By Tom Quiner

Justice Sonia Sotomayo

Justice Sonia Sotomayo

Justice Sonia Sotomayo demands more diversity on the Supreme Court.

Says the justice:

“I … think there is a disadvantage from having (five) Catholics, three Jews, everyone from an Ivy League school.”

I have a legitimate question for the Justice Sotomayo: why?

Deciding critical Constitutional questions shouldn’t be determined by one’s skin color or ethnicity or religion or sexual preference, it should be determined by wisdom, one’s mind, and one’s ability to reason.

Selecting a justice who will serve a lifetime should be predicated by his or her ability, not by some sort of PC litmus test.

For the record, Judge Merrick Garland, President Obama’s choice to fill the seat left vacant by Antonin Scalia’s untimely passing, is by all accounts a fine legal mind. I know someone who was a partner in the same law firm as Garland who attests to his credentials.

The moderate to left-leaning Judge Garland is the best Republicans are going to get from Mr. Obama. Garland is no Scalia. But who is?

Republicans are smart to go slow on his nomination. If Donald Trump gets the nomination, Republicans will most likely lose the election and possibly the Senate, too. In that case, Judge Garland looks pretty good, since a President Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders would opt for a jurist who reads the Constitution as a “living, breathing document” (translation: anything they want it to say).

They could nominate someone who makes Garland look like a conservative.

But if a Ted Cruz or John Kasich gets the nomination, Republicans chances are pretty good, and the same stalling tactic promoted by Democrats when the tables were turned makes all the sense in the world. I would love to have Ted Cruz select the next Supreme Court justice.

We don’t need another affirmative-action nomination like a Sonia Sotomayo, we need a brilliant legal mind who will decide cases based on the Constitution, not on his politics.

God help us find another Scalia.

 

6 Comments

  1. sklyjd on April 9, 2016 at 6:53 pm

    Tom, I am not familiar with religious politics intertwined as they are in your country, however if I was tried in a court of law I would like to think the Judge was not persuaded through religious ideology to make decisions on my life. This could be detrimental especially to atheists, homosexuals, women and children don’t you think?

    • quinersdiner on April 10, 2016 at 7:49 am

      Correct, court decisions should be decided on the merits of the case, not one’s world view or religion. That’s why I want another Scalia. It is the liberal jurists who decide cases based on their world view and political bias, oftentimes twisting the Constitution into an unrecognizable pretzel.

    • parrillaturi on April 10, 2016 at 9:15 am

      I agree with Tom. The problem we have here is the following: some of the judges here want to legislate, instead of handing down decisions on the merit of the case. Sotomayor for instance, thinks they have the right to pass laws, and/or legislate. This would be a dangerous precedence.

  2. parrillaturi on April 9, 2016 at 11:46 pm

    My fellow Puerto Rican, Sonia Sotomayor, has been a great disappointment to me, from way back.

  3. Shawn Pavlik on April 11, 2016 at 12:09 pm

    Garland is anti-2nd amendment, and has actually said he would support a ban on handguns.

Leave a Comment