Should SCOTUS be practitioners of blind justice into unelected political bodies?

[WhiskeyGirl]

The message sent by the Sotomayor nomination is wrong on many levels. First, it gives credence to the argument that one may only be properly represented by a person of one's own race or gender. Second, it validates the idea that judges should evaluate the results of laws, the job of legislators and policymakers. Third, it treats the word "empathy" as if it were synonymous with "liberalism."

It's true that impartiality can never be achieved perfectly because our biases, experiences, and values to some extent colour our perspectives. But to eliminate it as an aspiration transforms the courts from practitioners of blind justice into unelected political bodies.

None of this should be surprising in an era when legislators don't read the bills they vote on, judges feel free to act as legislators, and presidents take it upon themselves to spread the wealth even while admitting "we are out of money." But it does not make the ratification of these trends through this nomination any more welcome.

Yet her likely confirmation will be a victory for identity politics, not impartiality or empathy. And certainly not for blind justice.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/may/26/sonia-sotomayor-supreme-court-nomination

How does one prosper as an individual or nation when the playing field changes constantly?

Where the 'rule of law' has no rhyme or reason?

Race matters more than integrity?

jmho