Supreme Court Policy and Rich vs. Poor

Sonia Sotomayor, the new nominee for the Supreme Court, will probably get away with saying that a Latina woman would probably make better decisions than a white male. Conservatives point out that if a white man made the same claim with regard to blacks, he would be pilloried in the press. And liberals retort that when Latina women help to run the world as white males have for 200 years, they probably won't say that either. So the situation is not symmetrical: the poor (the disadvantaged) can say what the rich (the advantaged) cannot. This illutrates two points. First, the underlying issue in most social questions these days is income redistribution. And second, many really don't want Supreme Court justices to faithfully follow their oath to "...administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich."

Obama's Choice of Supreme Court Justices: He Has it Both Ways

Two statements by Obama on Supreme Court appointments. In supporting Sotomayor after some of her past statements that have drawn criticism, Obama said he wants justices who would "approach decisions without any particular ideology or agenda, but rather a commitment to impartial justice." But in voting against Roberts' candidacy in 2005, Senator Obama said that he found no fault with Roberts' rulings in 95 percent of the high court's cases, but "That last mile can only be determined on the basis of one's deepest values, one's core concerns, one's broader perspectives on how the world works, and the depth and breadth of one's empathy … the critical ingredient is supplied by what is in the judge's heart." Maybe it’s one of those “poor choice of words” (as opposed to poor choice of meaning) he ascribes to Sotomayor. (Quotes from Google.)

Closing Quantanamo