Sonia Sotomayor, a frontrunner for President Obama’s first Supreme Court appointment pick, has type 1 diabetes, and it may work against her.
Sotomayor is currently serving as a Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The fact that she could be the first diabetic (along with the first Latino) to serve on the Supreme Court is incredibly exciting for our community, of course! But there’s outcry from many that her medical condition may shorten her lifespan or lead to complications making her unfit to serve.
Suddenly, the big buzz is the question of how much scrutiny the President should give to a candidate’s health. Witness the discussion in the Huffington Post (and the snarky fallout over at DC gossip blog Wonkette).
This is BIG, Folks. This is where survivorship with chronic illness meets the glass ceiling. As I’ve said before, diabetes is chronic but not terminal — yes, we are ill, but not sick, and disadvantaged without being disabled.
For a Supreme Court justice, whose term technically has no end (though a Justice is free to retire), his or her health is now becoming part of the vetting process, in addition to judicial rulings, legal papers, financial statements, etc.
Assuming she’s otherwise well qualified, would diabetes affect this woman’s ability to be a thorough, rational and law-abiding judge? She is a graduate of Princeton and obtained her J.D. from Yale University, so clearly she’s intelligent. In 1991, she became the youngest judge in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, and the first Hispanic federal judge in New York. In 1998, she became Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals. Clearly, she’s experienced.
It’s worth noting that in 1998, according to the New York Times, it took a year for her confirmation to the U.S. Court of Appeals, in part because some Republicans thought that putting her in the appeals court would enhance her chances at a Supreme Court nomination. Ten years later, it seems that dream may come true!
But then there’s the diabetes…
Does the position of Supreme Court Justice fall under the American Disabilities Act? Good question. It seems the main concern isn’t that she’ll have a low blood sugar while on the bench, but whether or not her life — and thus her term as Justice —will be cut short by an untimely death due to diabetes. Isn’t it discrimination to withhold a position from someone because they *might* someday have complications that could threaten their health?
Sotomayor would not be the first Supreme Court Justice to have health issues. Justice Thurgood Marshall retired at age 82 with a bad heart, deafness and glaucoma. Then there’s Chief Justice John Robert, who the Huffington Post says is suspected of suffering from epilepsy, and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg is recovering from surgery for cancer.
A potential future of serious health problems faces all of us humans, and yes, perhaps more so for us PWDs. But Sotomayor turns 55 next month, having had diabetes for more than 45 years, and she is still hard at work as a Judge. Kudos to the Huffington Post for noting that Sotomayor’s diabetes (which requires so much diligence) is “one of the more compelling aspects to an already compelling biography.” The article goes on to say: “And while hardly a debilitating disease — indeed, recent medical advancements have made it quite manageable to live with — there remain enough late-in-life health implications to have sparked debate in legal, political and medical circles.”
Dr. Paul Robertson, President of Medicine & Science at the ADA, steps in to defend, saying, “The advancements of management of type one diabetes have been just amazing over the last two decades because of the advent of insulin pumps and the ability of people to measure their glucose at home. We’re talking a whole different ball game now in terms of how well patients can do; what their longevity is like and how well they can function.”
And yet a spokeswoman from JDRF is quoted as talking about “immense complications” and the fact that “the average life expectancy for people with Type One is lowered by an average of ten years.” I do hope she was quoted out of context. I’m sure the JDRF’s intent was not to make type 1 diabetics seem unfit for public service. This concerns me a bit.
The important point here is that more and more people are living longer, healthier lives with all sorts of medical conditions — in particular type 1 diabetes — and fulfilling all their dreams. An entire book was published recently profiling people who’ve lived well for decades with diabetes.
So it’s making me kind of sick to think that diabetes may rob Sotomayor of this chance.
What do you think? Do you think President Obama should consider Sotomayor’s type 1 diabetes when making his decision? Is it reasonable, or necessary, i.e. something owed to the American public? Or not?
If the Americans With Disabilities Act covers diabetes, then he is bound by regulation to not consider Sotomayor’s diabetes.
The issues I can foresee are (1) whether or not diabetes will cause Sotomayor to lose more days of work than the average Justice, and (2) whether or not her opinions are skewed by (or could be purchased on account of) her diabetes. To which the answers are (1) I don’t know, but probably not, and (2) would she have gotten this far if that were true?
Thank you for your thorough coverage on this. It is astounding that this has become a qualifying issue… but I am glad it has. Here’s why…..
