Our diverse Supreme Court

Tom Jackson
Mar 23, 2010


President Barack Obama chose Sonia Sotomayor at least in part because she adds "diversity" to the court — she's a woman, and a Hispanic, those shoring up the administration's ties with two key constituencies.

Jeffrey Toobin has written a fascinating article for the "New Yorker" noting that diversity, although it wasn't always called that, has long been a concern for U.S. presidents. Early presidents had to be careful to make sure all regions of the country were represented. "So Presidents came to honor an informal tradition of preserving a New England seat, a Virginia seat, a Pennsylvania seat, and a New York seat on the Court," Toobin writes.

Religious diversity also was important for a time on the court, although it's less important now. Did you know — or care — that if Sotomayor is confirmed, there will be six Catholics on the Supreme Court?



Everyone is missing the point here.  Our Supreme Court/Judiciary branch of the federal government, as established in the Constitution, has been hijacked by special interests, minoity fringe arguments and the ignoring of the purpose of the court.  Simply, review all cases brought before the court, accept or reject whether the arguments will be heard, and if heard, apply the existing law(s) as written--no empathy, no sympathy, no creating or legislating new laws from the bench in order to make a square peg fit a round hole.  It is the job of Congress to be creative, not the court.  Liberal or conservative, Christian or non, pro life or choice--these and many more are distractions that take away from the real purpose ot the Law--what does the Constitution say?  How is the Law applied?  Does the outcome of the courts decision uphold the Constitution or does it usurp it?  Ms. Sotomayor's appointment should only be confirmed if indeed her view of justice is blind and not influenced by any other means excepting the Constitutional Law, as prescribed, by the United States.