Attacks on Sotomayor—What’s Good for the Goose…
Karl Rove today in a Wall Street Journal opinion piece,”‘Empathy’ Is Code for Judicial Activism”:
Mr. Obama said he wanted to replace Justice David Souter with someone who had “empathy” and who’d temper the court’s decisions with a concern for the downtrodden, the powerless and the voiceless.
“Empathy” is the latest code word for liberal activism, for treating the Constitution as malleable clay to be kneaded and molded in whatever form justices want. It represents an expansive view of the judiciary in which courts create policy that couldn’t pass the legislative branch or, if it did, would generate voter backlash.
Former President George H. W. Bush in July 1991, in his remarks announcing his selection of Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court:
I have followed this man’s career for some time. He is a delightful and warm, intelligent person who has great empathy and a wonderful sense of humor.
*****
Senator Pat Roberts, the first Republican Senator who has indicated that he will vote against Sotomayor’s confirmation, during a radio show today:
I voted ‘no’ in 1998. I did not feel she was appropriate on the Appeals Court. Since that time, she has made statements on the role of the Appeals Court that I think is [sic] improper and incorrect.
(The Senator was referring to Sotomayor’s 2005 remarks on policy-making in the Appeal Courts.)
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, in a majority opinion of a 2002 case, Republican Party of Minnesota v. White:
This complete separation of the judiciary from the enterprise of “representative government” might have some truth in those countries where judges neither make law themselves nor set aside the laws enacted by the legislature. It is not a true picture of the American system. Not only do state-court judges possess the power to “make” common law, but they have the immense power to shape the States’ constitutions as well. [Emphasis added]
In a footnote, Scalia added:
In fact, however, the judges of inferior courts often “make law,” since the precedent of the highest court does not cover every situation, and not every case is reviewed.
*****
Finally, there has been a firestorm by Conservatives (Gingrich, Rove, Limbaugh—to name a few), including Tancredo’s outlandish “racist,” “Latino KKK” accusations, over a Sotomayor 2001 speech at the University of California at Berkeley, where she suggested that her background, life experience and heritage help guide her decision-making:
I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.
Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito during his January 2006 Senate confirmation hearings:
Because when a case comes before me involving, let’s say, someone who is an immigrant — and we get an awful lot of immigration cases and naturalization cases — I can’t help but think of my own ancestors, because it wasn’t that long ago when they were in that position.
[...]
When I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or because of gender. And I do take that into account.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
9 Responses to “Attacks on Sotomayor—What’s Good for the Goose…”
Well, I have said she should be confirmed, and hopefully with little rancor. There are already strong indications that Republican leadership have decided not to press this nomination hard, which is good.
But, if you are going to start a post about the confirmation process of SCOTUS Justices with the tag-line what is good for the goose…, frankly, past history would then dictate an attempt at complete and total character assassination on Sotomayer , complete with distortions and lies about her views and records, and innuendo of the worst sort, as that has been the modus operandi of the Democrats for the Roberts, Alito and Thomas confirmations.
AR,
I was taken in by the headline also.
This would have been a perfect opportunity for a “moderate” to disavow the rancid, mean-spirited personal attacks made by liberals on conservative nominees like Bork, Thomas and Alito, but sadly the opportunity was missed.
Next, I thought Dorian may have been referring to the information surfacing on Sotomayor’s temperament, but that was not the case.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/29…
We should not give up hope. One day, I’m sure there will be balanced article.
Oh yes, temperament.
The New York Times::
“To supporters, Judge Sotomayor’s vigorous questioning of the Bush administration’s position in the case of the Canadian, Maher Arar, showcases some of her strengths. She is known as a formidably intelligent judge with a prodigious memory who meticulously prepares for oral arguments and is not shy about grilling the lawyers who appear before her to ensure that she fully understands their arguments.
But to detractors, Judge Sotomayor’s sharp-tongued and occasionally combative manner — some lawyers have described her as “difficult” and “nasty” — raises questions about her judicial temperament and willingness to listen. Her demeanor on the bench is an issue that conservatives opposed to her nomination see as a potential vulnerability — and one that Mr. Obama carefully considered before selecting her.”
Please read
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/29/us/politics/2…
I am sure others will add more “appropriate” references.
Dorian – I actually think an animated and fiery counterpoint from a more left-oriented view to counterbalance Scalia would be a good and interesting thing.
If they ever allow cameras, they could even create a SCOTUS version of the old 60 Minutes segment – Point/CounterPoint!
AR:
Thanks for your comments—always appreciated.
On this latest one, I can't figure whether you are being sarcastic or serious. Pray, let me know
Dorian
First line – serious. Second line – not sarcastic, just joking.
Got it.
Thanks AR
If they ever allow cameras, they could even create a SCOTUS version of the old 60 Minutes segment – Point/CounterPoint!
Or a SNL version with Scalia uttering “Sonia, you ignorant slut!”
Attacks? We're not allowed to ask legitimate questions about such an unqualified nomination, or it's an “attack”? -whatever
Unless you are delusional, Sotomayer is a racist, as are all members of the treasonous La Raza -by definition- who’s motto is “For our race everything- for others, nothing”. Her record is nothing to shout about either, and frankly -if you've heard her speak- she's not what you'd call a towering intellectual.
And clearly Eric Holder has some racial hangups and agenda too… as does Obama IMO, since his behavior betrays a wierd pro-Kenyan grudge against the British… and he’s the one who nominated all these kooks.
Whatever happened to the idea of a colorblind society? Team Obama define their world in racial terms all the time- and unlike any white people I know. I wouldn’t want to be judged by any of them after what I’ve heard come out of their own mouths- they sound like Jesse Jackson.
If Obama is going to go on with his “justice” agenda largely based upon race- the double standards need to stop, and NOW.
http://reaganiterepublicanresistance.blogspot.com/