I try not to cover one subject excessively in one day, but the Sotomayor situation has me interested and disturbed. Her statement that her judicial philosophy is simply “fidelity to the law” was grossly insufficient. Her textbook answer of a judge’s role being not a maker of law but an applier of law revealed absolutely nothing about her. Since law can be “applied” as a judge sees fit, the real question is: how will she interpret law? Does she believe, as she implied with her ruling on the firefighters, that the existence of inequality in society due to effort and achievement needs to be undone on a racial or ethnic basis? In other words, does she believe that the “advantage” of being a member of the majority class in the United States be offset through judicial action? Should a judge’s worldview be allowed to distort the intended purpose of law?

In cases that make it to the Supreme Court, where many are not clear-cut situations, it will be these worldviews by people who pledge to be impartial that will skew law in one direction or another. Do we want justices who interpret the second amendment as not a personal right, but a collective right to be usurped by the state? Do we want justices who deny the sanctity of life and interpret that certain laws excuse some forms of murder (or what can be considered murder)? Or justices that define separation of church and state in extremely strictly secular terms, where the mere mention of a religious or moral conviction would be criminalized and sections referring to some greater power in our political documents would be stricken? It is these views that will end up shaping our society and possibly redefining our government if we are not careful. These are the issues that need to be brought up during the “roast of Sotomayor” that is supposed to take place tomorrow. While she may be confirmed regardless of what happens during these hearings, at the very least it may help bring up subjects that are often ignored in the public discourse.

-AG