Sonia Sotomayor: ‘A Latina Judge’s Voice’
Judge Sonia Sotomayor's 2001 address to the 'Raising the Bar' symposium at the UC Berkeley School of Law
Note: Federal Appeals Court Judge Sonia Sotomayor, nominated by President Obama on May 26, 2009, to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court,
delivered this talk on Oct. 26, 2001, as the Judge Mario G. Olmos Memorial Lecture.
She spoke at a UC Berkeley School of Law symposium titled "Raising the Bar: Latino and Latina Presence in the Judiciary and the Struggle for Representation."
The symposium was co-hosted by the La Raza Law Journal, the Berkeley La Raza Law Students Association, the Boalt Hall Center for Social Justice, and the Center for Latino Policy Research.
The text below is from the archives of the La Raza Law Journal.
Judge Reynoso, thank you for that lovely introduction.
I am humbled to be speaking behind a man who has contributed so much to the Hispanic community.
I am also grateful to have such kind words said about me.
I am delighted to be here.
It is nice to escape my hometown for just a little bit.
It is also nice to say hello to old friends who are in the audience,
to rekindle contact with old acquaintances and to make new friends among those of you in the audience.
It is particularly heart warming to me to be attending a conference
to which I was invited by a Latina law school friend, Rachel Moran,
who is now an accomplished and widely respected legal scholar.
I warn Latinos in this room:
- Latinas are making a lot of progress in the old-boy network.
I am also deeply honored to have been asked to deliver the annual Judge Mario G. Olmos lecture.
I am joining a remarkable group of prior speakers who have given this lecture.
I hope what I speak about today continues to promote the legacy of that man
- whose commitment to public service and abiding dedication to promoting equality and justice for all people
inspired this memorial lecture and the conference that will follow.
And for the privilege you have bestowed on me in honoring the memory of a very special person.
If I and the many people of this conference can accomplish a fraction of what Judge Olmos did in his short but extraordinary life
we and our respective communities will be infinitely better.
I intend tonight to touch upon the themes that this conference will be discussing this weekend
and to talk to you about my Latina identity, where it came from,
and the influence I perceive it has on my presence on the bench.
Who am I?
I am a "Newyorkrican."
For those of you on the West Coast who do not know what that term means:
- I am a born and bred New Yorker of Puerto Rican-born parents who came to the states during World War II.
Like many other immigrants to this great land, my parents came because of poverty
and to attempt to find and secure a better life for themselves and the family that they hoped to have.
They largely succeeded.
For that, my brother and I are very grateful.
The story of that success is what made me
and what makes me the Latina that I am.
The Latina side of my identity was forged and closely nurtured by my family
through our shared experiences and traditions.
For me, a very special part of my being Latina is the mucho platos de arroz, gandoles y pernir
- - rice, beans and pork
My Latina identity also includes, because of my particularly adventurous taste buds, morcilla,
- -- pig intestines,
- -- pigs' feet with beans,
- pigs' tongue and ears.
Some of us, like me, do.
Part of my Latina identity is the sound of merengue at all our family parties
and the heart wrenching Spanish love songs that we enjoy.
It is the memory of Saturday afternoon at the movies with my aunt and cousins watching Cantinflas,
- who is not Puerto Rican, but who was an icon Spanish comedian on par with Abbot and Costello of my generation.
They were my friends as I grew up.
Being a Latina child was watching the adults playing dominos on Saturday night
and us kids playing lotería, bingo, with my grandmother calling out the numbers
which we marked on our cards with chick peas.
Now, does any one of these things make me a Latina?
Obviously not
because each of our Caribbean and Latin American communities has their own unique food and different traditions at the holidays.
I only learned about tacos in college from my Mexican-American roommate.
Being a Latina in America also does not mean speaking Spanish.
I happen to speak it fairly well.
But my brother, only three years younger, like too many of us educated here, barely speaks it.
Most of us born and bred here, speak it very poorly.
If I had pursued my career in my undergraduate history major,
I would likely provide you with a very academic description of what being a Latino or Latina means.
For example,
- I could define Latinos as those peoples and cultures
populated or colonized by Spain who maintained or adopted Spanish or Spanish Creole as their language of communication.
