Courtwatch
May 26, 2009 9:26 AM

The First Day Of The Rest Of Her Life

(AP Photo/Alex Brandon)
Welcome, Madame Justice Sonia Sotomayor, to one of the most exclusive clubs in America. Despite the fact that the nation is awash in female lawyers, you are just the third woman to join the United States Supreme Court. I am quite sure that your presence there will be a great pleasure to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who alone has been holding the fort for the gender since the departure of Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, the first woman Justice and one of its most popular ever.

Take a look to your left. Now take a look to your right. The eight other people with whom you are about to go to work include some of the smartest people you are ever going to meet in the law. Hope you like working with them, and hanging out with them, because barring a catastrophe you will likely spend decades working alongside many of them. You will, in other words, grow old with these people in a sort of special retirement home where you get to wear robes a few dozen times a year and get to leave on long summer breaks.

It’s a great honor, indeed, as you know, to become a Supreme Court justice. But don’t think that it’s all beer and Skittles, either (I’m assuming here that you know what beer and skittles are since you grew up like most of the rest of us). Sure, the hours are short, you never have to worry about getting fired, and everyone always rises when you walk into a room. But, within the next five years, even as you are just settling in to this challenging new enterprise, you will be confronted with stark choices on some of the most controversial issues of our time.

You will almost certainly have to rule on major terrorism issues, from the rights of detainees to the scope of the government’s power to rely upon the “state secrets” to doctrine to thwart litigation. You probably will have to deal with affirmative action and global warming—and, yes, the court you are about to join is quite likely to reverse your controversial ruling against white firefighters in Connecticut. The justices, it turns out, didn’t think much of your decision to back the City of New Haven in its effort to help promote black firefighters over white ones.

Big oil companies will continue to fight for their right to pollute. Pharmaceutical companies will fight against health care regulation. And as more and more states recognize same-sex marriage you may even have to vote as a relative newbie on whether there is a federal constitutional right to the same. You will have to render decisions on these vital issues, not to mention the life-and-death cases that crop up in the Court’s capital punishment jurisprudence.

You are President Barack Obama’s first choice, the 111th Supreme Court Justice in all, and the second Hispanic on the Court only if you count Justice Benjamin Cardozo, which most people don’t. The president will almost certainly get the opportunity to nominate one or two other people to fill other positions at the Court but you will always be first—and everyone remembers their first justice! Well, everyone but Jimmy Carter, that is. He didn’t last long enough to appoint even a single justice so he had to go out and win a Nobel Peace Prize to achieve some sort of lasting legacy.

The last president to appoint only a single justice to the Supreme Court was Gerald Ford and that’s because he only served for a few years after Richard Nixon resigned. Who did Ford pick? Justice John Paul Stevens, who 34 years later is still there at Club Justice! He’s the guy with the bow-tie, incidentally, who is straight out of central-casting for the role of Grandpa. Justice Stevens, incidentally, pulled a “Souter” before there was a “Souter” to pull—Stevens was a disappointment to conservatives and a godsend to liberals and progressives within a decade of reaching the High Court.

The man you replace, David H. Souter, earned scorn from the right. Will you, too, disappoint your current supporters? I hope so. I cringe at the idea that you, or any other judge, would be so doctrinal so as to appease a particular constituency with virtually every single vote. Don’t just do well in your new job, in other words, try to do good, too. That’s not “judicial activism,” whatever that means. It’s not even “empathy,” as the president might define it. It’s just a reminder, a plea really, to continue to be a decent human being even as you exercise the immense power you now possess.

For you now it’s all about preparing for your confirmation hearing which will take place before the summer is out. Don’t worry, it won’t be as hard a test as the bar examination. Half the time, the Senators on the Judiciary Committee are doing crossword puzzles or making statements in lieu of questions. And if you ever get in trouble you can always say: “Senator, I don’t feel comfortable answering that question because it goes to an issue that may come before me as a justice.” The beauty of this answer is that you can use it over and over again, even if the staff on the Committee is pressing you about a lunch order.

