Demand Judge Sotomayor's Confirmation

Let me completely clear on this point, Judge Sonia Sotomayor is qualified to sit on the Supreme Court. But let's be even more direct, Judge Sotomayor is more qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice than any of the current chair-warmers, never mind the lot of mediocrities, Republican Senators who are far less wise than Sotomayor. Make no mistake, the opposition to Sotomayor by the white-male Republican southern rump, is based faintly on ideological predispisition, the real animating motive is the fact that they are choking on the thought of their cleaning lady taking hold of power that they thought was reserved for the Brahmin class to which they belong.

There is simply no way to argue that Judge Sotomayor is unqualified to be Supreme Court Justice. Her experience, for SC Justice, far exceeds that of the currnet bench.

Sonia Sotomayor has been a judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit since 1998. Before joining the appeals court, she served as a United States District Court judge for the Southern District of New York. In May 2009, President Obama nominated Judge Sotomayor to replace Justice David H. Souter, who retired from the Supreme Court in June.

In making his first pick for the high court, President Obama emphasized Judge Sotomayor's "extraordinary journey" from modest beginnings to the Ivy League and to the pinnacle of the judicial system. She would be the first Hispanic justice in the court's history, and only its third woman. Casting her as the embodiment of the American dream, the president touched off a confirmation battle that he hopes to wage over biography more than ideology.

On the district court bench, Judge Sotomayor earned a reputation as a sharp, outspoken and fearless jurist, someone who does not let powerful interests bully, rush or cow her into a decision. An analysis of her decisions on the appellate court showed a largely mainstream jurist, who generally stuck closely to the facts in the case and favored narrow rulings over sweeping statements. Her most celebrated case was her ruling in 1995 in which she barred team owners from unilaterally doing away with the free agent and salary arbitration systems, a finding that cleared the way for the end of the strike that had cancelled the 1994 World Series.

Never mind, that the good lady was a prosecutor, practiced commercial law with a white-shoe firm and then went on to become a trial judge and an appellate Court Judge. It would be hard to find someone with this breath of experience, let along a Puerto Rican Woman from the Bronx to fit the bill. As each hypocritical white male Republican drones on about her "wise Latina" remark, pretend you are seeing this in 1955, which is where most of her opponents continue to inhabit. As Bobby Dylan said, the times they are changin'and they will continue to change. Clarence Thomas was a place-holder, Judge Sotomayor is the future. Get used to it.

Why Litigation is not Always the Answer

As a trial lawyer and employment law attorney, I see a lot potential clients with a variety of grievances. Most often, clients see a lawsuit as a means to addressing a problem. I often counsel clients that litigation is not the proper course. There are a number of reasons why litigation should not be pursued. The most obvious reason is that the client does not have a cause of action; which is to say that he or she has no grounds for proceeding with a lawsuit. But there are also practical reasons why litigation may not be called for, even when there are grounds for a suit. In his classic book, "A Civil Action," author, Jonathon Harr describes the grueling ordeal of an environmental law suit that exploded into a nightmare. Litigation extracts an emotional toll and stress that is nothing short of punishing, both for the plaintiff and the defendant. The monetary costs of even the most mundane lawsuit are exacting. And the end result of much litigation, even if one prevails, often leaves one spent and frustrated. It is perhaps one of the ironies of law practice, that most lawyers rarely receive a sincere thank you for their services.

Most important, though, is the fact that alternatives exist. Oftentimes, both sides can reach an agreement without recourse to a lawsuit. Alternative dispute resolution has become a common method for resolving festering disputes. In one case, a client was being sexually harassed by her immediate supervisor. The client clearly had a good case and was quite ready to sue. However, the company's attorney agreed that the supervisor had engaged in unlawful conduct. After a series of meetings with all concerned, including possible witnesses, the case was resolved to the client's satisfaction. She kept her job, the supervisor was dismissed and she was compensated for her emotional distress. Conversely, an employer may which to terminate a relationship with an employee because relations have soured to the point of loss of productivity. Mediation, in such an instance, often leads to an agreement whereby the employee leaves on terms that will not hinder his future employment and income potential. In fact, I have heard it said, that litigation is an indication that somebody screwed up. Most valid cases settle and many more would settle if the parties participate, in good faith, in some form of dispute resolution.