That antiseptic description however, does not really explain the appeal of morcilla
- - pig's intestine
It does not provide an adequate explanation of why individuals like us,
many of whom are born in this completely different American culture,
still identify so strongly with those communities in which our parents were born and raised.
America has a deeply confused image of itself that is in perpetual tension.
We are a nation that takes pride in our ethnic diversity,
recognizing its importance in shaping our society and in adding richness to its existence.
Yet, we simultaneously insist that we can and must function and live in a race and color-blind way
that ignore these very differences that in other contexts we laud.
That tension between "the melting pot and the salad bowl"
- -- a recently popular metaphor used to described New York's diversity
Many of us struggle with this tension
and attempt to maintain and promote our cultural and ethnic identities in a society
that is often ambivalent about how to deal with its differences.
In this time of great debate we must remember
that it is not political struggles that create a Latino or Latina identity.
I became a Latina by the way I love and the way I live my life.
My family showed me by their example how wonderful and vibrant life is
and how wonderful and magical it is to have a Latina soul.
They taught me to love being a Puerto Riqueña
and to love America and value its lesson
that great things could be achieved if one works hard for it.
But achieving success here is no easy accomplishment for Latinos or Latinas,
and although that struggle did not and does not create a Latina identity,
it does inspire how I live my life.
I was born in the year 1954.
That year was the fateful year in which Brown v. Board of Education was decided.
When I was eight, in 1961, the first Latino, the wonderful Judge Reynaldo Garza,
was appointed to the federal bench, an event we are celebrating at this conference.
When I finished law school in 1979, there were no women judges on the Supreme Court
or on the highest court of my home state, New York.
There was then only one Afro-American Supreme Court Justice
and then and now no Latino or Latina justices on our highest court.
Now in the last twenty plus years of my professional life,
I have seen a quantum leap in the representation of women and Latinos in the legal profession and particularly in the judiciary.
In addition to the appointment of the first female United States Attorney General, Janet Reno,
we have seen the appointment of two female justices to the Supreme Court
and two female justices to the New York Court of Appeals, the highest court of my home state.
One of those judges is the Chief Judge and the other is a Puerto Riqueña, like I am.
As of today, women sit on the highest courts of almost all of the states and of the territories, including Puerto Rico.
One Supreme Court, that of Minnesota, had a majority of women justices for a period of time.
As of September 1, 2001, the federal judiciary consisting of Supreme, Circuit and District Court Judges was about 22% women.
In 1992, nearly ten years ago, when I was first appointed a District Court Judge,
the percentage of women in the total federal judiciary was only 13%.
Now, the growth of Latino representation is somewhat less favorable.
As of today we have, as I noted earlier, no Supreme Court justices,
and we have only 10 out of 147 active Circuit Court judges
and 30 out of 587 active district court judges.
Those numbers are grossly below our proportion of the population.
As recently as 1965, however, the federal bench had only three women serving and only one Latino judge.
So changes are happening, although in some areas, very slowly.
These figures and appointments are heartwarming.
Nevertheless, much still remains to happen.
Let us not forget that between the appointments of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor in 1981
and Justice Ginsburg in 1992, eleven years passed.
Similarly, between Justice Kaye's initial appointment as an Associate Judge to the New York Court of Appeals in 1983,
and Justice Ciparick's appointment in 1993, ten years elapsed.
Almost nine years later, we are waiting for a third appointment of a woman to both the Supreme Court and the New York Court of Appeals
and of a second minority, male or female, preferably Hispanic, to the Supreme Court.
In 1992 when I joined the bench, there were still two out of 13 circuit courts
and about 53 out of 92 district courts in which no women sat.
At the beginning of September of 2001, there are women sitting in all 13 circuit courts.
The First, Fifth, Eighth and Federal Circuits each have only one female judge,
however, out of a combined total number of 48 judges.
There are still nearly 37 district courts with no women judges at all.
For women of color the statistics are more sobering.
As of September 20, 1998, of the then 195 circuit court judges
only two were African-American women and two Hispanic women.
Of the 641 district court judges only twelve were African-American women and eleven Hispanic women.
African-American women comprise only 1.56% of the federal judiciary and Hispanic-American women comprise only 1%.
No African-American, male or female, sits today on the Fourth or Federal circuits.
And no Hispanics, male or female, sit on the Fourth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, District of Columbia or Federal Circuits.
Sort of shocking, isn't it?
This is the year 2002. We have a long way to go.
