Here's the thing, either you believe the constitution is a living breathing document that is subject to change (amendments) or you don't. Granted, there are certain inalienable rights that we possess as American citizens and the foundations of the constitution are strong and should be adhered to. However, it is my belief that times and people change and therefore the constitution should act as a guideline to determine if a law or amendment is unconstitutional.
As our citizenry changes and becomes more diverse, it is important that these groups are represented in all branches of government. No matter who you are, you have certain thoughts and feelings about various subjects in life and often these are carried into what you do. As these minority groups get more and more political power their views and positions are reflected more and more in government.
For example, if we strictly adhered to the original writing of the constitution without exception would blacks still be considered 3/5 of a person? Would women have the right to vote? Would we have all the civil rights that we have today? The answer is categorically no. It was because of the circumstances of the times, and the thoughts and feelings of the judges at that time that we now have these rights. Laws were made, which adhered to the basic principles of the constitution, but were not explicitly written into the constitution. For example, abortion is covered under the right to privacy.
It is for this reason that many people are excited about having not only another woman, but a hispanic woman who came from a poor background. The argument goes that because of her background and race she will be more empathetic to a very large portion of our population. In fact, in probably 10-20 years hispanics will make up the majority in this country.
Now, is it OK for a justice of the supreme court, or any judge for that matter, to be more sympathetic to one side or the other regardless of the law? Absolutely not. But does her background give her a "unique" perspective on the bench that perhaps many of the other justices who grew up privileged do not have? Most likely.
As long as she adheres to the law and the constitution, which her decisions clearly show that she has, I think she could be a valuable addition to the Supreme Court.
As for me, I just want a judge with a history of sound, logical, and fair jurisprudence. I couldn't care less about the race or gender of that person.
Read more-->
