During Sonia Sotomayor’s hearings recently in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee, she received sharp Republican criticism of a 2001 speech in which she suggested that a "wise Latina" would usually reach better conclusions than a white man without similar experiences. Well, when I heard about this I lowered my head in sympathy. You see, should there be an opening on the U.S. Supreme Court, I’m on the short list of people who would receive the next nomination. Actually, I’m on the long list. The list long enough to include actors and writers without law degrees. But it turns out I have some ‘splaining to do, as Senator Coburn would say. You see, while hanging out with my politically unconnected pals at a party in my backyard a few weeks ago, I said that were I chosen for the highest court in the land, I would make good decisions founded in part on my experience as a “crafty Caucasian.”
My listeners jumped all over me. What did I mean by that? How biased would I be by the fact that I burn easily on the beach, drink Cabernet Sauvignon, and have memorized the local public radio schedule? I told them that I would not be biased, but would rely on the facts of the case and whatever law information I could cram from Wikipedia the night before.
That satisfied them – for a minute. But then they asked me to weigh in on issues like abortion, gun control, and the designated hitter rule. Well, I’ve listened to enough Supreme Court hearings to know how to keep from being pinned down. I said I could not possibly comment on a subject that might come before me, whether or not a popular slugger had earned the right to extend his career.
They pressed further, pushing me against the fence in my back yard. Some of my basil plants were crushed, but I think they’ll come back. One person put his finger in the middle of my chest and said, “Okay, you might not be biased. But would you have sympathy?”
Sympathy. Would I have sympathy? Sympathy for someone who’s gone through the trouble and expense of the appeals process and made it in front of the Supreme Court to argue their case? I allowed as how I might have sympathy, as a human being, for another human being on Earth. That was the end of the argument, and my accusers had won. They melted into the crowd at the party, and I think some of them started a game of Scrabble.
This set my mind to rights, and now I know what I must do to pursue my dream of a Supreme Court judgeship. With the technological advances now available, I will have the sympathy cortex of my brain completely removed. That way absolutely nothing in my life experience, or culture or skin tone or strict potty training or sexual history or sports team allegiance will ever, ever, ever affect my ruling on a case that comes before me. It’s the perfect solution. And if this sort of brain alteration isn’t yet available, I may choose to have a simple lobotomy, and go for a slightly less lofty position. Such as U.S. senator.
