Sotomayor is Obama's SCOTUS pick

[Cobalt]

Why is it that when a liberal interprets the law, the liberal is an "activist judge" but when conservatives do it, they're "just following the law"? Do you conservatives actually think we don't see the double standard here? Why is it that the experiences and decisions of liberals tend to be opinion over "law" but when conservatives assert "values" over the law, it's fine?

This woman will become a Supreme Court judge, there is just no reasonable justification to not confirm her.

Did you call into the Sean Hannity show yesterday? I heard this exact statement almost word-for-word driving home during his show.

 

[Cleon]

Harumph!

From what I know about her, yes, she seems to be an activist judge, which is a bad thing.

The problem is, "activist judge" is a silly scare phrase that boils down to "She didn't rule the way I wanted her to."

 

[shecky]

You seem to be choosing to read that into his words, but no such claim is actually made. Furthermore, it is (as I already mentioned) purely an issue of his individual experiences, and not a quality of his race or gender, as Sotomayor is framing it. That too is a significant difference, which you have not argued against.

I think you have projected flaky meanings on Sotomayor's words, and given much leeway to Alito's. They both seem to have expressed very similar sentiments and it would take a gaggle of lawyers to divine very significant differences in their meanings.

Harumph!

From what I know about her, yes, she seems to be an activist judge, which is a bad thing.

One of the very few actual cases where the Right has been critical of Sotomayor is her involvement in the Ricci case, where she actually was not being an activist, at least the way the right likes to use the term, but following the law and precedent. Leading to an outcome the Right dislikes. A curious turnaround, where the Right comes out attacking the judge and not the law, for not being activist enough.

 

[corplinx]

Is there anywhere objective I can go to to make up my mind?

Without having a metric, I would say that if all they can dig up is 4 or 5 things for her long and distinguished career, that it would be an exception or minority of her work and not her modus operandi.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Liberal judges seem to be labeled "activist judges" more often than not, even though it's the conservatives that have a law school dedicated to pumping out activist judges. See Pat Robertson and Regent University.

 

[Ziggurat]

I think you have projected flaky meanings on Sotomayor's words, and given much leeway to Alito's. They both seem to have expressed very similar sentiments and it would take a gaggle of lawyers to divine very significant differences in their meanings.

I am not a gaggle of lawyers, but I have still somehow managed to divine differences (between a statement of influence and a supposition of superior outcome, and between individual personal experience versus generic race and gender characteristics). And you have not argued against the existence or the significance of those differences.

 

[Skeptic]

The problem is, "activist judge" is a silly scare phrase that boils down to "She didn't rule the way I wanted her to."

Not really, no.

 

[KingMerv00]

A check and balance that wasn't historically a rectal exam consisting of placing a 3 ring circus up the person's backside.

Historicity is not an argument.

 

[shecky]

I am not a gaggle of lawyers, but I have still somehow managed to divine differences (between a statement of influence and a supposition of superior outcome, and between individual personal experience versus generic race and gender characteristics). And you have not argued against the existence or the significance of those differences.

It seems to me you're seeing things you want to see.

 

[applecorped]

Man, I wish I weren't a white male. One day I will be a Hispanic female!!!!!

 

[Darth Rotor]

I think it is important to evaluate Sotomayer strictly on judicial issues. When she's giving a speech to a special interest group or being interviewed by a news program, that's being a politician.

Then go and get a justice for the court, not a politician.

I think the GOP would be well advised to save their ammunition on this one.

As do I, but I have not seen the GOP think to well, tactically, since about 2005, or before.

So I ain't holding my breath.

DR

 

[fishbob]

You seem to be choosing to read that into his words, but no such claim is actually made. Furthermore, it is (as I already mentioned) purely an issue of his individual experiences, and not a quality of his race or gender, as Sotomayor is framing it. That too is a significant difference, which you have not argued against.

He made the response while being questioned about his suitability to be Supreme Court justice, so in that context he was saying exactly what I said he was saying. And seriously, your race and your gender will play some part in your individual experiences. Not word for word identical, but I don't think this is a significant difference at all.

