From the liveblog & CNN stream of the Sotomayor confirmation hearings, it’s becoming increasingly clear that Jeff Sessions’ greatest talent is yelling and interrupting — not making sense. What’s he even want from her? One clue:
I will not vote for – no senator should vote for – an individual nominated by any President who believes it is acceptable for a judge to allow their own personal backgroud, gender, prejudices, or sympathies to sway their decision in favor of, or against, parties before the court. In my view, such a philosophy is disqualifying.
Apparently, he wants a clear commitment to fairness and impartiality. If that’s so, it’s hard to see how he hasn’t gotten it.
In the past month, many senators have asked me about my judicial philosophy. It is simple: fidelity to the law. The task of a judge is not to make law, it is to apply the law. And it is clear, I believe, that my record … reflects my rigorous commitment to interpreting the Constitution according to its terms, interpreting statutes according to their terms and Congress’s intent and hewing faithfully to precedents established by the Supreme Court and by my Circuit Court. In each case I have heard, I have applied the law to the facts at hand.
And no, Ricci is not contrary to that promise. Recall, the “activist” path would’ve been to depart from settled law to rule for Mr. Ricci and his coplaintiffs.
Might it be time to accept that, when Sessions says he wants “impartiality,” what he really wants is his kind of partiality, the kind that Chief Justice Roberts & Justice Alito have faithfully given for their past few years on the Court? With Sessions’ inability to move into substantive issues, we have still further proof of the intellectual shallowness of the right’s understanding of “judicial activism.” For God’s sake, Jeff, sit down!
Also – because he seems to love dropping the “racist” bomb every other word – remember that Sessions is a real, bona fide racist.
I think you are absolutely right when you say “…when Sessions says he wants ‘impartiality,’ what he really wants is his kind of partiality…” I also think Jeff Sessions has an axe to grind after he did not get confirmed.
However, the Republicans have to say something, or else they may make Glen Beck cry. We can’t have that.
Posted by Fred | July 14, 2009, 11:59 amHeh, but what DOESN’T make Glenn Beck cry?
Posted by ACG | July 14, 2009, 12:06 pmWow, and that’s what you’re reduced to. Glenn Beck cries. Really? For heavens sake, please start looking at track records. Be it your SC nom, your media hacks, your Senators and Reps, and most importantly, your PRESIDENT!!! How many Czars does he have now? 31? 32? Nice way to run a parallel government. And you Folks are all worried about the CIA and the Ex-VP keeping a potential assassination program away from our Congress?? Really? Have you SEEN our Congress?? Both Parties. Crazy.
Posted by DEJ | July 15, 2009, 3:07 amFred,
Pitiful. Yes, you. So what you believe is that no nomination should be challenged? She has said the words herself, in many speeches. Not “just” one. And footnote: Ouch, has that mean and evil Glenn Beck hit a sore spot with you? Or is it more ” The Truth? You can’t handle the Truth!!!”
Posted by DEJ | July 15, 2009, 2:55 amI think Sotomayor’s best defense against the “wise Latina” remarks would be to admit – as she has done – to a poor choice of words. What she clearly should have said – and meant to say – was “A wise Latina would make judgements AT LEAST AS GOOD as a white male.” Same message, less to object to.
Then she should go on to ask who has never, in their life, said anything that they later, in the cold light of day, wish they had worded better. Assuming nobody is foolish enough to claim that they insist of focusing on understanding her intentions rather than a microanalysis of the words themselves.
Posted by UKOH | July 14, 2009, 1:11 pm“”I think Sotomayor’s best defense against the “wise Latina” remarks would be to admit – as she has done – to a poor choice of words. What she clearly should have said – and meant to say – was “A wise Latina would make judgements AT LEAST AS GOOD as a white male.” Same message, less to object to.
Then she should go on to ask who has never, in their life, said anything that they later, in the cold light of day, wish they had worded better. Assuming nobody is foolish enough to claim that they insist of focusing on understanding her intentions rather than a microanalysis of the words themselves.”"
This would work if she said it only once and it wasn’t from a prepared speech that she presented multiple times. Given that fact, she is guilty of making racist comments.
