I have always believed that, whether dealing with local community issues or with issues of national import, much common sense and wisdom can be found in many of the letters written daily by regular Americans to the editors of their newspapers.
In a book dedicated to Letters to the Editor*, the authors make this comment:
As we leafed through thousands of letters, we sensed we were on to something. Sure, there were plenty of the angry diatribes and political screeds…but there was also something more. Again and again, we found citizens speaking freely and from their hearts, recording a personal yet public diary of our community…Here was a marvelous sense of humor, there a deep need to set the record straight. And under it all was a resilient faith that no matter the crisis at hand, things were bound to get better in time…
This morning, both in my local newspaper and in the national New York Times, in letters from regular citizens, there it was, clear as day, the “deep need to set the record straight.”
I am referring to letters on Judge Sonia Sotomayor.
The first letter, from the Austin American-Statesman, addresses the now-famous quote by Sotomayor on a wise Latina vs. a white man.
The other letters are reactions by readers to an earlier Times article by Neil A. Lewis, on the question of how female judges may view and decide some cases differently than men.
From the Statesman:
I find it amusing that a Latina has a better grasp of the English language than a bevy of conservative pundits and talking heads. Sotomayor’s statement, “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life,” presents a teachable moment.
Focus on the phrase “more often than not.” Sometimes better and sometimes not. Sometimes, then, the white male decision is better. Sometimes not.
Sotomayor is making a confident statement that women like her are every bit as able as those on the court. And, yes, I would hope that she would believe that she could do better than some of those who have worn the robe.
Billie Reaney
——-
From the Times:
Your article seems to assume that the gold standard of judicial decisions is those made by men. The issue is not whether women may bring a particular bias to the bench. It is that all individuals, male or female, bring their own experiences and worldview to bear as they consider how to interpret the law in a manner that results in a just and reasonable outcome.
In this regard men have as many biases as women do, and the article could just as well have been written about whether male judges decide differently.
This is not to say that men are incapable of considering a woman’s point of view or vice versa, but it does make sense to have a diversified court, with a balance of men and women and a good racial and ethnic mix. The gold standard comes when all points of view have been heard.
Jean Southard
Mansfield, Mass.
——-
Women and minorities have suffered a long history of legal and other decisions, made predominantly by white men, that disenfranchised them, kept them underpaid and denied them access to many educational and job opportunities. Those white men probably thought that their decisions were based on objective facts rather than their particular perspectives.
Not only do male justices need to hear the perspectives of women, particularly women of color, but they and those who confirm them also need to recognize that white men — like everyone — have perspectives informed by race and gender.
When Justice Stephen G. Breyer brings his youthful locker-room recollections into discussion of a case about strip-searching a young woman, who among his male colleagues (or those men who confirmed him) is disturbed that he is calling upon a gender-based experience?
We should be more concerned that a woman’s perspective may not be heard, even when a woman is present. When Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg says that her comments are sometimes ignored in the group of male justices until someone else makes the same point, she is reporting the experience of countless lone women in male groups. I detailed this experience in a study I co-wrote on “Critical Mass on Corporate Boards: Why Three or More Women Enhance Governance” (Wellesley Centers for Women, 2006).
I have no doubt that putting a second woman back on the court would have the same beneficial effect as adding a second woman to a corporate board, and that a third would be even better for the operation of justice.
Vicki W. Kramer, Philafdelphia
——
If the law were a matter of mathematical logic, all justices would reach the same conclusion. That they do not do so renders debate over whether personal experience influences judgments silly.
Are Antonin Scalia’s decisions influenced by his experiences as a white man? Are Clarence Thomas’s decisions influenced by his experiences as a black man? Would Sonia Sotomayor’s decisions be influenced by her experiences as a Latina? Undoubtedly.
That is why we need a diversity of background on the Supreme Court.
Robert C. Madden
Tarrytown, N.Y.
OK, you got me. There is one author among the letter writers.
*The book referred to above, “Letters to the Editor—Two Hundred Years in the Life of an American Town,” was edited by Gerard Stropnicky, Tom Byrn, James Goode, and Jerry Matheny
The author is a retired U.S. Air Force officer and a writer.