diversity is a good thing: why sonia sotomayor is a good pick for supreme court

Ever since President Obama made his first Supreme Court pick last week, both sides of the political aisle have been discussing whether or not she is a good choice.

Here's a little info on Sonia Sotomayor, provided by Wikipedia:

Sonia Sotomayor is a federal judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. On May 26, 2009, President Barack Obama nominated Judge Sotomayor for appointment to the U.S. Supreme Court to replace retiring Justice David Souter. If confirmed, she would be the court's first Hispanic justice and third female justice.

That last sentence has caused quite a bit of controversy. Before she was even nominated, The New Republic published a hit piece on Sotomayor which was quickly distributed through the conservative community and became the meme when the issue was raised in debate. She was called the "affirmative action" nominee by Pat Buchanan. Bill O'Reilly and his panelists called Sotomayor's record "disturbing." But the worst condemnation of Sotomayor has come from something she said in 2001 when discussing gender and national origin:

“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life."

The White House is trying to play it off as "poor word choice," but she meant what she said. And it doesn't make her a racist in the slightest, as Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh would have you believe.

It isn't that hard to figure out. Diversity is a good thing. How could a group of nine white men always come to a decision for us all? The Supreme Court should be just as diverse and colorful as the United States- the people that represent us should look like us. It's not affirmative action and it's not choosing someone less qualified because of race or gender.

An American from Puerto Rican descent and humble beginnings may bring a world of different experience to the table when discussing an issue before the Court. She may not always have a better decision than a white male, but she could have a different take on it that could make someone look at it differently. And in a country with so many Hispanics, doesn't it only make sense that on a court of nine justices, at least one would be there representing the Hispanic community and their collective interests? The same goes for her being a woman: we've had women on the Court for years now, but it's because it only makes sense.

By all means, choose the most qualified candidate. But yes, I want a woman on the Court. And yes, I want blacks, Hispanics, Asians, gays, and Muslims to serve as well. There are plenty of highly-qualified minorities out there willing to serve in that capacity, and kudos to President Obama for choosing one of them. We need as many American voices in the mix as possible to find the truly American answer to any given question.

So yes, Limbaugh. et al. In some cases, your experiences that amass from not being a white male sometimes do make you uniquely more qualified to serve on the Supreme Court.

supreme court reserves death penalty for murder

The Supreme Court ruled today that the death penalty is not allowed for child rape cases, meaning that the only crime left that is subject to capital punishment is murder.

As we predicted over two years ago, Anthony Kennedy has become the new swing vote on the court and he decided this 5-4 case.

Is the death penalty on the way out?

Well, I think it's a tough call because support for the death penalty nationwide in the past 10 years has actually been going down. But child rape is such a horrendous crime and all of us have such a natural revulsion towards it that you're never going to get a lot of support for any sort of reduction in sentence.

But I think, given the fact that this is a Supreme Court that said no death penalty for murderers under 18, no death penalty for the mentally retarded, this decision is consistent with a certain restriction on the death penalty, which is reflected in the court but also in a kind of national change that's going on.

Supreme Court Rules on Late Term Abortion

In a 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court today voted to uphold the "Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003" which bans a procedure used to terminate pregnancies after the first trimester. The procedure in question, intact dilation and extraction, represents about 2,200 abortion procedures performed yearly.

So much of this debate is in the abstract. Texas Kaos has an affecting story about a woman who had the procedure after learning her baby had spina bifida. Read this story and then ask yourself whether you want the government making this choice instead of leaving it to a patient and her doctor.

Here is a sampling of responses to the court's decision:

U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif. -- a Judiciary Committee member who opposed confirming Roberts and Alito -- said she's "truly shocked" at "a major strike against woman's right to choose. ... This decision clearly demonstrates the real impact on privacy rights that has occurred through President Bush's efforts to nominate judges whose views are out of the mainstream of American legal thought."

House Foreign Affairs Chairman Tom Lantos, D-San Mateo, called it "the height of arrogance. The five Justices who voted to ban this procedure must believe that having `juris doctor' degrees entitles them to instruct the nation's medical professionals on patient care.

