Five Questions for Judge Sotomayor...
that probably won't be asked:
1. In your speech when your nomination was announced you spoke of the profound importance of the “rule of law” in your thinking. What does the “rule of law” mean? Does it fail to mean this?
2. In Ricci v. DeStefano, you upheld a district-court ruling on a major issue of public concern, whether affirmative action by the City of New Haven violates anti-discrimination laws, without bothering with an opinion. Why did you think the appellants were not deserving of an explanation? Did they receive the benefits of the rule of law?
3. You have spoken approvingly of federal judges “[making] policy,” and indeed made light of those who oppose it. The last time we had an official with lifetime tenure explicitly making policy it was George III. How exactly is five Supreme Court justices “making policy” different?
4. Whenever there is affirmative action, a person receives a job, school position, federal judgeship, etc., because of what s/he looks like. But someone else, usually unknown to us, symmetrically fails to get a job, school position, federal judgeship, etc., because of what s/he looks like. Does that latter person benefit from the rule of law?
5. You have said, “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion [as a judge] than a white male who hasn't lived that life." Does the experience of having your property seized by the state “more often than not” enable you to reach a better conclusion on eminent-domain cases? Does the experience of being a crime victim “more often than not” enable you to reach a better conclusion on Fourth and Fifth Amendment cases? Does being a criminal?
1. In your speech when your nomination was announced you spoke of the profound importance of the “rule of law” in your thinking. What does the “rule of law” mean? Does it fail to mean this?
2. In Ricci v. DeStefano, you upheld a district-court ruling on a major issue of public concern, whether affirmative action by the City of New Haven violates anti-discrimination laws, without bothering with an opinion. Why did you think the appellants were not deserving of an explanation? Did they receive the benefits of the rule of law?
3. You have spoken approvingly of federal judges “[making] policy,” and indeed made light of those who oppose it. The last time we had an official with lifetime tenure explicitly making policy it was George III. How exactly is five Supreme Court justices “making policy” different?
4. Whenever there is affirmative action, a person receives a job, school position, federal judgeship, etc., because of what s/he looks like. But someone else, usually unknown to us, symmetrically fails to get a job, school position, federal judgeship, etc., because of what s/he looks like. Does that latter person benefit from the rule of law?
5. You have said, “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion [as a judge] than a white male who hasn't lived that life." Does the experience of having your property seized by the state “more often than not” enable you to reach a better conclusion on eminent-domain cases? Does the experience of being a crime victim “more often than not” enable you to reach a better conclusion on Fourth and Fifth Amendment cases? Does being a criminal?
posted by Evan at 9:34 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home