James Madison wrote of the importance of independent judges, focused on the law, rather than political passion, partisan beliefs or competing factions.  In a nation of passionate people, often caught up in defending or advancing their beliefs, there are nine people who are called on to be impartial, independent, and focused on the law.  They are the nine Supreme Court Justices.

The picture of the statue of Justice—blindfolded and holding a scale—comes to mind when I recall learning about the Supreme Court in elementary school.  The phrase “Equal Justice Under Law” is prominently displayed above the main entrance to the Supreme Court Building, and it echoes the belief that justice should be served equally to all.

Perhaps the concept of blind justice and impartiality could be thought of in the same light as intelligence.  Those who think it is possible to be impartial will try to grow in that direction, while those who focus on differences and retain prejudices will give up trying to achieve impartiality.

“I willingly accept that we who judge must not deny the differences resulting from experience and heritage,” said Judge Sotomayor, “but attempt, as the Supreme Court suggests, continuously to judge when those opinions, sympathies and prejudices are appropriate.”

But the question remains: when are these opinions, sympathies and prejudices ever “appropriate?” Who is to be the judge of this? In other words, when is the judgeship legitimately prejudiced by heritage, ethnicity, and personal considerations, and who deems it legitimate when the stated goal is the promise of equal justice under law?   

Let us hope that Judge Sotomayor’s statement doesn’t place her in the category of those who have given up on impartiality.

To paraphrase Abigail Adams – it may be that the lesson to be learned here is that impartiality is not attained by chance; it must be sought with ardor and attended to with diligence.