Rudy Giuliani issued a statement: "The Supreme Court reached the correct conclusion in upholding the congressional ban on partial birth abortion. I agree with it." But in 2000, Giuliani said he agreed with President Clinton's veto of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 1997, saying then -- in response to a question about whether if he, as a senator, would have "vote[d] with the president or against the president" -- that he would have "vote[d] to preserve the option for women."

Senator Barack Obama: I strongly disagree with today’s Supreme Court ruling, which dramatically departs from previous precedents safeguarding the health of pregnant women. As Justice Ginsburg emphasized in her dissenting opinion, this ruling signals an alarming willingness on the part of the conservative majority to disregard its prior rulings respecting a woman’s medical concerns and the very personal decisions between a doctor and patient. I am extremely concerned that this ruling will embolden state legislatures to enact further measures to restrict a woman's right to choose, and that the conservative Supreme Court justices will look for other opportunities to erode Roe v. Wade, which is established federal law and a matter of equal rights for women.

John Edwards: "This hard right turn is a stark reminder of why Democrats cannot afford to lose the 2008 election. Too much is at stake -- starting with, as the court made all too clear today, a woman's right to choose."

Amy Hagstrom Miller, board chairman of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers: "There is definitely a concern that this ruling could come down and really affect procedures done as early as 12 weeks. The providers want to know that what we do is okay. We are the kind of people that comply with laws."

Ruth Bader Ginsburg: "According to the expert testimony … introduced, the safety advantages of intact D&E are marked for women with certain medical conditions, for example, uterine scarring, bleeding disorders, heart disease, or compromised immune systems......The majority's decision "cannot be understood as anything other than an effort to chip away at a right declared again and again by this court -- and with increasing comprehension of its centrality to women's lives."

Rev. Patrick J. Mahoney, Director of the Christian Defense Coalition: "Clearly, this decision paves the way for the eventual overturning of Roe v. Wade. Our hope is that the Department of Justice will move aggressively to ensure the bipartisan banning of this barbaric procedure is immediately enforced. "

Senator Sam Brownback: “I applaud the Court for finding that the constitution ‘expresses respect for the dignity of human life,’ and hope that this decision signals the Court’s willingness to revisit and reverse Roe v. Wade.”

Is the Voting Rights Act Still Needed in Texas?

The Supreme Court's decision on redistricting in Texas (see "Supreme Court Rules on Redistricting" below) highlights the importance of the Voting Rights Act.

The Voting Rights Act, passed in a 1965 and amended 10 years later, targets states with a long history of racial discrimination at the ballot box and three states, including Texas, with large populations with limited English skills. The law will expire next year unless Congress votes to extend it.

Until last week, Congress was prepared to vote on the issue, and most observers assumed it would pass. But several Texas Republicans in the House of representatives balked, saying they wanted to change the law.

What kind of changes?

A rebellion broke out, mainly over two issues: the law's special requirements for certain states and districts, mostly in the old segregated South, and the law's requirements that foreign-language ballots and interpreters be provided in precincts where substantial numbers of voters are struggling with English.

So where does that leave the bill?

The vote has been indefinitely delayed, causing fear among some that Congress will drag its feet until the law expires.....

"I don't think we have racial bias in Texas anymore," declared Rep. John Carter, R-Round Rock.

Yeah, and when a sixty-five-year-old southern white man tells you that you can take it to the bank.

The Fort Worth Star-Telegram's Bob Ray Sanders thinks the court's decision increases the liklihood that the act will ultimately be passed:

Well, the one positive in the Supreme Court's ruling in the Texas redistricting case was that one of the gerrymandered districts -- the 23rd, which runs from San Antonio to El Paso -- must be redrawn because it did violate the Voting Rights Act by diluting minority voting strength.

I argue that the impact of minority voters was lessened in at least two other districts affected by the Republican's 2003 redistricting plan. That includes blacks in southeast Fort Worth [emphasis mine].