Posted by Jay | July 14, 2009, 2:24 pmBut that’s NOT what she has said…over and over again. And please be reminded, her educational background leads one to believe that she is very liberal and without and constrains from a higher court or oversight, that she most likely impose her views within her SC verdicts. Did anyone happen to review her Supreme court overturns? In total? Not just the Ricchi case? I thought as Americans, we deserved EQUAL rights under the law. No matter how rich or poor, the color of our skin or the believes our lives are guided under, that Lady Justice would be blind and apply the LAW. This is not her views as shown in “candid” moments. She spun like a top and I can’t even believe that anyone that has researched her in any measure can wonder why she is being ‘grilled’. Face it, it’s going to happen and we have much worse on our plates to challenge an/or be worried about as an American Nation. My heart breaks for what is to come and what we have become so ambivalent to.
Posted by DEJ | July 15, 2009, 2:47 amYah, that’s what we need: A judge so caught up in the moment of trying to “inspire” hispanic youth, that she makes racist remarks(Excellent role model to boot). Yah, and then let’s have that same judge rule on cases that will undoubtedly be emotionally charged for her. (e.g. illegal immigration: can’t wait for her to say it’s a scheme by the white man to deny the rightful homeland of Mexicans).
Posted by Json | July 14, 2009, 1:52 pmInstead of putting words in her mouth you could always read her case law, and come to an intelligent conclusion based on something other than your racist perceptions of what Latina women sound like. Whoa, radical, I know!!
Posted by ACG | July 14, 2009, 1:54 pmIt’s insulting that these people go on about how her being Hispanic in itself is a liability and a detriment, then in their next breath try to call someone else racist.
Posted by Oneiroi | July 14, 2009, 3:08 pmI will not vote for… an individual nominated by any President who believes…
So basically Sessions is saying he will not vote for confirmation regardless of the philosophy of the nominee herself and without regard to her case law if he disagrees with the philosophy of the nominating President!
Posted by Kris | July 14, 2009, 3:42 pmI fear Soto revealed her true feelings with that expression. She believes a Latina women is better able to make decisions than a white man. How else is one to take that? Spin and twist the words as you wish, but that mentality is HER and it will stay with her always.
Posted by morgan | July 14, 2009, 4:58 pmThat’s ridiculous. Bush used coke for a while, and drove drunk. Does that mean he always does coke while driving drunk, all the time?
Besides, if you READ THE FRAKING SPEECH (I know, it’s a daunting task, right!!), you’ll understand what she meant, and it’s not what you think it is!
Posted by ACG | July 14, 2009, 5:02 pmAre all you folks who are trying to put words into Judge Sotomayor serious? She is a highly intelligent and articulate individual. She knew what she was saying, and said exactly what she meant in the past. You folks are insulting the intelligence of the average person when you say that “she meant.” Judge Sotomayor has clearly articulated that she thinks that policy is made in the courts (and even admitted that she probably should not admit this, and that she believed a Latina woman could come to a BETTER decisions than a white male.
Her statements now repudiating her previous stated beliefs are not credible.
I don’t want this person making law for me!
An Independent Minority Voter
Posted by Tim | July 14, 2009, 5:14 pmIf you’re going to tell me about context and the circumstances of the statement, let’s talk about the ACTUAL SPEECH ITSELF. Read it, the whole thing, and tell me if the meaning is still what you think it is.
Posted by ACG | July 14, 2009, 5:16 pmI support Obama and most of his political decisions, but this lady is a bad news. She makes the republican claims, that Obama leads the country towards socialism, look credible.
BTW, Hitler told the Germans that they were better people than anyone else to “inspire” them after the defeat in the World War One.
Posted by Val | July 14, 2009, 6:42 pmPlease explain how J Sotomayor interfaces with economic theories. I’m all ears.
And there’s a difference between being proud of your life story and the knowledge it gives you, and thinking it makes you better than other people. If you read her damn speech (OMG! Novelty!), you’ll see it’s the former and not the latter.
Oh, and the Hitler comment? Immediate disqualification from any debate, of any kind, except perhaps one about WW2 battle tactics. If you are the average American voter, I weep for our country. Enjoy your Glenn Beck.
