| President 
              Barack Obama has made his imprint on the history of the federal 
              judiciary with the nomination of the first Latina to the United 
              States Supreme Court. Federal Appeals Court Justice, Sonia Sotomayor, 
              was at the top of the President’s “short list” from the time Associate 
              Justice David Souter announced his retirement.  There 
              had been a very heavy lobby to appoint a Latino, and the feminist 
              lobby suggested that the court was going backward instead of forward 
              after baby Bush didn’t replace retired justice Sandra Day O’Conner 
              with a woman. Justice Ruth Gingsberg has also signaled that she 
              doesn’t appreciate being odd woman out in the nation’s highest and 
              most exclusive grumpy old male’s club.  Supreme 
              Court picks usually come with a lot of scrutiny for the nominee 
              and political grief for the President. Criticism will not be avoided. 
              However, Justice Sotomayor represented a “two-fer” for President 
              Obama and had the potential to quail criticism from two significant 
              stakeholder groups, women and Latinos. He couldn’t have made a safer 
              pick in the selection of Sotomayor. Safe 
              usually means “status quo” went it comes to judiciary selections. 
              This month celebrates the 55th anniversary of the Brown decision, 
              the last time this country engaged a major culture shift stemming 
              out of  the 
              courts. Since that time, this country has engaged in a 50 year battle 
              to avoid what pundits called “judicial activism,” courts that seek 
              to interpret the law based on contemporary cultural interpretation—not 
              “original intent” of the law or even legal precedence. Original 
              intent theorists offer judicial views based on how the law was interpreted 
              when originally wrote—no matter when it was written. So laws formulated 
              when the Constitution was ratified over 220 years ago offer opinions 
              that excluded ethnic minorities and women, and affirmed cultural 
              norms as slavery and segregation as legal. Former 
              California Governor Earl Warren changed the whole temperament of 
              a right leaning high Court in 1952 when he was appointed Chief Justice 
              in the midst of the most controversial case of the twentieth century, 
              a case to desegregate public schools. In the aftermath of the Brown 
              decision came a ten year massive resistance movement, attempts 
              to repeal the decision, attempts to impeach the Chief Justice and 
              attempts by Congress to affirm cultural norms through a public “manifesto” 
              to offset what they called attempts by the Court to overreach into 
              the legislative branch of government by “legislating from the bench.” 
               Since 
              that time, there has been a high and low, day and night watch for 
              the appointment of “judicial activists.” The calls of “activist” 
              have already been waged. Sotomayor doesn’t fit that bill. She could, 
              given her “raised from a single parent” background (which is what 
              conservatives fear), inasmuch as she certainly would have certain 
              sensibilities toward poor and disadvantaged people. But she was 
              appointed by a conservative (Daddy Bush) and elevated to the federal 
              appeals court by a centrist (Clinton), it would be a difficult argument 
              to frame Sotomayor as an activist jurist. What 
              is visionary about the pick is that Sotomayor is a reflection of 
              the nation’s future, given the projected growth of Latinos, and 
              not rooted in the ideological conflicts that have torn up the country 
              the past 30 years. At 54 years old, Sotomayor will sit 30 years 
              (if her health holds up) right beside an ideologue, Chief Justice 
              Roberts, also in his mid-fifties to counteract attempts to stranglehold 
              the Supreme Court in a judicial restraint mentality.  It 
              was a visionary pick to try and bring some semblance of gender balance 
              to the Court (though they have a ways to go on that one). However, 
              most important about the selection was that it was a “gimme” in 
              terms of what Obama was expecting, in terms of Supreme Court picks. 
              He will still get four more, in he serves eight years, as the older 
              members of the court in their late seventies and mid-eighties will 
              certainly give way to younger replacements over the term of the 
              Obama administration. While the look-out for activist jurists will 
              not stop, a Democrat controlled Congress and a desire to have a 
              Court that looks like America, will aid President Obama’s vision 
              to bring the Supreme Court into the 21st Century. In that regard, 
              it was the one of the safest visionary picks he could have made. 
               BlackCommentator.com 
              Columnist, 
              Dr. Anthony Asadullah Samad, is a national columnist, managing director 
              of the Urban Issues Forum 
              and author of Saving The Race: Empowerment Through Wisdom. His Website 
              is AnthonySamad.com. Click here 
              to contact Dr. Samad.   |