But the court allowed those districts to stand. The court's declaration that the 23rd District violates the law takes away the Republican argument that there are no vestiges of voting rights discrimination in Texas. Once again, the Supremes have made it official.

All of that sounds encouraging, but let's face it-- with GOP approval by the African-American community hovering somewhere around minus two percent, the Republicans aren't worried about wooing the black vote.

Originally, the Republicans thought that they had widespread support within their own party for renewal, and saw this as a chance to highlight their support of minority rights to the Latino community. It's just bad timing that almost simultaneously the Supreme Court is telling us the GOP diluted Latino voting strength to win a few seats to Congress.

House Majority Leader John Boehner says the VRA will be back.

...[Boehner] a Ohio Republican, said Congress would return to the matter after a weeklong July 4 recess. Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, a California Democrat, said party members were "holding our fire and patiently waiting for the Republicans to work out their politics."

So do you think all those pundits, who spent days trying to convince us that the debate over Democratic plans for withdrawal from Iraq were signs of party disunity, will be highlighting the Republican missteps on the Voting Rights Act? No, neither do I.

supreme court rules on redistricting

On Wednesday in a 5-3 decision (Chief Justice John Roberts abstained from voting), the United States Supreme Court decided to uphold most of the Texas congressional district map. Politicos had been whispering for days that the high court was poised to issue a ruling on the case. It's hard to decide the victor, though.

In 2003, the Texas Legislature voted to enact Tom DeLay's mid-decade gerrymandering, despite numerous attempts from Texas Democrats to block the perceived illegal action. Democratic legislators fled to Oklahoma and New Mexico while trying to block its passage, but inevitably the Republicans prevailed and gained six coveted congressional seats in 2004.

With the "new swing voter" Anthony Kennedy casting the deciding vote, the Supreme Court only took issue with one congressional district.

The justices ordered lower courts and the state to fashion a new District 23. The district takes up a huge part of west Texas, from El Paso to San Antonio, and the seat is held by Rep. Henry Bonilla, a seven-term Republican.

It is unclear whether a new map for District 23 can be redrawn in time for the November midterm elections.

Boyd Richie, Chairman of the Texas Democratic Party, considered Wednesday's ruling a victory for Texas Democrats. Because of the Supreme Court's decision, disenfranchised Hispanic voters in South Texas will now be assured that their votes really count. Mr. Richie also expressed disappointment that the entire map of Texas wasn't thrown out or revised.

Tom DeLay exploited a weak-kneed governor and compliant President to abuse voters in every corner of Texas. Republicans in the Texas legislature wasted millions of taxpayer dollars and ignored addressing important issues such as school finance and insurance prices to do Tom DeLay's dirty work.

The challenges that remain for us are to rebuild our Party and elect good Democrats to every office from the Governor right on down to our local commissioners, clerks, and judges. I urge everyone to vote a straight Democratic ticket and let's put government back where it belongs-- in the hands of the people of Texas.

Attorney Rolando Rios agreed with Mr. Richie's assessment in a CNN interview. "The federal courts have to come in and protect the rights of Latinos against the abuses of the state of Texas. [Republicans] do everything they can to keep us from having our due."

It will be interesting to see the implications of this ruling. Expect more from NTL as they unfold in the weeks to come.

Hang 'Em High

Johnny Paul Penry is the longest serving inmate on death row. Fifty-year-old Penry has spent more that half his years on death row for the rape and murder of 22-year-old Pamela Moseley Carpenter. Penry confessed and was given the death penalty, even though his lawyers maintain he is mentally retarded.

In 2000, Penry came within three hours of execution before justices halted it. This week, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down a decision on Penry's case, declining to reinstate the death sentence.

An editorial from 2000 gave compelling reasons why the death penalty should never apply to those under such circumstances:

The mentally retarded can never meet the criteria of extraordinary blameworthiness. People with retardation are incapable of calculated, mature evil. A retarded person is simply not the same as other adults. They are childlike in many of their limitations: their ability to reason and develop skills needed to navigate in the world are permanently stunted.

