Just and Holy Principles

Ever since Barack Obama announced Judge Sonia Sotomayor as his first selection for the U.S. Supreme Court, there has been vigorous public debate about whether or not the Senate should confirm her. I believe that the Senate should most likely confirm her.

I was working in Washington, D.C. during the confirmation hearings of both Justices Roberts and Alito. Their hearings were intense and debate was furious. Despite both being highly qualified to be on the Court, Democrats threatened to filibuster the Roberts nomination and attempted a filibuster against Alito but failed.

Democrat objections were not about the nominees’ qualifications but about their political stances on issues like abortion. The Democrats were wrong then, and, most likely, the Republicans would be wrong to try to hold up or reject the Sotomayor nomination now.

The Senate’s constitutional duty is to confirm or reject nominations, not delay them. Delay tactics have not always been common for Supreme Court nominations. In 1922, the Senate confirmed George Sutherland, the only Supreme Court justice from Utah, the same day he was nominated. Sutherland was in Europe and may not have even known about it.

From 1789 to 1949, the average time from nomination to confirmation was 13 days. Since then, the average has been 62 days. Perhaps the confirmation period has lengthened simply because the Senate is busier today or there are more resources available to research a nominee’s background, but, more than anything, the Court has become politicized. Both parties want justices to steer the Court in a direction that furthers their political views.

Is Judge Sotomayor qualified for the job? Probably, but I don’t know enough about her to say for sure. I do know that her ethnicity, gender, and political positions on abortion, affirmative action, or civil marriage don’t matter one whit when determining if she’s qualified. As long as she is honest and law-abiding, has appropriate and adequate experience, and hasn’t made any rulings that both parties would consider to be outlandish, then she, and any future nominee, should be confirmed.

Many Republicans don’t agree with what they believe is her judicial philosophy — a broad interpretation of constitutional principles — and I probably don’t either. But the truth is that judges rarely agree on every aspect of their judicial philosophies.

If the nominee meets the basic requirements described above, then the Senate should give deference to the president’s selection, regardless of his party affiliation.

As Rex Lee once said:

One of the most important acts of any president–some have said the most important–is to appoint members of the Supreme Court, whose average tenure has been several times that of our presidents.

Therefore, over the decades of your future careers as voting Americans, just remember that when you vote for a president, you are doing more than picking the person who will lead us in war and peace and have access to Camp David and Air Force One. You are also in effect making a decision as to what kind of person you want on the Supreme Court. (”The Restoration and the Constitution,” Jan., 1991)

Whether Americans like it or not, we have chosen Barack Obama to be our president. We should support any reasonable Supreme Court nomination he makes. So far, I haven’t heard or seen any strong evidence indicating that the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor is unreasonable.

What do you think?

Resources:
Sotomayor Questionnaire (detailed background info.)
Supreme Court Nominations Research Guide
My paper on constitutional interpretation

Yesterday at 8:00 A.M., I found myself in the Santa Monica Courthouse anxiously awaiting the opportunity to do something I had always wanted to do: jury duty. After enjoying some leisurely reading and hearing a pep talk about civic duty, justice, and the American way, a woman instructed all 46 of us waiting in the jury room to go to courtroom 215 for jury selection.

Inside, the nice young judge reviewed the jury selection process for us and informed us that we’d be lucky to be chosen for this case since it was more interesting than most. One man was suing another for hitting him in the head with a golf ball while golfing in West L.A. The topic peaked my interest but, to my disappointment, I was not called to join the first 18 potential jurors on the stand.

I listened with great interest as the judge and attorneys interrogated the 18 jurors for almost three hours.

“What is your name and occupation?”
“Have you sued anyone for personal injury or has anyone sued you?”
“Is there any reason you can’t be an impartial juror in this case?”
“Do you golf?”
And on and on…

The judge dismissed one juror quickly because he had lost his eye from a flying golf ball at the age of 12. Many jurors were obviously saying things in hopes of dismissal from the trial. One juror claimed that he was unable to be unbiased because of past trauma from a personal injury. Another said that the case was frivolous and a waste of jurors’ time. Many others claimed that serving on a one or two week trial would cause them to lose their business, house, or a prepaid vacation. It seemed as if serving on a jury was a plague to avoid at all costs.

As each attorney took his turn dismissing jurors he feared might disrupt his chances of winning the case, the most uncooperative jurors were sent home first. Other jurors were called to replace them for questioning, but not I. At this point, I assumed my chances of being called to the jury were slim. But the musical chairs continued. To my surprise, they booted many more jurors and called me to the group of reserves as juror number 16.

After questioning me and the other new jurors, the attorneys booted more of the 12 jurors until the judge asked me to move to the juror number 1 spot. I was excited and sure that they’d have no reason to dismiss me. But no sooner had I gotten comfortable in the top spot than the plaintiff’s attorney announced, “We thank juror number one for his service and ask that he be dismissed.” I had been booted–just when I thought I would get to be on a real jury in a real trial. I was surprised and disappointed. I felt like the latest American Idol contestant voted off the show for no apparent reason. Still, I was satisfied that I had done everything I could to fulfill my civic duty for that day.

The Constitution guarantees the accused the right to a trial by an impartial jury. But if we as fellow citizens are not willing to serve as jurors, then this right cannot be maintained. Jurors may not always produce the best verdict, but it may be better to put decisions in the hands of 12 Americans from all walks of life than in the hands of one man or woman who is paid to judge. Jury duty is one important aspect of government by, of, and for the people. All American citizens should willingly, and even happily, fulfill their civic duty by serving as jurors when called.

What do you think?

Nebraska State Senator Ernie Chambers has filed a lawsuit; the defendant: God. Chambers is accusing God of widespread terrorization with His “fearsome floods, egregious earthquakes, horrendous hurricanes, terrifying tornados, pestilential plagues, ferocious famines, devastating droughts, genocidal wars, birth defects and the like.”

Chambers filed the lawsuit in response to another suit filed that he considers to be frivolous. He wanted to make the point that anybody can sue anybody, thus his suit is valid.

Frivolous lawsuits are often filed. For example, Roy Pearson, a Washington, D.C. administrative judge recently claimed that Custom Cleaners lost his pair of pants, so he wanted $54 million in damages. He said that the cleaner’s “same day service” and “satisfaction guaranteed” signs mislead customers.

The case itself was not frivolous since Mr. Pearson had a right to sue the company to recover the cost of his lost pants plus a little more for time lost, stress, and other damages. The purpose of the tort system is to protect people from being harmed by others and to punish those doing the harm. But $54 million for a pair of pants seems a bit excessive.

Maybe frivolous lawsuits are a necessary negative side-effect of a system designed to protect citizens from harm, and yet, Senator Chambers’s point is well taken. Maybe his frivolous suit will spur some action to find ways to prevent lawsuits that are plainly frivolous.

What do you think?