What constitutes impartiality?

As I have always understood it, one of the functions of a Supreme Court is to keep government in check. They are the ones who have the authority to determine when an attempt by government to impose a new law is so egregious that it must be struck down.

Of course, people whose ideological views were supported by those unconstitutional measures will want to see the high court as somehow overstepping its boundaries. Perhaps it is natural for people to want to think their actions are always correct.

WHAT WINDS UP keeping a Supreme Court in check (in terms of those checks and balances on the branches of government) is that it has no authority to impose law. If a majority of the court thinks the law should say one thing, but the Legislature and chief executive decide otherwise – then the court cannot impose it on its own.

That is part of why I find it ridiculous that people are claiming that Sonia Sotomayor is somehow some sort of threat to the nation in that she will use her personal experiences as a Nuyorican (a New Yorker of Puerto Rican ethnic heritage) to impose her way of life on this country.

Aside from the fact that, if confirmed to the high court, she would only be one of nine justices, the fact is that the only way her views would truly get rammed down the throats of the people is if a majority of Congress and the president were to sign them into law first.

Then, she’d probably be one of the justices voting to uphold the law, when the social conservative groups would file their legal challenges.

IF THIS COUNTRY ever gets to the point where a Latino viewpoint becomes the majority, it is going to be a time so far in the future that to think of it now is absurd.

But if it means that the Latino viewpoint winds up being taken into consideration when the law is crafted, I’d say that is totally appropriate. After all, Latinos now are roughly one in six of the U.S. population – and growing.

The idea that these newcomers are to be ignored while the old regime is maintained is ridiculous. It is offensive. Heck, I’d say it ought to be illegal.

Yet, it also was the tone of some members of the Senate’s judiciary committee when they kicked off their confirmation proceedings on Monday in the District of Columbia.

THE DALLAS MORNING News gave attention to them, primarily because they want to promote the image that Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, (a committee member) is someone of significance.

That is why we got to learn of Cornyn’s opening statement, which he directed as a shot to Sotomayor.

“Judge, some of your opinions suggest that you would limit some of these constitutional rights, and some of your public statements suggest that you would invest rights that do not exist in the Constitution.”

Of course, some of us would argue that what she did in the past was to extend legal rights to some people who in the past have had their rights ignored. In that context, the issue becomes one of the court protecting the rights of all people – even though some prefer to claim that constitutes an “activist court.”

IT JUST AMAZES me that some people seriously believe that a truly legitimate court – the strict constructionist model that many conservatives boast of supporting – is about promoting the interests of a status quo that in many instances is in desperate need of significant change.

For her part, Sotomayor made only a brief statement – one in which she says she is “loyal’ to the idea of “the impartiality of our justice system.” Of course, such a statement is vague and could be interpreted by people with serious conspiracy-theory mentalities as meaning just about anything.

So am I terribly offended by the actions of those members of the judiciary committee’s minority who deep down are upset they don’t have the votes to strike down her nomination?

Not really. I understand the concept of partisan politics. In many ways, their opposition was no different than the trash talk we heard during the past presidential administration for Supreme Court nominees with different ideological bearings.

IF ANYTHING, THE significance of all this is to see how Sotomayor responds to such criticism.

Which means the next couple of days could be crucial, even though even her GOP opposition will go so far as to predict she “won’t melt down.”

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTES: They’re posturing to their political supporters to make it appear as (http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/nation/stories/071409dnnatcornyn.3874885d.html) though they did something with regard to Sonia Sotomayor’s confirmation to the Supreme Court of the United States.

Anti-abortion activists tried to shift attention from the nomination of the first Latina to the Supreme Court (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/13/AR2009071302345.html?hpid=topnews) to that of whether the high court goofed back with Roe v. Wade.