They have grave difficulties with language, communication, learning, logic, foresight, strategic thinking, planning and understanding consequences. They have problems with attention, memory and comprehension. They are limited in their ability to learn from experience, to control their impulses, to think in long-range terms or to understand causality. Children outgrow most of these limitations. Those who are retarded cannot.

Penry was physically abused as a child, has organic brain damage and is mentally retarded. Twenty-two years old in 1979 at the time he raped and murdered Pamela Mosely Carpenter in Livingston, Texas, he had then -- and has now-- the mental capacity of a 7-year-old.

Mental retardation is classified as mild, moderate or severe. Penry's IQ is considered to be between 50-60, which would rate him as moderate. How might this disability affect Penry's ability to understand his crime and assist in this defense?

Morris Mason, whose I.Q. was 62-66, was executed in 1985 in Virginia after being convicted of rape and murder. Before his execution, Mason asked one of his legal advisors for advice on what to wear to his funeral.

Penry's trial has been at the heart of the debate on capital punishment. In 1989, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor refused to grant a stay for Penry, citing that a consensus had not yet formed as to whether executing the mentally retarded constituted cruel and unusual punishment. So much for the theory of activitist judges. Instead, the American Bar Association took up the cause.

In 1989, the American Bar Association established a policy opposing the execution of those with mental retardation. The ABA held that execution of such individuals is unacceptable in a civilized society, irrespective of their guilt or innocence. In 1997, the continued imposition of the death penalty on the mentally retarded and juveniles contributed to the ABA's call for a nationwide moratorium on the death penalty.

In 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court finally ruled to forbid the execution of persons classified as mentally retarded. That case should have resolved this issue, but this is Texas, after all.

William Lee Hon, a Polk County assistant prosecutor who has been handling the case for more than two decades, said: “There have been so many disappointments in regard to this case, you kind of become conditioned to adversity. So you take these blows as they come, and you do the best you can.”

The parole eligibility is huge, and he might very well be parole eligible,” Hon said. “Is there any guarantee to keep him in prison if we choose to seek a life sentence? I don’t know. That’s one of the big questions to resolve in the process.”.....

Why don’t they just lock me up and throw away the key?” Penry told The Associated Press in 2001. “That’s all I want.”

The Polk County prosecutor is still weighing the option of another sentencing trial. At least five previous juries have found Penry legally competent to stand trial or have rejected defenses based on mental retardation.

Twenty-five years on death row, a family history of abuse, significant mental impairment, and an unfavorable Supreme Court ruling, but Polk County believes that justice can only be served by executing a man who, according to his lawyers, still believes in Santa Claus.

scalia rebukes republicans in congress

About three months ago, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg made her support for the use of foreign law in court decisions public. In South Africa, she told the constitutional courts there that the use of international law was necessary because the U.S. Constitution is "a document frozen in time."

This past Thursday, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia disagreed with Ginsburg's assessment, but still asked Congress to stay out of the issue. In a speech to the National Italian American Foundation, Scalia made it clear that while he held the same position as those fervent conservatives in Congress in opposing the use of international law in court decisions, he didn't need their help.

Scalia dissented vigorously from the court's recent decisions that invoked foreign law to help strike down the death penalty for juveniles and laws against consensual homosexual conduct. In Congress, conservative Republicans responded angrily to the rulings and introduced bills that would either condemn or ban the court's use of foreign legal authorities.

He told the crowd (where a few House members happened to be present) that "no one is more opposed to the use of foreign law than I am, but I'm darned if I think it's up to Congress to direct the court how to make its decisions."

Rep. Tom Feeney (R-Fla.), who has co-sponsored a nonbinding resolution against the use of foreign law, said that Scalia's comments were "like being told your favorite baseball player disagrees with your approach to hitting."

Scalia's "brilliance," Feeney said, "has not convinced a majority of the court. He needs our help, even if he doesn't want it."

