Tuesday's editorial regarding Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor was filled with much of the same "empathy" we expect Sotomayor to rule with, but little fact.
It is of note that you didn't provide the context of the "wise Latina" quote (in which she stated her opinion that a "wise Latina" would come to better conclusions than a white male).
Had a conservative nominee stated that a "wise white male" would come to better conclusions than a Latina, I doubt you would treat it with the same disregard.
You state that the job of a Supreme Court justice is to apply the law, not make it. I agree.
Unfortunately, Sotomayor believes (and has publicly stated) that the federal appeals courts - her courts - are where policy is made. This statement has been a focal point of the debate. Its absence in your evaluation seems to indicate frightening negligence, ignorance or bias; and
perhaps all three. You go on to say you could not find evidence that Sotomayor could be classified with an agenda; that she hasn't shown blatant "sympathy" to minority groups.
Ricci v. DeStefano flies in the face of this. The case itself is Sotomayor doing her best to influence policy.
As for the ethics, you call it "reverse racism," but there is no such thing. The term is nothing more than a dishonest method of positing that racism against group X is somehow more acceptable than racism against group Y, when in reality all racism is wrong in principle.
You state that when Sotomayor struck down the appeal, she was doing so because she "firmly believes" in the Civil Rights Act (making it seem like her opponents don't care about civil rights).
The truth is that Title VII applies to ALL races, including, oh my God, Caucasians.
If African-Americans were denied promotions because Caucasians couldn't pass the same race-neutral test, you'd blow decades worth of DARTS before letting that die.
Lastly, Pappas v. Giuliani had an established precedent that Sotomayor disregarded: Garcetti v. Ceballos, where it established that the First Amendment does not apply to speech pursuant to public employment. Because Pappas' situation (the solicitation reception) was enabled by his employment, he was acting in official capacity, and Sotomayor, regardless of her position's moral high ground, was trying to make policy, not interpret it.
Benjamin Camenker is a UF graduate.
