Members were treated to a unique, and very personal, question and answer session with Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor as she walked around the room talking and shaking hands. Here are some of her insights and observations.
It takes courage to stay true to what you believe to be the “right answer” in a collegial court. Whereas it’s relatively easy as a district court judge to come to a judgment, it’s much harder on a collegial court because you have to consider the impact on colleagues you respect as well as an institutional interest in achieving unanimity where possible. In this respect, Justice Sotomayor observed that her mentors – Judge Cabranes and Justice Stevens – set for her a high example of being collegial but, at the same time, being principled, especially when your views are not necessarily popular. Judge Cabranes and Justice Stevens taught her the value of not being afraid of being the sole voice when it’s important to be one; to find that place when it’s important to be collegial and when important to be a sole voice. She noted all her colleagues on the Court are passionate about the Constitution the rule of law; where they disagree is on getting the right answer. Differences don’t translate into personal relationships.
Justice Sotomayor stressed the importance of talking to a wide array of lay people, who often have no idea about what lawyers and judges do, why the law is “not clear,” why “law” is important in defining relationships among citizens, and about the process of making and interpreting law.
What is the role of oral argument? How often does it make a difference? The Justice began her answer by observing that the justices have read your papers so that, if you haven’t made your best arguments in your papers, you’ve lost the case. Oral argument is valuable in several respects: The justices spend their time during oral argument listening to each other’s questions where, for example, a justice is truly unsure about the “right “answer, other times to satisfy a justice that her decision is the right one. Since oral argument is the first time the justices have sat together on a given case, these questions become a conversation that shed light on what their colleagues are thinking and may provide food for thought on how to change a colleague’s mind.
Justice Sotomayor stressed the importance of inculcating in law students the ethical obligation of pro bono service and would make the pro bono service a requirement. She noted that it is important to inculcate importance of public service in law school.
In response to the question whether video taping of oral arguments should be permitted, she acknowledged that this is a more complex question than before she became a Justice. She observed, during her confirmation process, that the presence of cameras in congressional proceedings negatively impacted collegiality and the inclination of congressmen to listen to each other. A camera in the courtroom becomes the center of your mental background – how you say things will be played against how foolish will I look on television tonight. She expressed concern that the presence of cameras in the Court may make some justices more reticent to speak or to speak more. Now, justices talk to each other. With cameras, justices may be talking more to the camera and, thus, may impede process of deliberation.
What does Justice Sotomayor do for fun? Bike riding, observing that bike trails in D.C., Maryland and Virginia are more isolated areas from cars. She has a personal trainer, loves playing poker with friends (her father loved math so she’s not afraid of math and loves the strategy and calculation of poker), and loves cooking and dinner with close friends.
