Diverse Judicial Experiences
The (rabidly conservative) Freedom Defense Fund Blog has pulled this quote from a 2001 speech of possible Supreme Court Nominee Sonja Sotomayer:
Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O’Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases…I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor [Martha] Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.
FDF asks
Hmmmm… what “richness of experience?” Affirmative action? Entitlement?
…PS - Don’t Sotomayer’s comments rise to the level of racial and gender (anti-white, anti-male) hate-speach[sic]? And therefore a crime under the new federal hate crimes legislation? We demand action!
I’ve written earlier on why diversity on the court is important, and how hate speech (which is how we elitists spell “hate-speach”) is different than a hate crime. I don’t mind going over it again to bring the Freedom Defense Foundation up to speed. I’m sure they’re reasonable people over there, right? I also assume that the equation of Sotomayer’s speech with “hate speech” was a sort of typo, probably the result of somebody inadvertently vomitting all over the keyboard, so I’ll let that lie.
Does “richness of experience” mean “affirmative action”? No. But what if we run it through our secret liberal-speak decoder rings. Nope. It still just means “richness of experience.” As in “valuable and diverse things you learn through living your life.” Now, I don’t think a wise latina woman necessarily has a more rich life than a wise white man. But I do know that we’ve got quite a number of white men on the Supreme Court.
Sotomayer is right. Will a wise old man and a wise woman come to the same decisions? It depends what that decision is. Put a wise old man in front of a closet and tell him to get dressed for the evening. Do the same with the wise old woman. Will they come out wearing the same thing? Unlikely. The wise old woman, growing up in the 20s or 30s is much more likely to have learned to cook at a young age. Ask them some culinary questions and you’re likely to get some different answers. Now ask whether the toilet seat should be left up or down. Now ask them about women’s sufferage. Now ask about (a traditionally gendered such as) football. It means something different to them, doesn’t it? Now ask how they feel about the draft? Title IX? We could keep going. Because of existing and historical gender differentiation, the two are likely to have different knowledge and different perspectives on a host of issues.
A Supreme Court made up entirely of white men might lack some important perspectives. If a case comes to the Supreme Court, it means that some area of the law is unclear—so it isn’t possible to simply apply the law. Justices draw on their experience and wisdom to determine the best policy. Adding the voice and the rich experience of a wise hispanic woman might add some diversity of understanding and background to the court. While this view won’t be consistently better, it will add some information for the rest of the court on what is at stake. When the justices deliberate, they will be able to reach a better decision for everybody.
Is “richness of experience” the primary qualification for a Supreme Court candidate? Of course not. But when choosing between a number of candidates with comparably distinguished legal careers, it’s a good thing to take into account.