After telling Congress that "it's none of your business," Scalia joked that "part of my charm is that I tell people what they don't want to hear." Five of the sitting Supreme Court Justices support the use of international law to create a transnational link between courts and give judges legislation that informs them without binding them. Justice Ginsburg does not think that the anti-international law legislation will pass. Some conservatives agree, now that Scalia has made his position clear on congressional intervention.

The hand protecting our Constitution

Scalia gives obscene gesture at church

(UPI) - A Boston Herald reporter asked the 70-year-old conservative Roman Catholic if he faces much questioning over impartiality when it comes to issues separating church and state. "You know what I say to those people?" Scalia replied, making the obscene gesture and explaining "That's Sicilian." The 20-year veteran of the high court was caught making the gesture by a photographer with The Pilot, the Archdiocese of Boston's newspaper. "Don't publish that," Scalia told the photographer, the Herald said.

Dick Cheney says "Go f#*k yourself" on the Senate floor. George W. flips off reporters in Texas, later recorded calling them "a*sholes." Supreme court justices now too? What does this really prove?

It proves that they have nothing but contempt for the people, for reasonable discourse, and for our fourth estate (you know that little idea of a free press mentioned in the first amendment?). A Supreme Court Justice, one expected to uphold our Constitution, feels free to exercise his first amendment right in a crass, juvenile manner, but expects his orders not to publish to be obeyed? They aren't hiding their agenda, their lust for power, their disdain for the ideals of this country. They really believe they've won and they can spit on us and any institutions that question them. What an embarrassment, again.

Thank God two of my best friends cleared this situation up for me before I really got depressed. Joe knows Boston, and took the liberty of enlightening me:

"Jennifer, for shame. How quick we are to hate.

Being that I am from the great Bay State, allow me shed some light on what you have OBVIOUSLY misconstrued to be some type of insult to his detractors. In the great city of Boston, the middle finger is synonymous with and common as a hand wave. It is our special way of saying, "How is yous guys doin'?"

So please, before you pass judgment on the great and august Justice Scalia, take a moment to attempt to understand (dare I say "embrace") the cultural diversity that makes up this great land. I think we will all be better people for it.

F*#@ you all,
Joe"

Thanks, Joe. I feel better now. And from my best spin-sister Holly back home:

"Justice Scalia clarified his comments and accompanying hand gesture made March 26th on his way out of Catholic mass. Regarding Scalia's use of his middle finger pointing upward, representatives for Scalia assured shocked supporters that when used by a person ordained by God to judge the morals of others, like Scalia, the gesture actually means "see you in heaven my child." Members of the religious right breathed a sigh of relief at the revelation and immediately thanked God for this neatly packaged and convenient answer, which allowed them to stop considering whether or not Scalia is just a prick. President Bush, in a statement issued today, praised Scalia for his uncompromising ability to 'see the Christian spirit in others, even his opponents and to express hope that even the Godless will receive salvation'. Bush, however, stopped short of expressing his approval of the gesture as the new symbol of the restructured Supreme Court. Unnamed White House sources report that Bush does agree that the gesture sums up the stance the new Court intends to take on established precedent inconsistent with its preconceived notions of morality and on Constitutional freedoms deemed unnecessary."

Thanks, Holly. Those degrees in journalism and law will take you far. Don't be surprised if Fox News calls with an offer if they read this.

sandra day o'connor speaks out!

The newly retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, appointed by President Reagan but considered by many to be a moderate and "the swing vote," recently spoke out against right-wing attacks on the judiciary.

Sandra Day O'Connor was born in El Paso, Texas, and spent much of her life in Duncan, Arizona. She later attended Stanford in the 1950s. She had trouble finding work as a lawyer because of her gender, but she was appointed to the Arizona State Senate and was subsequently elected to two full terms as a Republican. She became the first woman to become Senate Majority Leader in any state. She was serving as judge on the Arizona Court of Appeals when she was tapped by President Reagan.

