Yesterday during the Judge Sotomayor Senate hearings, two things happened that gave me  pause—literally made me stop what I was doing. I’m not sure what I think of them, even now.

TruTV

Jamie Floyd of TruTV interrupted the testimony of firefighter Frank Ricci to interview a man named Jeffrey Deskovic who, like Mr. Ricci, opposes Judge Sotomayor’s appointment to the Supreme Court. Deskovic’s appearance on TruTV puzzled me, since Ms. Floyd openly supports Judge Sotomayor—but in my opinion he’s less of a threat to the appointment than is Mr. Rizzi, so I assumed that Mr. Deskovic gave Ms. Floyd an excuse not to air Mr. Ricci’s remarks before the Senate committee.

The problem for me was that Mr. Deskovic’s complaint against the judge resonates with me, while Mr. Rizzi’s does not. I am willing to assume that Judge Sotomayor’s dismissal of the firefighter’s test results was based on a legal precedent supporting the right of a municipality to deem a test biased and therefore invalid. (In other words, I am willing to give the judge the benefit of the doubt about whether or not race played a part in her decision.)

However, if Mr. Deskovic’s claims are true, then Judge Sotomayor is a nitpicking legalist—and this isn’t the sort of judge I really want to have on the Supreme Court.

Now, before all you search-engine robots out there flag this post as a conservative rant, please understand that two days ago I posted a blog in favor of Judge Sotomayor. And this is why I had to think more than twice yesterday.

If I heard Mr. Deskovic correctly, his story is this: He was arrested for a crime he did not commit. The cops forced him to confess. The DNA at the crime scene did not match his. Yet, he was convicted. His appellate lawyer (who must have been incompetent) received false information from Judge Sotomayor’s court clerk concerning the appeal deadline, and therefore filed the appeal four days late. Judge Sotomayor therefore declined to hear the appeal, despite the overwhelming evidence that Deskovic was wrongly convicted. When Deskovic filed a second appeal on the grounds of the court clerk’s error, Judge Sotomayor refused even to let him address the other judges on the panel. She was the gatekeeper—and she kept him locked  in for six more years. Then the real perp was arrested, because his DNA did match. Deskovic was finally exonerated by the Innocence Project.

If this is true, I can’t think of a single way I can spin this in the judge’s favor. In fact, it is the sort of behavior that I abhor in judges. A judge who can’t see her way around an arbitrary deadline, when a man’s freedom is at stake, is not a judge I would trust to interpret the Constitution rationally.

Let’s hope there’s an untold side to the Deskovic story.

Fifties Pop Culture

In the hearings, meanwhile, new Senator Franken joked with Judge Sotomayor about her childhood love of Perry Mason and Nancy Drew. (Apparently Judge Sotomayor was a fan of the character the Senator called “prosecutor Burgher.” (As I recall, on the TV show he was always called “Ham[ilton] Burgher.” In any case, perhaps this shows an early anti-defense bias in the judge.)

This exchange drew raised eyebrows from many stuffed shirts—but not stuffed blouses, for good reason, IMHO. Yes, we seem to be abandoning reality for a fantasy world these days (kids don’t want to be scientists, inventors, astronauts, or even lawyers anymore). But in the past, popular culture had an intelligent side to it. I don’t think any judge should be ashamed of admiring Perry Mason and Nancy Drew.

Back in the day, a girl could barely aspire to getting a law degree, let alone becoming a Supreme Court Justice. Nancy Drew was about as close to law enforcement and the law as a girl could come. Every smart girl I knew also loved Nancy Drew. Her initiative and bravado encouraged us to imagine that we might be able to do something with our lives other than being “a housewife.” (The word “homemaker” had not yet been coined.)

Which brings me back to my reasons for feeling some joy at Judge Sotomayor’s elevation to the highest court in the land.

Consider this:

• African-American men were made citizens and given the vote in 1868 through the 14th Amendment. To this day, the Constitution does not expressly name women as citizens with full rights.
• Women did not gain the right to vote until 52 years later, in 1920, through the 18th  Amendment. So it’s no surprise to me that an African-American male became President before a woman of any race.
• Women did not gain the right to serve on a jury in all states until after World War II.
• Women could still be excluded from a jury until 1986, when the U.S. Supreme Court prohibited peremptory challenges based on gender (J.E.B. v Alabama).
• Oh, and BTW, the first woman was appointed to the Supreme Court in 1981 (five years earlier). It took another 12 years (1993) for a second woman to be appointed. And now it has taken another 16 years—can that be right? Sixteen years? (Think about it: in the past 28 years only 3 women have been appointed to the Supreme Court. Only 5 have been nominated, and the most recent of the 2 rejected nominees is still called “unqualified” by many commentators.)

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court is made up of 9 people, only one of whom is female, despite the fact that 51% of the citizenry is female. This disparity is intolerable. The judiciary is filled with able women.

What’s taking so long?