Scotus pick

[ChinoCoug]

Originally Posted by Venkman

I don't, though I find it interesting the notion of GWB praying about stuff threw the left into a tizzy.

Maybe God inspired Obama to choose someone who may turn out to be pro-Life.

[Venkman]

Originally Posted by ChinoCoug

Maybe God inspired Obama to choose someone who may turn out to be pro-Life.

Wouldn't that be something - the right gets our own version of David Souter.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Venkman

Wouldn't that be something - the right gets our own version of David Souter.

Don't hold your breath.

The really fascinating thing for me after the initial nomination were the headlines. "Obama seeks to make history with first Hispanic court nominee." And then a few days later, "Do Republicans dare oppose the first Hispanic court nominee?"

The press has obviously made up their mind that being the First Race In The Job is significant enough to rubber stamp a person through. Too bad they didn't feel that way about Miguel Estrada.

[MikeWaters]

Or Erik Estrada

[Tex]

Via WSJ:

In a speech published in the Berkeley La Raza Law Journal in 2002, Judge Sotomayor offered her own interpretation of this jurisprudence. "Justice [Sandra Day] O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases," she declared. "I am . . . not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, . . . there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, 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."

...

Judge Sotomayor's belief is that a "Latina woman" is by definition a superior judge to a "white male" because she has had more "richness" in her struggle. The danger inherent in this judicial view is that the law isn't what the Constitution says but whatever the judge in the "richness" of her experience comes to believe it should be.

The very definition of judicial activism.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

Via WSJ:



The very definition of judicial activism.

At least, if nothing else, you have now defined judicial activism (after years of me asking). According to Tex, judicial activism= saying a Latina with rich life experiences will reach better conclusions than a white male on certain issues.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

At least, if nothing else, you have now defined judicial activism (after years of me asking). According to Tex, judicial activism= saying a Latina with rich life experiences will reach better conclusions than a white male on certain issues.

Rather, it is the approach that "the law isn't what the Constitution says but whatever the judge in the 'richness' of her experience comes to believe it should be."

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by Tex

Via WSJ:



The very definition of judicial activism.

Agreed.

Of course, I don't know why we would expect Obama to base his nominee on who would do the right thing. Getting reelected is the only thing a politician cares about and this will fool people into thinking Obama has done a good job as POTUS.

[Tex]

A little more on the Constitution-Means-Whatever-I-Say-It-Means approach to jurisprudence from John Hinderaker:

Barack Obama famously says that a key quality he wants in a Supreme Court justice is "empathy." As many commentators have observed, "empathy" is really a cover for lawlessness. But it's actually worse than that, because empathy, as that term is used by Obama, is inherently selective.

Does Obama mean that his nominee will have empathy for the unborn? Well, no. He doesn't have in mind that kind of empathy. How about empathy for taxpayers and small business owners? No, that isn't exactly the right sort of empathy either.

Obama's favorite example of the right kind of empathy is Lily Ledbetter. As Paul has pointed out, Lily Ledbetter was a liar with a lousy case that was properly barred by the statute of limitations. What "empathy" is at work here? Empathy with unions and, perhaps even more important, the people who profit more than anyone else when lousy cases are kept alive in the courts--plaintiffs' lawyers, among the largest contributors to the Democratic Party. What Barack Obama means by an "empathetic" judge is one who has his or her thumb on the scale on behalf of politically favored groups. This is the opposite of the traditional view that a judge should be neutral, i.e., have equal empathy for all litigants.

There is a parallel here to the use of foreign law as precedent by some liberal judges. Did those judges look for guidance to the laws of Muslim countries when they ruled in Lawrence v. Texas that there is a constitutional right to sodomy? Of course not. That isn't the sort of "foreign law" they have in mind. Reference to foreign law, like empathy, is inherently selective, since laws in various countries conflict, and is really a cover for a judge's imposition of his own political preferences or for resolving an issue favorably to a politically favored group.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Tex

Don't hold your breath.

The really fascinating thing for me after the initial nomination were the headlines. "Obama seeks to make history with first Hispanic court nominee." And then a few days later, "Do Republicans dare oppose the first Hispanic court nominee?"

The press has obviously made up their mind that being the First Race In The Job is significant enough to rubber stamp a person through. Too bad they didn't feel that way about Miguel Estrada.

True to form, that's the tact the Dems are taking. Here's an AP lede:

The Senate debate over Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor turned bitter Wednesday, after Democrats warned the GOP it would pay a steep price for opposing the judge who would be the first Hispanic justice, and a top Republican charged they were playing destructive racial politics.

One wonders if there is anything that is not racial to these people.