Ms. O'Connor spent twenty-four years on the Supreme Court. She was the first woman to be appointed to the highest court of the land, and part of her service was spent with the second woman ever appointed and confirmed, Clinton-nominated Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

On March 9, Sandra Day O'Connor gave a speech at Georgetown University in Washington, D.C. In her speech, she criticized Republican leaders for their attacks on the independent judiciary. She declared, "We must be ever-vigilant against those who would strong-arm the judiciary" and said that such threats "pose a direct threat to our constitutional freedom."

Many point to former Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX) as an example of what O'Connor is warning against. Last year during the Terri Schiavo debacle, DeLay called for scrutiny of "an arrogant, out-of-control, unaccountable judiciary that thumbed their nose at Congress and the president." Unfortunately for these Republicans, the Supreme Court is in place to uphold the Constitution rather than to enforce the conservative moral agenda.

"It takes a lot of degeneration before a country falls into dictatorship," Ms. O'Connor said, "but we should avoid these ends by avoiding these beginnings."

Redistricting Update

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court heard arguments regarding the legality of the Texas congressional redistricting plan. Anthony Zurcher of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram has an op-ed arguing that if this plan doesn't qualify as overly partisan, there's no such thing.

But in their zeal to redraw Texas' electoral map and maximize their party's representation in the congressional delegation, Rep. Tom DeLay and the state Republicans have gone too far - and, depending on the increasingly fickle views of Justice Anthony Kennedy, the Supreme Court might agree.

But David Broder doesn't think it likely. The arguments against the redistricting center on three issues: 1) A mid-decade redistricting was unfair; 2) Gerrymandering was excessive; and 3) Probably the strongest argument, that the redistricting violated the Voting Rights Act. Broder notes:

Questioning showed that about 100,000 Hispanics had been moved out of a South Texas district, improving the election prospects of Republican Rep. Henry Bonilla. The state contended that they were shifting Democrats - not Latinos - and Roberts, for one, appeared to buy the argument that the motivation was political, not racial.

So it's okay to crack and pack districts according to race, as long as you're a political hack and not a bigot. Ah, but I'm sure that Chief Justice Roberts, who attended private boarding schools, graduated from Harvard, and spent his formative years working with an ethnically diverse group of middle-aged white men, (Rehnquist was Scandinavian, after all) would certainly have a keen antenna for these issues.

abortion banned in south dakota

The South Dakota Senate has passed a ban on abortion that was proposed by the State House of Representatives. It was sent back to the House, who must agree to a small change made by the Senate, and then will be sent to the anti-abortion governor of South Dakota, Republican Mike Rounds.

"It is the time for the South Dakota Legislature to deal with this issue and protect the lives and rights of unborn children," said Democratic Sen. Julie Bartling, the bill's main sponsor.

The bill, carrying a penalty of up to five years in prison, would make it a felony for doctors or others to perform abortions.

Bartling and other supporters noted that the recent appointment of Justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito make the Supreme Court more likely to consider overturning Roe v. Wade.

It's quite unnerving that there are Democrats in South Dakota that are so ultra-conservative that they could sponsor, let alone support, this sort of outright ban on abortion. Many conservatives will allow exceptions for limited cases, such as rape, incest, and the mother's health. This is obviously a political ploy to challenge the new makeup of the United States Supreme Court.

I personally think that the new Supreme Court will override this South Dakota legislation and will not overturn the precedent of Roe v. Wade. The "conservative bloc" of the Court is made up by Associate Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Chief Justice John Roberts. The "liberal bloc" is considered to be made up by Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, John Paul Stevens, and David Souter. The new swing voter, after the departure of Sandra Day O'Connor, will be Anthony Kennedy. He has already shown the propensity to side with the liberal voters on key issues, even though he is considered by some to be conservative. He has actively supported abortion in most cases, other than late-term abortions. I feel that Kennedy will side with the four liberal justices and Roe will be saved in a 5-4 decision. The jury may still be out on Alito, too. If he decides to vote in favor of precedent, Roe v. Wade could possibly be upheld 6-3.