Then after all the noise—sound and fury signifying nothing—you’ll get sworn in. That’s when you get to start reading briefs - or your law clerks’ summary of briefs—and immersing yourself in the intricacies of Court dynamics. You’ve reached the top. What you do up there is up to you, your conscience, and fate.



(CBS)
Andrew Cohen is CBS News' Chief Legal Analyst and Legal Editor. CourtWatch is his new blog with analysis and commentary on breaking legal news and events. For columns on legal issues before the beginning of this blog, click here. You can also follow him on Twitter.
Tags:
Supreme Court ,
Sonia Sotomayor ,
David H. Souter
Topics:
Souter's Replacement
Share:
  • Share
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Mixx
Add a Comment
by orsands May 27, 2009 6:01 AM EDT
Originally posted by:
Posted by credibility2 at 7:29 AM : May 26, 2009
One of the questions was abysmally answered by a high percentage of blacks. The question involved simple math: the Chicago Fire was in 1871; in 1971 what anniversary will Chicago mark the fire. Now, one has to be pretty moronic not to be able to come up with the answer of 100th.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think the better question is why such a stupid question is on the test to begin with. What on earth does an anniversary have to do with anything about being a fire fighter? Or why are such tests dumbed down to begin with?
Having known several firefighters quite well over the years-they will be the first to tell you how hiring and promotions have famously been rigged over the years to favor buddies and family members. To the point where the courts have frequently ordered several different departments to make changes that would even the playing field. Usually the abuse went all the way to the top. Even so, many departments still manage to continue to avoid hiring women and minorities by manipulating the hiring process so that they can still hire who they want.

If my house is burning-I could give a rats a** if the guy (or woman) is good at math. I much prefer someone with strength, courage and determination to be on the line fighting the fire. And those personality characteristics don't just come in one color.
Reply to this comment
by Stop_the_crying May 26, 2009 6:44 PM EDT
Bye all means lets not consider her due to the fireman decission. The party of NO has struct again.
Reply to this comment
by thebob-bob May 26, 2009 12:57 PM EDT
Let the powerless yapping of the party of NO start. The ideological rigidity of the rabid, reactionary Right wing has destroyed the well being of America and has been solidly rejected by the voters.

They'll make a lot of noise soon, as soon as Rush and Rove fax out the harping points. Ignore their tired slogans and buzz-words. They've failed and are lost and bitter.
Reply to this comment
by koko98-2009 May 26, 2009 11:36 AM EDT
I guess Harriet Myers and Alberto Gonzales were too busy to serve.
Reply to this comment
by credibility2 May 26, 2009 10:29 AM EDT
She's only been nominated at this point, yet the article makes the presumption that she's already been sworn in, with her hearings being in the bag. This is the type of media barf-ola that interjects its bias, trying to pre-formulate an outcome without any meaningful discussion, challenge or even discourse by those who have the responsibility for making a final decision. A lot can happen on the national stage before Souter does his official grand adios. The media should try, just once, to let things take their natural course and totally distance themselves from doing their usual influence peddling for Obama. Sotomayor will rightfully be questioned about her anti-white decision involving fire fighters who because of their ability to score highly on a test, unlike their equal counterpart blacks and browns, she threw out the test and all of the results. Sotomayor is a pandering of the first order and fits in nicely with the equal by our definition standard. I live in Chicago and a number of years ago a test was administered to fire fighters for the status of lieutenant. One of the questions was abysmally answered by a high percentage of blacks. The question involved simple math: the Chicago Fire was in 1871; in 1971 what anniversary will Chicago mark the fire. Now, one has to be pretty moronic not to be able to come up with the answer of 100th. It's a shame that even in this day and age, we must continue to accommodate those who refuse to make the effort to learn. There's plenty of opportunities to do so.
Reply to this comment

About Courtwatch

Lively analysis and commentary on breaking legal news and events from CBS News Chief Legal Analyst and Legal Editor Andrew Cohen.

E-Mail CourtWatch
Andrew Cohen's Bio
Follow Andrew Cohen On Twitter

Add to your favorite news reader
google
yahoo
msn
  • MOST POPULAR
COURTWATCH ON TWITTER