Californians with a keen eye on the state Supreme Court scene were surprised yesterday after Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger announced the Honorable Tani Gorre Cantil-Sakauye, age 50, as his nomination for Chief Justice to replace the outgoing Honorable Ronald M. George. Cantil-Sakauye is the first ever Pilipina to be nominated to the esteemed position of California Supreme Court Chief Justice. If confirmed, she would become not only the first Pilipina to indeed hold such a position, but would also establish the first ever female majority in the Supreme Court, and continue the court's Republican majority with Justice Carlos Moreno as its sole Democrat.
However, she must first be subject to a three-member commission composed of her potential predecessor Chief Justice George, appeals court justice Joan Dempsey-Klein and Attorney General (and 2010 California gubernatorial candidate) Jerry Brown. Following the commission's approval, Cantil-Sakauye's confirmation would then rest in the hands of voters this coming November.
“As a jurist, woma,n and a Pilipina, I am extremely grateful for the trust Governor Schwarzenegger has placed in me,” the nominee responded. “I hope to show young people what they can achieve if they follow their dreams and reach for their full potential.”
The life of this particular Sacramento native truly encompasses the fabled American dream. As the youngest of four children born to a Pilipina mother and Pilipino Portuguese father, her beginnings were humble. Both of her parents toiled as field laborers, and saved up their meager earnings to ensure a quality education for the next generation of Cantils. Such an upbringing tempered Cantil-Sakauye into the hard-working, straight-shooting judge she is today. Moreover, growing up with the only Asian American family in her Land Park neighborhood of the '60s and '70s exposed her to prejudice and discrimination, which later informed her career in jurisprudence.
As a McClatchy High School student fond of speech and debate, it was only natural that Cantil-Sakauye goes on to complete a Bachelor of Arts in Rhetoric at University of California, Davis in 1980. She knew that she wanted to pursue law immediately after completing her undergraduate degree, and continued her studies at UC Davis' Martin Luther King Jr. School of Law where she achieved her Juris Doctor in 1984.
The job market was rough after graduation, but after a short stint as a blackjack dealer in Reno, Nevada, Cantil-Sakauye landed the position of prosecutor in the Sacramento District Attorney's Office. From there, her career momentum continued its surge upward. In 1988, she became deputy legal affairs secretary and then a deputy legislative secretary to Governor George Deukmejian. At the end of Deukmejian's term in 1990, she became the youngest judge to be appointed to the Sacramento Municipal Court. In 1997, she rose to superior court judge for the Sacramento County Superior Court. Then in 2005, Governor Pete Wilson appointed Cantil-Sakauye to the position she holds today, associate justice for the Third District Court of Appeal in Sacramento.
Despite such an accomplished and undoubtedly engrossing judicial career, Cantil-Sakauye has also maintained her commitments to civic service and family life. She has been an active member in several organizations including the Sacramento Asian Bar Association, the National Asian Pacific American Bar Association, and the California Judicial Council, which is responsible for dictating the courts' policies and budget. She is married to Sacramento police lieutenant Mark Sakauye and they have two daughters; Hana, age 8, and Clair, age 6. Cantil-Sakauye is leader of her daughters' Brownie and Junior Girl Troops and is active in her family's Japanese United Methodist Church as a bazaar volunteer and co-chair of the Girls Division Basketball League.
Related Links:
No Facebook?
By JoshuaTree79 on July 24, 2010 - 5:20pm
- Login or register to post comments
By justin on July 25, 2010 - 3:15pm
- Login or register to post comments
By justin on July 25, 2010 - 3:45pm
- Login or register to post comments
By djstrut on September 13, 2011 - 11:44pm
- Login or register to post comments
By JoshuaTree79 on July 25, 2010 - 9:05pm
- Login or register to post comments
By scarlettxxmage on July 22, 2010 - 8:11pm
- Login or register to post comments
By kaywan on July 23, 2010 - 8:53am
- Login or register to post comments
By scarlettxxmage on July 23, 2010 - 9:26am
- Login or register to post comments
By justin on July 22, 2010 - 12:14pm
- Login or register to post comments
Comments
“I hope to show young people what they can achieve if they follow their dreams and reach for their full potential.”