 

[DDWW]

I'm sorry, then, I must have misunderstood your point. It seemed to me, perhaps in error, that you were oversimplifying the situation -- that your point was that the court simply clarifies the laws and mechanically, robot-like (as others have also implied) omits any relevant personality, experience, character, etc. from themselves in the process.

The article is different in that it acknowledges, even emphasizes, that a person's background informs all of their decisions and viewpoints on the laws concerned, as well as their applications.

At least, that was how I read it. And again, I apologize if I misunderstood you.

My fault too. Actually I stole that analegy from Paul Harvey, who many many years ago did a longer and better job of explaining the role of the SCOTUS in those terms.

DDWW

 

[Neally]

He made the response while being questioned about his suitability to be Supreme Court justice, so in that context he was saying exactly what I said he was saying. And seriously, your race and your gender will play some part in your individual experiences. Not word for word identical, but I don't think this is a significant difference at all.

Frankly, I don't want a judge to base their decisions on their "life experiences", gender, or race. I want their decisions to be based on a careful analysis of the facts and the law.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Frankly, I don't want a judge to base their decisions on their "life experiences", gender, or race. I want their decisions to be based on a careful analysis of the facts and the law.

I want Steve Jobs to run to my house and give me a maxed out Mac Pro with Logic installed.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Frankly, I don't want a judge to base their decisions on their "life experiences", gender, or race. I want their decisions to be based on a careful analysis of the facts and the law.

You do realize that the decisions are based on interpretations of the law, which are very much affected by "life experience" and opinions, right? For example, the establishment clause. Some people think it establishes a wall of separation between church and state (intelligent people) while others think that it merely means the state can't set up it's own church.

 

[shecky]

I want their decisions to be based on a careful analysis of the facts and the law.

The funny thing is, as I pointed out earlier, that is pretty much what she did in Ricci, to the consternation of conservatives, who seem in that case, to have wanted an activist judge.

Yet Justice Alito gets a pass from conservatives when he gets a case about discrimination, and thinks about people in his own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or because of gender. He takes that experience into account.

Look, I have no particular love for Sotomayor, and know little about where she stands. But it's clear that the conservative power base in the US continues to prove it has lost it's mind, with the charges of racism, preferential treatment, lack of intelligence, judicial activism, etc. by the likes of Limbaugh, Michael Goldfarb, Gingrich and Tancredo. For whatever reason, disagreeing with her philosophically isn't enough red meat for these clowns, so no hyperbole can be spared in the attack. At this rate, I expect to hear within a few days demands for her to produce a birth certificate. A real birth certificate.

 

[linusrichard]

The funny thing is, as I pointed out earlier, that is pretty much what she did in Ricci, to the consternation of conservatives, who seem in that case, to have wanted an activist judge.

Ditto Didden, as I mentioned upthread.

At this rate, I expect to hear within a few days demands for her to produce a birth certificate. A real birth certificate.

I was going to point out how unreasonable this is, and then I remembered who were talking about. It wouldn't be terribly surprising. When they don't have anything real, they'll just grab at stuff, throw everything at the wall and see if anything sticks.

Say, isn't it awfully arrogant of Sotomayor to pronounce her name the way it's really pronounced?

 

[Skeptic]

For example, the establishment clause. Some people think it establishes a wall of separation between church and state (intelligent people)

"People who agree with me".

As for the point of your post, yes, of course judges bring their own biases and experience and life into the decisions they make. But if one wants to have equal justice, this involvement should be minimized, not celebrated. Otherwise, instead of equality under the law, we have periods where group X gets the better deal, and others where group Y does.

However, I think that the bruhahaha about this judge is overdone. Judges cannot merely declare what they want to be the law, even supreme court judges. The media circus about her being "the first hispanic judge" aside, I see very little evidence that she either wants, or can, legistlate "for" hispanics or "against" equal justice.

 

[thaiboxerken]

"People who agree with me".

No, I meant intelligent people. There is ample evidence that the purpose of the establishment clause is to build a wall of separation between church and state. The founders distinctly clarified this purpose in other publications and mediums, such as the Federalist papers and even letters to churches.

That being said, there are those who will ignore such evidence and interpret the establishment clause in a way that simply fits their own agenda. Just like every other law.