Sotomayor – Determiner of Truth
Sonia Sotomayor
I am bit behind the news cycles with this post, but I did not want to miss the chance to comment on the role communities play in determining truth.
On August 6th, the US Senate confirmed Sonia Sotomayor as the 111th Supreme Court Justice in the United States. By all accounts her confirmation was relatively smooth sailing despite the partisan bickering found mostly on the fringes of the discussion. With her 68-31 confirmation vote she became just the third woman and the first hispanic to sit on our nation’s highest court. This selection process revealed a lot about our nation, but it also provided a lens through which we can view and understand the nature of “truth.”
While the confirmation hearings were generally calm, many lambasted her as being an “activist judge” and several organizations openly opposed her selection. The most most notable was the NRA, who submitted an official letter calling her views on the 2nd amendment into question.
If you read the letter and followed the arguments against her, you will find the people who stood against her did so largely because the disagreed with the way she understood the law. The reason they were so adamant in their opposition is because they realized at the end of the day, it does not matter what any individual thinks a law means, but rather, what the majority of the supreme court thinks it means. The NRA and other conservative groups want like minded thinkers to be on the court because they realize the what the second amendment (and all laws) truly means is not static, but rather is interpreted. Literally, the law means whatever the court says it means. You can disagree, but you will be wrong.
It is interesting when you think about how the leanings of the courts affect this. At certain times in our nation’s history, the truth of the law was more conservative. At other times, it was more liberal. But what was constant is that legal truth was determined by the supreme court and the community of people who formed it.
Morality functions in the same way. The only difference is the communities who determine it are much larger. Think of misogynistic practices and slavery. At one time these practices were considered acceptable and moral — but obviously this is not longer the case. Did the morality of the acts change? No. Rather, the communities who determine morality changed (over time).
I have learned from many conversations that many people are not comfortable with this discussion — especially Christians who believe in the absolute truth of scripture. The problem is that the meaning and “truth” of scripture have changed more often than our Constitution. If you don’t believe me just read a survey of how various commentators have understood The Good Samaritan in the Gospel of Luke.
Truth is not individually relative. That is to say, we all can’t go around making up what things mean. But at the same time, it is dynamic. Truth is determined by the communities who are willing to earnestly seek it. It is my hope that each of us will take the question of truth seriously, just as we expect Sotomayor to seriously question what the truth of the law is in every case she is presented.
Is “truth” different from authorial intent?
For example, the second amendment was put in place to some degree for militias, which (with a few odd exceptions) is a thing of the past. Can the truth (of the text) differ from authorial intent?
Anything is moral if a community says it is?
@Jason ,
I think the question of authorial intent is important, but it is trick in its own right. There is more to determining the truth of something than just determining what the author meant. For instance, when Paul said, “All scripture is God breathed…” he was talking about the OT and not the letter he was writing, yet our community would affirm the letter to Timothy is also scripture and also God-breathed. Here the truth is broader than authorial intent. In fact, it was the community of faith that defined 2 Tim as scripture through the canonization process.
The supreme court effectively determines what the constitution means. It is interesting that Sotomayor was most harshly criticized for her comments concerning how life experience affects the way people view the law. The thing is though… its true. A Hispanic from projects is going to understand things different than just another rich white old guy. The truth of what the constitution means changes as the composition of the supreme court changes.
That is a bit more simplified than I would put it, but at the same time, it is hard to deny the role communities play in defining what is acceptable (moral) behavior. Let’s keep it localized and look at the church. In some church communities it is not acceptable to wear jeans to service but in others no one would ever be found in a suit. Some churches think drinking coffee during the service fosters fellowship, where other think it is disrespectful. Which is right? In the end, it is up to the community (not by decree necessarily, but rather by common belief).
Of course there is a big difference between drinking your starbucks while sporting your levis in church and being an alcoholic swinger. My conclusions do not point me to a place of relative morality where I say “you do your thing, I will do mine,” but rather they remind me just how important it is for the church to be an instrument in transforming and redeeming the world which it is a part of.
Sure, but there has to be a starting place we proceed from. I would argue that even in something that seems as trivial as jeans or no, there is a right answer, independent of the community. It’s going to be hard to say, “jeans, yes, alcoholism no” if we go by community decision-making. Communities DO have a huge role to play; an often unfortunate one, but a huge one.
I do think we have to have a starting place. For Christians I would say that is obviously Scripture. I am not saying it is up to the communities to make decisions on what is right and what things mean. Rather, I am saying that we discover meaning through the communities we are a part of. We can’t find truth apart from the communities that shape our thoughts.
About the jeans issue… if we say there is a single correct answer, then we must also determine how we come to that answer and from there, what we do with people who have the wrong answer. In the case of the jeans, I am not confident enough in my own understanding to affirm a single answer for all time.