I truly hope she succeeds with this point. The young in this country need to know that even though America has stains in it's history (tell me which country doesn't!), in the space of a mere 300 years or so, it has come to a point in time where a Pilipina, a woman, and a daughter of farm laborers can potentially become a State Supreme Court Chief Justice. I hope this inspires others to reach for the stars also. We are truly lucky to be able to live in a country with the amount of freedom and opportunity we have today. Tani Gorre Cantil-Sakauye is proof that we are very capable of achieving great things if we apply ourselves.
As to whether she should be nominated or not, I confess I don't know enough about her yet to give an educated opinion. However, I will say that my opinion will not be based on diversity. Rather, as someone who looks to Martin Luther King Jr. and his writings, I subscribe to the school of thought where nominees should be judged instead on character, experience, and a history of fidelity to the Constitution and the freedom it guarantees.
There is no doubt that as a country we came a long way. To potentially have a woman from the Pil-Am community be on any state supreme court is monumental and probably would not have happened if it weren't like civil rights leaders, including Dr. King.
However, as I am glad to somewhat have representation ethnically on the court, I grow wary that her political influence may not help the fact that our country is already in a very partisan and divided state where every decision made by politicians and judges can change decades of precedent due to conservative activism in the court. To be frank, Republicans as of late have not had a great track record with civil & minority rights. According to a recent article in the New York Times, The US Supreme Court under Chief Justice Roberts (based on his first 5 years on its conservative course) has the potential to "curtail Abortion rights", "permit more participation in elections by unions and corporations" (and let's be honest to say who has the most money to spend on those), elaborate looser gun laws, and "allow a greater role for religion in public life". Not only that, but basic minority protections like affirmative action and "protections for people being accused of crimes" may be endangered. In a time where politicians are allowing for racial profiling to dictate their laws and judges receiving money on behalf of corporations so they can rule in their favor, I do not believe that a conservative for the Supreme Court to make it even more conservative would be what we need right now.
Yes, I am proud at the possibility of someone of the Pil-Am community could be on the court (AND be a republican, something that may not be even possible even a few decades ago... or even today in certain parts of the country). Yes, I am glad that there are at least some conservative and moderate politicians judges on our courts that are able to look at our laws logically, fairly and unbiased and still advance rights and protections for those who most need it (such as the case of the Prop 8 rulings in our court, which I applaud them for doing). However, like I said, in order to get more of those protections and and fairness, we need more people on our courts that would respect precedent and belongs to an ideology that serve people rather than faceless and emotionless corporations.
Now, I'm not saying that Cantil-Sakauye will not be a great judge. No one knows how she will rule if confirmed on the court. And there is no doubt in my mind that this nomination and/or potential appointment will inspire our youth to possibly reach higher than their parents or grandparents would have ever imagined for even themselves. However, I am arguing that in these critical early stages of a governor selecting nominees, ones political ideology is very important in an already heavily biased court system. In order for the youth to reach for the stars, I would much rather have a nominee that belongs to a group that would not even blink an eye to help him/her and that would be willing to stand with them rather than against them. I just hope that, if confirmed, Cantil-Sakauye will not be another Clarence Thomas.
When I referred to CA court ruling to Prop 8, I was referring (if my memory serves my correctly (if not, I hope someone corrects me)) to the one time that the court ruled for gay marriage, before Prop 8 got passed. I am still hopeful that while we await the Court's decision, it will make the responsible decision and once again stand for minority rights.
I think, at the very least, we all need to think about the slant of the court system. The Judicial branch is supposed to be unbiased, hence "justice is blind". As i do acknowledge that it is impossible, by nature, for humans to be strictly unbiased, the next best thing is to make the court as ideologically diverse/balanced as possible in order to deliver the best ruling for the everyone. I really do hope that, although she is republican, she AT LEAST has moderate views to be more fair. Let's hope the struggle of her parents and others who are currently struggle provides for inspiration in her rulings.
hey what's up Justin! it's Michael, I'm your part of member BakitWhy.com
Justin, we have plenty of agreement. We both admire and recognize the importance and achievement of Martin Luther King Jr (who was a conservative!). We both hope Tani Gorre Cantil-Sakauye succeeds in inspiring the youth to achieve great things. We both also agree that we don't know for certain how she will rule. Like I said, we can only make an educated guess by looking at her history of fidelity to the Constitution.
