Supreme Court?

Sen. Barbara Boxer was on television this morning whining that the replacement for Hon. Justice Souter should be a woman because, as she said, "...there is only one woman on the Court, and eight men." She went on to say that if it were the other way around, she would seek the appointment of a male justice. Hispanic politicians, La Raza and others are clamoring for the appointment of an Hispanic justice. Somewhere out there there are probably powerful people in high places manurevering for appointment of a Mexican-American, Jewish-American or some Norwegian-American. Whatever.

Will someone please tell me when sex, national heritage and race became proper factors to consider in the selection of any jurist, let alone a Supreme Court Justice? Jeez!

I have participated as counsel of record, on both sides, in hundreds of criminal jury trials. In a criminal trial, it is the duty of the jury to determine the facts, and apply the law to reach a result. The function of a judge is to review the findings of fact, and apply the law, to reach a result which is consistent with the Constitution.

In jury selection, called voir dire, the theoretical goal is to seat, from a venire of citizens, jurors who are not biased towards either side. After a panel of veniremen is seated, they are interviewed and motions to strike veniremen for cause (bias) may be brought. After the interviews and strikes for cause each side, the defense and the state, may excercise premptory strikes, removing veniremen until the proper number remain to sit as a jury.

Whether bringing motions to strike veniremen for cause, or exercising premptory strikes, neither the state nor the defense may use sex, national heritage or race as a reason for striking any venireman. Indeed, if either side believes the other HAS stricken veniremen for the reasons of sex, national heritage, race or other discriminatory reason, a Batson motion may be brought, which can test the motives of the party who may be trying to rig, if you will, the jury based upon sex, race or other discriminatory reason. If improper reliance upon sex, national origin, race or other discriminatory reason is found, then the process starts over. The intentional injection of such factors into the selection process cannot be tolerated.

Which brings us to the point of this...if it is improper to use sex, national heritage, race or other discriminatory test in the selection of those judging an individual in a DUI trial in Podunk, Iowa, why in the hell are sentators, the president, La Raza and others allowed to use sex, national heritage, race or other discriminatory tests in the selection of one judging the most important cases in America. Do you get it?

Unfortunately, I guess I do.

This is just more proof that the country we love is in deep trouble.