In terms of judicial interpretation, the fact of the matter is that there is no one “proper” way to interpret the Constitution; there is a wrong way to interpret it. Moreover, as all judges are human, there is no way that a judge can or will be able to separate completely, who they are and, as Justice Sotomayor said, their “background and experiences,” from their judicial decision-making. For example, an African American or Latino judge that has been profiled by a police officer during their youth must necessarily have a different interpretation of the parameters of the Fourth Amendment than a European American judge that has never been stopped by the police in their life.
This is supported by the common law from which the American judicial system is based, as well as, the legal history of the United States. Under the common law, judges had to rely on their background and experiences to interpret, or rather apply, the law to situations that had never been encountered before. Secondly, there are a number of Supreme Court cases, where the justices relied on their background and experiences to interpret the Constitution rather than coldly apply the text. Moreover, nor should a judge abandon their background and experiences from there judicial decision-making (ACS). To be sure, it was the diversity of backgrounds and experiences of the Framers of the Constitution that lead to is creation. That same diversity can add the comprehensiveness of a judicial, especially a Supreme Court, decision as it will allow for a fuller discussion of different understandings of the text between the Justices before they make a decision.
Having said that, there is, as mentioned, as way to improperly interpret the Constitution. The improper way of interpreting begins firstly by making an interpretation that has no basis in the text. For instance, an interpretation of the Fourth Amendment based on the belief that a foreign visitor to the U.S. not protected by it because s/he is not a citizen has no basis in the Constitution which clear states that it protects “people” not citizens. Secondly, an interpretation that goes against clear precedent would also be questionable (PFAWdotorg). Third, an interpretation that is clearly shown to be the result of an outside influence, such as a lobbying group, rather than as a result of the judge’s own thought process would also be an incorrect interpretation. Accordingly, any interpretation that a judge can point to the text of the Constitution or precedent as reasonably supporting would be valid. That is to say, people may disagree about it but it could not be said to be illegitimate. Accordingly, Justice Sotomayor’s comment could be considered questionable if the listener felt she meant that judges can use their background and experiences with no basis in the text of the Constitution or precedent. Similarly, Judge Wise’s decisions could be considered valid if she can point to Constitution text or precedent that supports it (Judicial Campaign Ads). While the interpretations might be different they are nevertheless based on the law rather than an arbitrary judge’s decision. In other, judicial decision-making is based on the rule of law.
Works Cited
American Constitution Society (ACS). “Professor Sherrilyn Ifill on Diversity’s Role in Judicial Decisions.” YouTube, uploaded by ACS, 30 Nov. 2010, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a96THoUng9k
Judicial Campaign Ads. “CFIF Alabama Conservative Judicial Decision-Making.” YouTube, uploaded by Judicial Campaign Ads, 26 Oct. 2010. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkqXAsuQFXA
PFAWdotorg. “Justice Alito on “stare decisis” Compare his words with his actions.” YouTube, uploaded by PFAWdotorg, 02 Feb. 2010, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LkDENDx4M6k