Unfortunately, there are some very deep storm warnings we must keep in mind.
In at least the last five years the majority of nominated judges
the Senate delayed more than one year before confirming or never confirming were women or minorities.
I need not remind this audience that Judge Paez of your home Circuit, the Ninth Circuit,
has had the dubious distinction of having had his confirmation delayed the longest in Senate history.
These figures demonstrate that there is a real and continuing need
for Latino and Latina organizations and community groups throughout the country to exist and to continue their efforts
of promoting women and men of all colors in their pursuit for equality in the judicial system.
This weekend's conference, illustrated by its name, is bound to examine issues
that I hope will identify the efforts and solutions that will assist our communities.
The focus of my speech tonight, however, is not about
the struggle to get us where we are and where we need to go
but instead to discuss with you
what it all will mean to have more women and people of color on the bench.
The statistics I have been talking about
provide a base from which to discuss a question
which one of my former colleagues on the Southern District bench, Judge Miriam Cederbaum, raised
when speaking about women on the federal bench.
Her question was:
- What do the history and statistics mean?
- that the number of women and by direct inference people of color on the bench,
was still statistically insignificant and that therefore
- we could not draw valid scientific conclusions
from the acts of so few people over such a short period of time.
and no one can or should ignore pondering what that will mean
or not mean in the development of the law.
Now, I cannot and do not claim this issue as personally my own.
In recent years there has been an explosion of research and writing in this area.
On one of the panels tomorrow, you will hear the Latino perspective in this debate.
For those of you interested in the gender perspective on this issue,
I commend to you a wonderful compilation of articles published on the subject in Vol. 77 of the Judicature, the Journal of the American Judicature Society of November-December 1993.
It is on Westlaw/Lexis and I assume the students and academics in this room can find it.
Now Judge Cedarbaum expresses concern with any analysis of women and presumably again people of color on the bench,
which begins and presumably ends with the conclusion
- that women or minorities are different from men generally.
She rightly points out
- that the perception of the differences between men and women
is what led to many paternalistic laws
and to the denial to women of the right to vote
because we were described then
- "as not capable of reasoning or thinking logically"
but instead of "acting intuitively."
While recognizing the potential effect of individual experiences on perception, Judge Cedarbaum
nevertheless believes that judges must transcend their personal sympathies and prejudices
and aspire to achieve a greater degree of fairness and integrity based on the reason of law.
Although I agree with and attempt to work toward Judge Cedarbaum's aspiration,
I wonder whether achieving that goal is possible in all or even in most cases.
And I wonder whether by ignoring our differences as women or men of color
we do a disservice both to the law and society.
Whatever the reasons why we may have different perspectives,
either as some theorists suggest because of our cultural experiences
or as others postulate because we have basic differences in logic and reasoning,
are in many respects a small part of a larger practical question
we as women and minority judges in society in general must address.
I accept the thesis of a law school classmate, Professor Steven Carter of Yale Law School,
in his affirmative action book
- that in any group of human beings there is a diversity of opinion
because there is both a diversity of experiences and of thought.
- -- I did graduate from there and I am not really biased except that they seem to be doing a lot of writing in that area
- that there is not a single voice of feminism,
not a feminist approach
- but many who are exploring the possible ways of being
that are distinct from those structured in a world
dominated by the power and words of men.
and are not and perhaps will never aspire to be as solidified
as the established legal doctrines of judging can sometimes appear to be.
That same point can be made with respect to people of color.
No one person, judge or nominee will speak in a female or people of color voice.
I need not remind you
- that Justice Clarence Thomas represents a part
but not the whole of African-American thought on many subjects.
- "to judge is an exercise of power"
- "there is no objective stance but only a series of perspectives
- -- no neutrality, no escape from choice in judging,"
The aspiration to impartiality is just that
- -- it's an aspiration because
it denies the fact that we are by our experiences making different choices than others.
or indeed in any particular case or circumstance
but enough people of color in enough cases, will make a difference in the process of judging.
The Minnesota Supreme Court has given an example of this.
As reported by Judge Patricia Wald formerly of the D.C. Circuit Court,
- three women on the Minnesota Court with two men dissenting agreed
- to grant a protective order against a father's visitation rights when the father abused his child.
on how women on the courts of appeal and state supreme courts
have tended to vote more often than their male counterpart
to uphold women's claims in sex discrimination cases and criminal defendants' claims in search and seizure cases.