Posted by ACG | July 14, 2009, 6:47 pmSocialism is not only an economic theory. It is a mind set and a very cruel practice too. During the Communism in my native country people were ranked in the society based on their affiliation to particular group, party, and even birth place (yes being born in some area was beneficial). Also the laws were applied differently depending on who will benefit. Sounds familiar?
The example with Hitler was used just to show that the excuse “I wanted to inspire my people who were down” does not hold any water.
Posted by Val | July 14, 2009, 10:52 pmYou are correct, Val, in a way. Socialism is not an economic theory. It is a spectrum of theories. But that is all it is. Justices for SCOTUS have nothing to do with that. If any thing in this process makes Repub claims of socialism look credible, you may want to clean your glasses.
Posted by Fred | July 15, 2009, 10:01 amthe constitution did not find life in a vacumm. it was created out of necisity and came to life thru a minority of ppl wanting to assert thier concept of freedom and self independance for which is the life blood of the words written in that document. latinos now hold the power of the electoriate and now they must breathe thier ideals and concept of freedom into that same document. if our society will evolve it will do it with the will of the masses. give the good lady a chnce to breathe that new way of thinking into our constitution and we shall benfit greatly!!
Posted by rocksta64 | July 14, 2009, 6:53 pmAnd if a wise Latina reaches a better result than a white man (notice, the white man need not be wise)does it necessarily follow that the result is legally faulty? Just being a little facetious here, but the very next sentence of that speech is noteworthy, “Let us not forget that wise men like Oliver Wendell Holmes and Justice Cardozo voted on cases which upheld both sex and race discrimination in our society.”
People forget that while complete impartiality is something all judges must strive for legal decisions do not exist in a cultural and political vacuum. As we have seen time after time, the political and cultural climate of the time often shape legal opinions. I am often guilty of a particular ideological, cultural or emotional bias. Notwithstanding same, as an attorney, I do ot let those biases manifest themselves in my representation of my clients, and I will let my record speak for itself. Perhaps one should let Judge Sotomayor’s record, rather than a hangup over a sentence in an inspirational speech on progress of Hispanics, dictate their opinion of this judge.
Posted by Igor | July 14, 2009, 7:00 pmThanks Igor :). I can always count on you, Oneiroi, etc. to defend this position better than I can in the comments… I chalk my own shortfalls up to bar exam distractions :).
Posted by ACG | July 14, 2009, 7:05 pmAh that brings back memories, if only I could be as lazy at work as I was when studying for the Bar. Why, with NYU’s stellar NY Bar passage rate you could get away with not studying at all :).
Posted by Igor | July 14, 2009, 7:27 pmYou understand all too well. If I could describe the bar study experience in two words, I’d say “guiltily lazy.” But the motivation to not be one of the 5% that fails is powerful!!
Posted by ACG | July 14, 2009, 8:19 pmProblem is, this “wise Latina” much ado about nothing is a sideshow distracting from the important parts of the confirmation: the utterly execrable job she did of asking the substantive questions Senators posed to her. I mean, the answers she gave to the questions Feingold asked about incorporation were execrable to the point that there seems to be little alternative besides either that those answers were insincere and she’s being deliberately obtuse and evasive – which were I a Senator I’d consider cause to vote against her confirmation – or else she actually thinks she gave a meaningful answer to the question “What would be the general test for incorporation? I mean, what is the general principle?” – in which case she doesn’t seem very competent.
Posted by Steve | July 14, 2009, 9:52 pmAnd I’ll add that I’d prefer she stress formalist plain-meaning textualism than “Congress’s intent and hewing faithfully to precedents established by the Supreme Court and by my Circuit Court.” Damn common law…
Posted by Steve | July 14, 2009, 10:13 pmHas it occured to anyone that maybe, just maybe, a wise Latina might just make better decisions than an old, white male, especially if the latter is entrenched in having the power for too long?
Posted by ib2 | July 15, 2009, 2:31 amWell it just occured to me just what a “Wise Latino woman” is. A smart ass Puerto Rican.
Posted by JoeFattal | July 15, 2009, 5:47 am