The fact that Judge Sonia Sotomayor is a Latina inevitably circumscribes much of her life experiences and her perceptions, including the legal system. As a person of color in the United States of America, with its history of racism and its ongoing racially discriminatory practices, Sotomayor would be naïve and intellectually shallow not to perceive the influence of this racialization on people and to consider it often in the reflective process. Likewise, with the patriarchal and male-chauvinistic orientation of much of Western society, including the U.S., Sotomayor would be crazy not to have a gendered view of the nation and the world. Race, sex, and gender matter in this country, and it is incumbent upon women of color to take into account these categorizations as they live and move and have their being, so to speak.
Consequently, the hullabaloo made over Sotomayor’s comments about the importance of race and gender—even in judicial decision-making—is preposterous. No one should have to deny one’s experiences and the shaping of one’s essential being, intellectual, emotional, and otherwise, in order to make allegedly objective arguments, rulings, interpretations, and so forth. Besides, we humans are all subjective beings with a bevy of presuppositions, affinities, orientations, etc., and we must try very hard to ascertain what they are and be forthright about them. However, we cannot simply ignore or alter them merely to assimilate to an imaginary “way” that looks eerily like traditional white-male-dominated societal constructs. Needless to say, I was viscerally delighted to discover Sotomayor’s comments about how interrelating and interacting with these man-made characterizations of personhood not only influenced her life significantly, but also helped her to become a wiser and more unique individual. The cacophony over these remarks were simply sounding brass and tinkling cymbals, to coin a phrase. Her words are standard reflections from people who have been unduly and unfairly prejudged and stereotyped.
Labeling Sotomayor’s judicial disposition is challenging, to say the least. Her arguments and opinions demonstrate a pragmatism and a deference to precedence that give the appearance of being a conservative. The majority of her dissenting opinions have conveyed a disposition to be an iconoclast, infracaninophile (supporter of the underdog), and indignant liberal (or civil libertarian). Anyone would be hard pressed to characterize her as a judicial activist. She could be described as someone who might resemble Justice Antonin Scalia in much of her agreement with the majority decisions, yet who is as unpredictable as the person she would be replacing, namely Justice David Souter. Although she may not be the sharpest tack on the judicial board, so to speak, her Princeton undergraduate and Yale Law School education holds her in good stead.
Because of the enigmatic nature of Sotomayor’s judicial record and some of her public addresses, I believed she would definitely be confirmed in due course with some alacrity. Now, it will be nice to see President Barack Obama’s first U.S. Supreme Court nominee succeed and to applaud the rise of the first Latina to that hallowed spot. I am a little chagrinned, though, that it might take a while before we see on the highest bench the likes of Justice Thurgood Marshall, who unashamedly used his life experiences, cultural background, and understanding of the limits of the judicial system arguably to forge a better society for us all!