As recognized by legal scholars, whatever the reason,
not one woman or person of color in any one position
but as a group
we will have an effect on the development of the law and on judging.
In our private conversations, Judge Cedarbaum has pointed out to me
that seminal decisions in race and sex discrimination cases
have come from Supreme Courts composed exclusively of white males.
I agree that this is significant
but I also choose to emphasize
- that the people who argued those cases before the Supreme Court
which changed the legal landscape
ultimately were largely people of color and women.
and others of the NAACP argued Brown v. Board of Education.
Similarly, Justice Ginsburg, with other women attorneys, was instrumental
in advocating and convincing the Court
- that equality of work required equality in terms and conditions of employment.
Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences,
- a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum,
Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying
- that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases.
since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle.
I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement.
- First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted,
there can never be a universal definition of wise.
Second, 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.
Let us not forget that wise men like Oliver Wendell Holmes and Justice Cardozo
voted on cases which upheld both sex and race discrimination in our society.
Until 1972, no Supreme Court case ever upheld the claim of a woman in a gender discrimination case.
I, like Professor Carter, believe
that we should not be so myopic
as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding
the values and needs of people from a different group.
Many are so capable.
As Judge Cedarbaum pointed out to me,
nine white men on the Supreme Court in the past have done so
on many occasions and on many issues including Brown.
However, to understand takes time and effort, something that not all people are willing to give.
For others, their experiences limit their ability to understand the experiences of others.
Other simply do not care.
Hence, one must accept the proposition that a difference there will be
by the presence of women and people of color on the bench.
Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see.
My hope is that
- I will take the good from my experiences
nd extrapolate them further into areas with which I am unfamiliar.
But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage.
I also hope that by raising the question today
- of what difference having more Latinos and Latinas on the bench will make
For people of color and women lawyers,
- what does and should being an ethnic minority mean in your lawyering?
- what areas in your experiences and attitudes do you need to work on
to make you capable of reaching those great moments of enlightenment
which other men in different circumstances have been able to reach.
- how do change the facts
- that in every task force study of gender and race bias in the courts,
women and people of color, lawyers and judges alike,
that their gender and race has shaped their careers,
from hiring, retention to promotion
and that a statistically significant number of women and minority lawyers and judges, both alike,
have experienced bias in the courtroom?
Each day on the bench I learn something new about the judicial process
and about being a professional Latina woman in a world
that sometimes looks at me with suspicion.
I am reminded each day
- that I render decisions that affect people concretely
and that I owe them constant and complete vigilance
in checking my assumptions, presumptions and perspectives
and ensuring that to the extent that my limited abilities and capabilities permit me,
that I reevaluate them and change as circumstances and cases before me requires.
I willingly accept
- that we who judge must not deny the differences resulting from experience and heritage
but attempt, as the Supreme Court suggests, continuously to judge
when those opinions, sympathies and prejudices are appropriate.
There is always a danger embedded in relative morality,
but since judging is a series of choices that we must make,
that I am forced to make,
I hope that I can make them
by informing myself on the questions I must not avoid asking and continuously pondering.
We, I mean all of us in this room, must continue individually
and in voices united in organizations that have supported this conference,
to think about these questions
and to figure out how we go about creating the opportunity
for there to be more women and people of color on the bench
so we can finally have statistically significant numbers
to measure the differences we will and are making.
I am delighted to have been here tonight
and extend once again my deepest gratitude to all of you for listening
and letting me share my reflections on being a Latina voice on the bench.
Thank you.
Judge Sotomayor grew up in a South Bronx housing project and graduated from Princeton University and Yale Law School. She was a former prosecutor in the office of the District Attorney in Manhattan and an associate and then partner in the New York law firm of Pavia & Harcourt. She was also a member of the Puerto Rico Legal Defense and Education Fund. Nominated to the Second Circuit in 1997, she became the first Latina nominated to sit on a federal appellate court.
Such a bigoted and racist person should NEVER have been allowed on the court.
She couldn't even qualify as a juror.
She's a vile, evil curse ... against this nation.
As Islander7 said:
"their(leftists) words and tortured logic must be turned back on them.
They can not justify their positions on issues
when their own views are reverse engineered."