President Obama has no choice but to consider the effect diabetes will have on Sotomayor’s appointment now that it has become a public/political issue
AND
It is a fantastic opportunity to educate the public about diabetes, foster intelligent awareness with a positive role model/public figure and eliminate stereotyping and myths that abound! I am excited! Let’s hope this goes in the right direction.
Another question to ask is how can we (the diabetes community) help?! I am not residing in the USA (but am a US citizen)… is there a national petition, can we call our state representatives? Has anyone thought of rallying or protesting (if it starts snowballing downhill)? Count me in.
For any job your qualifications for said job should come first, not your health.
I vote for her to get in based on her qualifications.
As a T1, Her T1 is just a bonus.
I think even considering her diabetes is a ridiculous argument. Because she ‘might’ die sooner? Well, I would like to know if any of the judges ride motorcycles, or smoke, or drink. Because THEY might die sooner too.
The worst part is that it truly has nothing to do with her diabetes. Partisan politics always being played by everyone
A very interesting discussion has sparked about this topic on TuDiabetes, Amy:
http://tudiabetes.com/forum/topics/frontrunner-for-us-supreme
my immediate thought: chronicbabe in the house! how awesome would it
be to have someone who lives with chronic illness on the court?
someone who understands the health care system that so many of
struggle with? could really make for some breakthroughs. guess i need
to read up on her background and positions before i get too excited,
though.
Amy,
Thank you for this interesting article. I believe th job should come first, not the disability. It is interesting that se has come this far and had no problems. Perhaps it is a mater of race but trying to be covered up. I believe this is a case of discrimination. I also believe the President does not need to look any furthr into this. Look how frequently our last Vice President went into the hospital. No one fired him!
Turtle
as long as they are checking how often the other candidates eat Big Macs and getting too little sleep, I would be okay with it. (kidding here)
“Isn’t it discrimination to withhold a position from someone because they *might* someday have complications that could threaten their health?”
Absolutely. If it isn’t, it should be. Any one of us could walk into the street and get hit by a bus. I guess none of us should be working because we have to cross the street now and again. Isn’t that a complication that could threaten our health?
If so, then we can put all Americans out of work. Then there’s no money to pay for health insurance, hospitals have no money to pay for employees, so they’re out of work, more people die…you see where I’m going with this.
Horrifying that a spokeswoman from the JDRF would say ANYTHING more than positive things about how well we diabetics can survive. Oh wait, she must have been that nurse that I overheard when I was 11 (and first diagnosed in 1981) that said “he may not live beyond 40″. Guess what? 39 and going strong! Still got my eyesight, feet, hands, and strong mind!
I agree with cal pumper, for any job the first thing to consider is her/his qualification. And her qualification is more than enough.
I fail to see how the fact that she is a diabetic has anything to do with her ability to function as a member of SCOTUS. It might have some impact on the duration of her term since its a lifetime appointment. But even that should be a minor consideration, it considered at all. If she is qualified and is the right person for the job, then her diabetes should not factor in.
Than being said, I personally do not believe she is qualified because of her admission (on video, no less) that she practices “legislation from the bench”. This, and this alone, should disqualify anyone from a position on the court.
Taking into account the judge’s diabetes when appointing her to the supreme court is completely irresponsible. She’s lived and performed this long at this level with this disease, so obviously she is managing it effectively. AND, I sure hope none of the other appointees on the supreme court smoke, have high blood pressure or are over weight because, they are all potentially more debilitating that well managed diabetes.
I cannot even believe that this is an issue whatsoever.
Judicial temperament is not affected by diabetes. Living with any challenge gives the potential nominee an insight that many of us will never have.
Nominees should be nominated, judged (no pun intended) and confirmed on the merits of their accomplishments and their history of law decisions, not on the state of their pancreatic function.
(What’s next, no judges with bifocals because they might have trouble reading the legal briefs?)
I think the only reason it’s an issue would be because you want to choose someone that will last a long time. It would be an issue only for the Democrats because they want a candidate that not only reflects their convictions but also will be there a long time. Both of President Bushes appointees were fairly young and conservative which really angered the left. So, it’s really just a political thing and not a reflection on how well she could do her job. The reality is that our life expectancy is lower because of our disease.
She is well qualified for the position. She has a chronic illness which doesn’t seem to keep her from being very successful in life. Diabeties does not have to be disabling when a person learns to work hard to control it, rather than allow it to control you. Very obviously, this candidate has worked extremely hard to accomplish all that she has, why should she not be working to take control of diabeties?
