Sotomayor is Obama's SCOTUS pick

[linusrichard]

Because it's actually less painful than paying attention to Sarah Palin.

At the risk of having my liberal card revoked, she was at least easy on the eyes. Although Gingrich, it turns out, is a better singer.

(At 2:58, but don't skip to it.)

 

[marksman]

Please elucidate on this judicial philosophy of Clarance Thomas. When it's an 8-1 split with 8 judges finding the Bush administration acted unconstitutionally, and one saying that all is well in the world, I have to assume that the philosophy is 'Republican Party rules, amright?'

Never seen any philosophy from him other than that.

I have. I think Thomas has a vision of the Constitution of limited powers, and one with a narrow role for the federal government -- one even more limited than the limited vision that Scalia envisions. (But within that narrow role, which includes being Commander-in-Chief, the Court should be deferential to a fault.) I'm seen him lay this framework out in numerous opinions, particularly in a decision on gun control from about ten years ago, in which he limited the scope of the Interstate Commerce Clause -- a clause that Congress has been able to use to justify almost any legislation. Even Scalia accepted the expansive notion of a broad Interstate Commerce Clause, but Thomas does not.

I don't agree with him on this stance. But to write Thomas off as a political hack is wrongheaded and is to underestimate him as a justice. He has a strong vision of how he interprets the Constitution and he has been shaping opinions slowly, where he can, to inform that vision.

He's not as eloquent as Scalia, but he's more passionate about his constitutional vision than anybody else currently sitting on the Court.

On the left, only Breyer, imo, has a consistent judicial philosophy. But Breyer's philosophy is also fairly deferential to the executive branch. When it comes to civil rights, there is no person on the left who speaks with a clear vision and eloquence of speech. We haven't had a voice like that on the bench since Brennan. Sotomayor is a good judge and eminently qualified for the Supreme Court. Heck, there's nothing wrong with having solid, smart judges on the bench, but there's also a need for a clear philosophical voice, particularly on a fiercely divided court like this one where the goal is to convince Kennedy to join your opinion. The left needs that voice. Badly.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

That's not a great example. The First Amendment per se does only apply to the United States. When States violate freedom of speech, the complaint will necessarily allege violations of First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the rights protected by the First, Fourth, Sixth, and Eighth (and some of the Fifth) Amendments, and applies those protections against State governments as well.

At the same time, it's not a terrible example either, since it's not immediately clear from the text of the Fourteenth Amendment what's incorporated and what isn't, and so it does require interpretation. But it doesn't go "far beyond the letter of the law." It goes far beyond the letter of the First Amendment, but not far beyond the letter of the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

I'd have to check, but I'm pretty sure case law interpreted the First Amendment as applying to states even before the Fourteenth Amendment.

Still, there are plenty of other examples.

How about the recent case that supported the notion of the right to bear arms as an individual right despite the language about a well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state? I don't think that's being a strict constructionist either--just ignoring the first part of the Second Amendment as if it weren't there at all.

The "establishment" clause in the First Amendment has been interpreted to mean that public schools can't teach religion. Is that the result of "activist judges"? (Probably not a good example since there are those who think just that!)

 

[linusrichard]

I'd have to check, but I'm pretty sure case law interpreted the First Amendment as applying to states even before the Fourteenth Amendment.

Do check, but in the meantime, here's this.

Still, there are plenty of other examples.

Sure.

 

[MattusMaximus]

Because it's actually less painful than paying attention to Sarah Palin.

It's only painful if you have the sound turned on when she's on TV

 

[GreyICE]

You have to assume? You can't read judicial opinions?

Have you READ his opinions?

Do you know the case I'm referring to even? There is no interpretation of that ruling that finds that 'oh hey, we can declare US citizens not US citizens' sensibly.

 

[applecorped]

“I understand that during her career she has written hundreds and hundreds of opinions,” said Reid. “I haven’t read a single one of them. And if I’m fortunate, before we end this, I won’t have to read one of them.”

Harry Reid

 

[linusrichard]

Have you READ his opinions?

Some of them, yes.

Do you know the case I'm referring to even? There is no interpretation of that ruling that finds that 'oh hey, we can declare US citizens not US citizens' sensibly.

I didn't know the case you were referring to from your post above, because I think there are probably a number of cases that match that description.

I believe his dissent in Hamdi was wrong. I don't believe it is as you characterize it.

 

[GreyICE]

Some of them, yes.


I didn't know the case you were referring to from your post above, because I think there are probably a number of cases that match that description.

I believe his dissent in Hamdi was wrong. I don't believe it is as you characterize it.

I can't come to any other conclusion. For a justice who supposedly believes in limited government to come to the conclusion that the Sixth Amendment and Habeus Corpus could exist or cease at the whim of a president, at his sole discretion, subject to no judicial review... seems insane. If it was a judge who had a habit of favoring a strong, powerful government, the decision would make sense (it would still be wrong, I mean 8 other justices came to some variant of the conclusion 'you cannot do that' ranging from 'you cannot do that the way you did it' to 'there is no clause and no power in the entire constitution that allows you to even think about doing that'). As one who supposedly favors anything but... it doesn't make sense.

I dunno. I've always respected Scalia, even if I disagree with him, but Hamdi tells me Thomas is voting for something other than what he supposedly is.

 

[linusrichard]

I can't come to any other conclusion. For a justice who supposedly believes in limited government ...

There's the key. When it comes to the executive branch of the government, and especially when it comes to the powers of the executive branch related to national security and foreign relations, Thomas does not supposedly believe in limited government; just the opposite.

...If it was a judge who had a habit of favoring a strong, powerful government, the decision would make sense (it would still be wrong, I mean 8 other justices came to some variant of the conclusion 'you cannot do that' ranging from 'you cannot do that the way you did it' to 'there is no clause and no power in the entire constitution that allows you to even think about doing that').

He does favor a strong, powerful executive branch when it comes to national security, so it does make sense. And yes, it is still wrong. Although I would hesitate to say it's wrong simply because it's the 1 in an 8-1 decision.

I dunno. I've always respected Scalia, even if I disagree with him, but Hamdi tells me Thomas is voting for something other than what he supposedly is.

I respect Scalia as well, but I think Thomas is more consistent and more principled. I also think he's wrong - sometimes crazily wrong - more often.

 

[Ysidro]

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

WTF? Of all the things he could complain about, he picks this? I guess it's true, conservatives really are the party of rich white guys.

You know, I'm tempted to start pronouncing my family's name the way it was in the old country but I'm sure I'd be told I'm unamerican because 'we don't roll our 'r's here".

 

[Dr Adequate]

I wonder how the jerk pronounces "Geithner".

Well, at least that's Aryan.