On SCotUS and Tokenism

Orrin Hatch and many of the more vocal Republicans think that the President’s choice for the open SCotUS spot is another example of an unwanted liberal influence taking over the country. There seems to be a very palpable line of thought that Judge Sotomayor will use her considerable influence to sway the court toward an extremely liberal activism.

But how will she rock a boat that is already taking on water on its starboard side, submerged by the weight of the extremely conservative jurisprudence of Justices Scalia, Alito and Thomas?

Some are saying that President Obama’s decision is clouded by his desire to placate the Hispanic population. First, I think it’s worth mentioning that Sonia Sotomayor is a very smart person and seems to be able to uphold the law and precedence without letting her own opinions get in the way.

To say that Obama’s choice was based solely on race is ridiculous.

Not because it isn’t partially true, but because this certainly isn’t the first time it’s happened. Clarence Thomas was made an appellate judge against his wishes in 1989 and was, two years later, appointed as Thurgood Marshall’s replacement. George HW Bush said that Clarence Thomas was the only qualified black judge to take Marshall’s place.

Bush didn’t appoint Thomas in an attempt at tokenism. He appointed him because he was the most qualified: one of the prerequisites to getting the job seems to have been being black. Yes, Thomas has had to learn on the job a little, but he was a talented lawyer and politician before he was a judge. And he’s turned out to be a fine justice, maybe not as outspoken or popular as Scalia, but he hasn’t embarrassed anybody (like Harriet Meier might have).

Sotomayor’s being Hispanic is beyond the point. It doesn’t matter that she’s Hispanic: it matters that she’s the most talented and qualified. And in a time when the Hispanic population is growing exponentially, why shouldn’t the SCotUS be more representative of the population?