Jeffrey Downard
Department of Philosophy, Northern Arizona University
Monday, November 2nd, 2009
Those engaged in the practice of law find themselves caught, at times, between a rock and a hard place. The reason is that lawyers and judges are under an obligation to respect the principles and rules that form the foundation and the larger fabric of our legal system. At the same time, they find it necessary to interpret those principles in light of the personal ideals that have been formed over the course of a lifetime. What should one do when the shared principles come into conflict with the personal ideals? This is the kind of question that Sonia Sotomayor seems to have faced, time and again, as a lawyer and as a judge. As a woman with a Puerto Rican background who grew up in the Bronx, she lost her father when she was young and was raised by her mother. As she gained a liberal education at the university and a professional education in law school, she found herself challenged first to represent and later to adjudicate the rights and interests of women, Hispanics and the poor within a legal system that has not, over the course of its history, always been fair to those with such identities and backgrounds. It was this context that led judge Sotomayor to claim, more than once, that a wise Latino woman might—more often than not—render a better judgment concerning the law than a white man who has lived a very different life. The aim of this presentation is to explore the questions concerning the law judge Sotomayor was attempting to address. Along the way, we will seek to engage in a conversation about the larger philosophical questions as well as some of the more practical questions concerning the study and practice of the law.