"Senator Boxer: Nominate a Woman!!!-Making the Band (Part 2): A New Supreme

Wow, Senator Boxer another litmus test right out of the cultural wars, just brilliant.

You know what I can't take it anymore, all the litmus tests for being a Justice on the Supreme Court. If its not how many left or right leaning decisions in the ceaseless cultural war, now its gender. I agree there are not enough women judges on the bench, and add in the additional criteria of race and there are not enough minority (women & men) on the courts. The need for a person of color is as great as the need for a woman, as a matter of fact I believe 2 people of color , and 2 women so its a tie.

That is why I agree with Senator Boxer, we do need a Supreme Court that is more representative of all Americans, so that its decisions had better reflect the diversity of life experiences and points-of-view in America. Where I disagree is creating a gender or racial litmus test. Whoever is the President chooses, I am sure it will be based on not only gender or ethnicity, but merit, the legal reasoning s/he demonstrated in decisions, the President's legal philosophy for American law in the 21st century, and the nominee's expertise in a specific areas of law that the Court is lacking.

Such a decision does not preclude a woman, or minority, both of which are sorely needed on the Court with the Federalist 5. I will also stress I would love to see a woman that is a person of color. However, it will neutralize the blistering cultural wars, and yes sexist rhetoric ( Mr. Rosen this means you—temperament—please) and focus on a need of the Court to deal with future issues on the horizon.

I have blogged about this in “Making the Band” Part 1, about the punditry and political jockeying and the essential question in my book is the same: What area of expertise is needed on the Court in light of the current economic crisis and 21st century issue? Race, gender, etc are moot point Democrats won folks.

Nevertheless, please exercise your right to be heard and your opinion stated, by participating in the process and lobby for whomever you think is the best candidate. Women’s groups should and must lobby for women’s issues and women’s candidates, just as People of Color ( Asians, African-Americans, Latino-Americans, etc) must lobby to for issues and candidates, etc… ad infinitum that affect them. Free Speech is essential to democracy, so go ahead and write letters and emails, but think about what I said as well.

What area of expertise is needed on the Court in light of the current economic crisis and 21st century issue?

Making the Band: A New Supreme Court Justice

Last week Justice Souter of the United States Supreme Court announced that he was leaving the Court at the end of the current term. It is obvious that choosing of a new Supreme Court Justice is one of most far-reaching decisions of any president, because its effects to Americans and the way we perceive what law is and how law is applied. However, Justice Souter’s announcement has caused a furor of activity on the Left and Right flanks of the social, political, and legal landscapes, as his leaving may signal that other older justices are soon to follow. Therefore, the possibility that President Obama could have 2 more appointments to the high Court makes this choice even more important, as it will reveal clues to his legal philosophy as to the path American law will follow: liberal, moderate, or conservative; which path will he choose.

The propaganda machines have begun and it’s the same old arguments just laced with sexism, and other darker aspects of society. For example, Jeffrey Rosen’s hatchet job on Sonia Sotomayor in The New Republic , which was subsequently debunked by truth. Later, Rosen mounted an on-line defense, declaring that his purpose had only been to challenge Sotomayor's judicial temperament on the bench. Judge Sotomayor’s temperament—this is your best shot?

That is the most stupid and ill-conceived argument I have ever heard, and is lacking in any legal basis that would make a judge unfit to serve on the Court. Mr. Rosen, take it from a guy with a Juris Doctor and Masters of Laws, it is not the temperament of the judge or the fact that she asks tough questions, but the quality of the legal reasoning in his/her decisions. If a judge asks a tough question, it God-given sign the judge is carefully considering your argument and weighing the law and the facts of your particular case, and as a good attorney, you had better be able to answer her with sound legal reasoning. It is thinking like yours that caused the country to suffer through faulty right wing, strict constructionist legal reasoning, and Justices that refuse to ask even one question on the high Court.

My advice is to choose a justice that writes like Justice O’Connor, with the reasoning of Justice Marshall, and understood that we are in the 21^st century not the late 18^th, instead of the ramblings of Federalist Five.

What is puzzling is the stupor of creativity exhibited by the GOP in their attacks of late, its 24/7 cultural wars. I mean, if the GOP wants a real debate stop the cultural war and talk legal reasoning of decisions and not temperament. This could give them a good platform for a middle of the road judge, instead of a ultra left/right fight. I know they have tried the activist judge bit, but it is time for a new argument. The answer is simple really, a cultural war gets you votes.

For the extended version of this post on who needs to be the next Supreme, please check out my other site, The Political Jaguar