Well, First of all I think they serve way too long.. Eventually we all are going to get something as we get into our 80′s… Just like our Politicians..
hi Amy thanks for this. for what it’s worth, maybe i’m in a dreamland, but i actually don’t consider myself ill for a second! not to get into an old debate but i really do think diabetes is a condition and it doesn’t have to be more if we have the resources and time to take care of ourselves. it’s a lot of work and a lot of money (part of my thinking that it isn’t an illness is that I have CGM and a pump) but i think my health is better not worse because of my diabetes because i work harder at it than i otherwise would. to think there could be discrimination against Ms. Sotomayor is unbelievable. She probably takes better care of herself than many others on the Court now! thank you for the article….
I agree with Jules. Since Bush placed young John Roberts and Samuel Alito on the bench, both Federalist Society idealogues, I would prefer that Obama place someone with an excellent longevity who would be a counter weight to Roberts and Alito. I’m not sure who that should be, but Sotomayor appears more pragmatic than visionary.
As Ms. Sotomayor’s credentials were being discussed this morning before and after President Obama’s announcement, there was lots about her politics, her ethnicity, and her gender, I heard nothing about her diabetes.
The ability to appoint a Supreme is one of the greatest powers of a President, and a part of his or her legacy. The chance comes up infrequently. I fully expect Obama’s people have thoroughly reviewed her health history and are confident she’s relatively healthy and has a reasonable life expectancy. Note that the phenomenon of many type 1 diabetics living past 60 is relatively new.——-Steve Parker, M.D.
[...] [1] Disability News | PatriciaEBauer.com ” diabetes [2] ” Supreme Court Prospect Sotomayor Has Diabetes: Deal or No Deal … [3] Disability News | PatriciaEBauer.com ” News Archive ” Sotomayor’s … [4] [...]
Please be happy an encouraged by this and forget all the negative stuff.
Celebrate the lady. Forget the diabetes. It is so well managed these days that it is a non issue.
Maude
[...] Supreme Court Prospect Sotomayor Has Diabetes: Deal or No Deal? [...]
[...] Keri at Diabetes Mine asks: Does the position of Supreme Court Justice fall under the American Disabilities Act? Good question. [...]
I always advise clients to disclose only if the disease impacts how you work. Too bad but in this case, Sotomayor didn’t have that choice. Because this is a non-issue. And that is the point, isn’t it? Many parts of who she is (growing up poor, father dying young, being a minority in several realms) inform her decisions. She has proven that she can manage living with disease and that’s all any employer needs to worry about. Worry about her life expectancy based on some statistics? Give me a break. This is code language for a common ailment called bias and fear of chronic illness. It isn’t incurable but unfortunately, it often goes untreated.
If she can do the job then let her. Having Diabetes is not an issue here only weather or not she can do the job that she is being given.
If we make Diabetes and issue for Public Service then we should make all Illnesses an issue. How many of those in Service would have to give up their seats, either on the House Seats, Coungress’ seats ,The White House, Judges from any State, Governors, How about Doctors them selves, Teachers, Court House Employees and on and on ….
I do not agree that having diabetes could not make her fuction well. She is very qualified for the position and why don’t we give her a chance to do her job. I’m also diabetic but still I can do my job very well in Sales. Diabetes is not really an issue here..
I would like to know if any of the judges ride motorcycles, or smoke, or drink. Because THEY might die sooner too.
President Obama has no choice but to consider the effect diabetes will have on Sotomayor’s appointment now that it has become a public/political issue
AND
It is a fantastic opportunity to educate the public about diabetes, foster intelligent awareness with a positive role model/public figure and eliminate stereotyping and myths that abound! I am excited! Let’s hope this goes in the right direction.
Well, First of all I think they serve way too long.. Eventually we all are going to get something as we get into our 80’s… Just like our Politicians..
[...] to Sotomayor because of her health condition? In her award-winning blog on diabetes, Amy Tenderich notes that diabetes is a chronic condition, not a terminal disease. Individuals may be ill, but [...]
First of all, you cant always go by stereotypes. A large number of latinos come from a mixed ancestry and arent mostly dark skinned as you described.
Thank you for this interesting article. I believe th job should come first, not the disability. It is interesting that se has come this far and had no problems. Perhaps it is a mater of race but trying to be covered up. I believe this is a case of discrimination. I also believe the President does not need to look any furthr into this. Look how frequently our last Vice President went into the hospital. No one fired him!