An Ol' Broad's Ramblings
Decisions, Decisions!
First Hispanic justice? Some say it was Cardozo
Benjamin Cardozo was indisputably the second Jewish justice on the Supreme Court. Was he also the first Hispanic? There is no conclusive answer.
The Federal Judicial Center, on its Web site, says he was not. Some readers, objecting to the description of Judge Sonia Sotomayor as the first Hispanic nominee to the high court, say Cardozo was Hispanic.
Why is this so important?
Cardozo was nominated to the court by President Herbert Hoover in 1932. He was a member of a prominent family of Sephardic Jews who claim Portuguese heritage.
The word “Sephardic” is derived from the Hebrew word for Spain. (Judaism 101)
Cardozo himself was proud of his heritage, Kaufman said, but he probably never had occasion to consider whether he was Hispanic.
I’ve always thought that it’s not important, although influential, where we come from, but where we end up. Evidently, this gentleman believed himself to be American, not a hyphen.
By another measure, though, Cardozo was an “ethnic pick,” Herz said.
At that period in time, I suppose he would be. I had hoped we’d get past that, but this administration seems to making choices based solely on ethnicity, and politics.
In an era when there was a Jewish seat, a Catholic seat and regional seats on the court, there already was a Jewish justice, Louis Brandeis, and a New Yorker serving. Cardozo also was a Democrat, while Hoover was a Republican.
Can you imagine? Choosing a Supreme, based solely on qualifications, since Jan 20, 2009? Me neither.
Now, the issue at hand….B. Hussein’s pick for the seat on the highest court in the land is being touting as the ‘first Hispanic”. Guess what! I don’t care! I can’t imagine why this is a big deal. Is she qualified? Well, from what I’ve read, not really, in my opinion. One of the cases that has been pointed out is the one involving the baseball strike in 1994. This woman told a private business, they couldn’t use replacement players. I whole heartedly disagree with that decision, and I did at the time too.
For a better rundown on cases that Mzzz Sotomayor has been involved, the SCOTUS blog is a real good source. A couple of the many cases that gives me pause is:
First Amendment – Religion: In addition to her dissent in Hankins v. Lyght, 441 F.3d 96 (2d Cir. 2006), discussed below, in Ford v. McGinnis, 352 F.3d 382 (2d Cir. 2003), Sotomayor wrote an opinion that reversed a district court decision holding that a Muslim inmate’s First Amendment rights had not been violated because the holiday feast that he was denied was not a mandatory one in Islam. Sotomayor held that the inmate’s First Amendment’s rights were violated because the feast was subjectively important to the inmate’s practice of Islam. But in Duamutef v. Hollins, 297 F.3d 108 (2d Cir. 2002), Sotomayor wrote an opinion holding that an inmate’s First Amendment rights were not violated by prison officials’ monitoring of his mail – prompted by the inmate’s receipt of a book with the title “Blood in the Streets: Investment Profits in a World Gone Mad” – because the inmate had previously caused disturbances and the prison needed to forestall security problems.
While these two cases both involved the 1st Amendment, they address 2 different aspects, religion and speech. One in overturning the lower court on non mandatory food, the other, an rather well reviewed book, just because it had the word ‘blood’ in the title? Now, in all honesty, I’m one of those people who don’t believe people are put in jail for ‘rehabilitation’. I think they are there for punishment. I’ll repeat, I am not a lawyer, and don’t even pretent to have a great deal of knowledge about the law. I do have a rather keen sense of right and wrong though. Denying a non mandatory meal to an inmate was not a violation, getting the knickers in a twist over a book on economics was. Perhaps, making use of a prison computer to look the book up would have saved the taxpayers a great deal of money? Obviously, I disagree with Sotomayor’s ruling on both of these cases.
One of the cases that has been in the news quite frequently is Ricci v. Destefano. I find this case more than a little disturbing. Sotomayor was part of a three-judge panel that initially affirmed the district court’s judgment in the city’s favor with a summary order that described the district court’s decision as a “thorough, thoughtful, and well-reasoned opinion.” (source) If it had been the reverse, if it had been black firefighters that had done well on the test, and the white firefighters had done poorly, would this ever have been an issue? IMHO, when it comes to such tests, there would be no race involved, only scores. If you want to qualify, try studying.
I don’t believe Sonia Sotomayor is qualified to sit on the highest court in the land. I don’t want a judge who bases his/her opinions on ‘feelings’. I would like to see judges base their decisions on the actual law, on the U.S. Constitution. Judges do not, or are not suppose to, make policy! Although, the intent of the Supreme Court, and most federal courts, has become quite different than what is is now. Wouldn’t it be nice if law, logic, and the U.S. Constitution were put above politics? What a novel concept.
Just my 2 cents.