In your most recent comment, you also mention that the Judicial Branch is supposed to be unbiased. I agree with that too. However, you followed that up with mentioning that it's impossible for them to be unbiased. This shows that you don't fully understand the job of the Judicial Branch and it is the root of where we disagree.
A biased ruling is a decision based on personal opinion, whether that be liberal, conservative, or something else. An unbiased ruling is based on following what the Constitution says, even in the face of going against whatever your personal opinion is. Therefore, you can have a completely unbiased Judicial branch as long as they all show fidelity to the Constitution.
Because of this, your argument of having biased liberal justices to balance out biased conservative justices as a way of making the court less biased falls flat. Two wrongs won't make a right. Ultimately, the focus has to be on the fidelity of Justices to the Constitution even if the court is completely filled with liberals or conservatives. Indeed, you can have a fully liberal and unbiased Court! In the same way, you can have a fully conservative and unbiased Court also. Both Democrats and Republicans need to realize this.
Unfortunately, the New York Times (a very biased publication in itself!) article you mentioned is focused on ideological divide, accordance to ideological opinion, and 'potential' happenings rather than 'actual' rulings and whether they are in accordance with the Constitution.
If you want to discuss certain cases and how each of the Justices ruled, then we can, but I advise you to take a closer look at where the judicial activism or bias is really coming from. Take a look at who uses ideology and personal experience to make decisions.
Anyway, I realize you mentioned other things like affirmative action and gay marriage that I'd love to discuss (you mentioned a lot!), but I'm trying to keep it brief too! However, let me know if you want to talk about any of those things specifically. I'm always happy to discuss and hear other people's opinions!
Have a good one!
You bring up some good points, Justin. I do think it's interesting to keep in mind though that (as I understand it) there are large portions of California outside its metropolitan areas that are a Republican majority. So California isn't as blue of a state that many may think.
But even so, I too have an eyebrow raised at the court's scales of justice tipped heavily toward the conservative side and would also like a better-balanced court. Nevertheless, I'm glad to see the Honorable Cantil-Sakauye maintain strong ties to the API community and my congratulations go to her as well.
This is a complete tangent and probably irrelevant--but when considering what constituency is represented by government official, usually the standard is population rather than geographic area. Although large (in land area) counties in California are majority Republican, their population is extremely low in comparison to the metropolitan areas. Therefore, they effectively form a very small minority. Some of the largest land-wise counties (Inyo, Lassen, etc.) are republican, but their populations hardly approach 100,000. When considering metropolitan county population are in excess of the millions, even a half-Republican court wouldn't be close to being representative of the total state population
I think it is by extension relevant to the article and definitely relevant to the comment I made. I just want to clarify that I'm in no way justifying such a gross imbalance in the court. I would wholeheartedly like to see a more diverse state Supreme Court. I merely wanted to point out that California isn't blue through and through. For example, Orange County (AKA the Orange Curtain) whose population numbers in the millions (though still far from LA County's) has a conservative reputation. The state's many diversities includes political preference as well and its political landscape is more complex than what the general public may think.
As i am "happy" at the possibility of a Pil-Am in the CA supreme court, because of her political leanings I am not too thrilled and doubt there will be any more diversity-- not in an ethnicity sense, but in an ideological sense. The CA supreme court is already a VERY right leaning with Carlos Moreno, being the only left leaning (although, more moderate) judge. As I do applaud the governor in nominating a Pil-Am and congratulate Honorable Tani Gorre Cantil-Sakauye for her accomplishment, I must say that I disagree with his choice and wish that Schwarzenegger would choose someone else to make the court a bit more balanced.