Oath:
“I do solemnly swear that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.”
Every day that Americans enjoy the extraordinary blessings of freedom, they do so in part because of the words and principles in that oath. Empathy-based rulings, no matter how well-intentioned, do not help society, but imperil the legal system that has been so essential to our liberties and so fundamental to our way of life.
Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., is the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
View Larger Map
Sources: Charlotte Observer, Huffington Post, LA Times, Politico, Google Maps
.jpg)
No comments:
Post a Comment