Lady Justice?

On Tuesday President Obama announced his nomination of Sonia Sotomayor for Supreme Court Justice. I have not done my own vetting process of her, and know very little. So I will reserve my confirmation until I know more about her and her qualifications. Instead, I am writing about something that President Obama said while introducing her. He gave two qualities that are essential to a Supreme Court Justice: a rigorous intellect and a recognition of the limits of the judicial role. Woo-hoo! I couldn't agree with you more, Mr. President! I couldn't believe my ears, but before I could do my celebration dance, he continued and inevitably contradicted himself.

He stated, "...yet, these qualities alone are insufficient. We need something more. For as Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once said, "The life of the law has not been logic; it has been experience." Wait...WHAT?!?!? Were you just sweet talking me with your pick up line about limits of the judicial role? And now you are quoting from a Legal Realist, and suggesting that someones life experience should not only play a small role, but an essential role in their judicial decisions? Complete contradiction.

Without boring you with legal mumbo-jumbo, which I hope to eventually formally study, I want to get your thoughts on legal realism versus legal formalism. Before President Obama's introduction of a possible Supreme Court Justice, I was unaware of these opposing school's of thought. Legal Realism is the concept of the law being "indeterminate"and should be used as "a tool to achieve social purposes and to balance competing societal interests". Legal Formalism argues that "decisions rest on a relatively closed-set of logically-organized rules" and judges should be constrained in their interpretations.

It seems obvious that President Obama, and Sonia Sotomayor, interpret the judicial role of the Supreme Court as a way to "achieve social purposes and balance competing societal interests". Why would they believe that her "life experience" is one of the essential factors as to her qualifications? A Legal Formalist (which from what I understand about the ideology, I fall under) would argue it should have absolutely no bearing on her qualifications. Whether she is male, female, white, black, hispanic, rich, poor, should not matter! Lady Justice should be blind, and free from prejudice and passion. I'm no idiot, I know there have been conservative judges that interpret the law differently because of past experiences. This is not exclusive to Sonia Sotomayor or President Obama. But this is the first time I have been aware of it, and I think it is wrong. Just as President Bush put in a more conservative justice while he was in office, President Obama is nominating a more liberal judge. Fine. The Supreme Court should be balanced in ideology. But the entire concept of her "rigorous intellect" being "insufficient" without not logic, but experience; is absolutely wrong.