0
StreetScooby

Sotomayor vows 'fidelity to the law'

Recommended Posts

Quote


"In the past month, many Senators have asked me about my judicial philosophy. It is simple: fidelity to the law," Judge Sotomayor said. "The task of a judge is not to make the law — it is to apply the law. And it is clear, I believe, that my record in two courts reflects my rigorous commitment to interpreting the Constitution according to its terms; interpreting statutes according to their terms and Congresss intent; and hewing faithfully to precedents established by the Supreme Court and my Circuit Court."



Congresses intent. That leaves alot of wiggle room, IMO, especially with a debt-o-crat congress. Any comments?
We are all engines of karma

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Honestly, she's far from my favorite for a seat on the SCOTUS (I think I'd go with Chip Mellor, followed closely by Robert Levy), but with the current President and Senate, I think we could have done a hell of a lot worse.

I think this is a losing issue for the GOP, and they ought to stick to real inquiries, make their doubts known, and then get to a vote so they're all on record. The outcome isn't in doubt.
-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I like how the msm keeps referring to her as the "first hispanic SC justice"... guess they forgot about Estrada.



Estrada didn't make it that far, so it's possible they are correct.

On the other hand, there is something to be said for the Hispanic heritage of Justice Cardozo.
-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

my judicial philosophy. It is simple: fidelity to the law," Judge Sotomayor said. "The task of a judge is not to make the law — it is to apply the law.



Clearly not the 'perfect' judge under democrat philosophy. not at all

Well, CRAP. Now Obama has to go looking for someone that'll do what he THOUGHT she would do for the party.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

my judicial philosophy. It is simple: fidelity to the law," Judge Sotomayor said. "The task of a judge is not to make the law — it is to apply the law.



Clearly not the 'perfect' judge under democrat philosophy. not at all

Well, CRAP. Now Obama has to go looking for someone that'll do what he THOUGHT she would do for the party.



Like GHW Bush and Souter, eh?
If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Looking at "congressional intent" is one of the ways that courts construe statutes. Another approach is "textualist."

I fall in favor of the "textualist" approach. Mostly because this is a nation of laws, not of committee reports. People are not governed by the committee reports, but they are governed by the words of the laws.

A law says what it says. The People conduct themselves on the basis of the words of the law. If the words of a statute are unambiguous, unequivocal and unlimited, then I do not believe that there should be any further review of the statute.

If, on the other hand, the words of a statute are ambiguous, equivocal, and/or limited, then there is a dilemma. That's when judges often will go into legislative histories to figure out what the legislature was trying to do. This is troublesome for the defendant who says, "This law did not ban this conduct. A reasonable reading of the statute shows that I did not violate it."

The judge who looks to legislative intent would say, "In reviewing the legislative history, the legislature stated that it intended to ban your conduct. Therefore, we hold that even though the law was poorly written, you shouldn't have done it."

I find it to be a travesty to do things like that. Instead, the solution is to invalidate the law on the basis that it is vague. A law must put people on notice of what is and what is not prohibited. Leaving each citizen to guess what an individual judge would hold is not a good thing, is it?


My wife is hotter than your wife.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I hope she gets a full floor vote in the Senate in a fairly short time period. Any president's nominee deserves a full floor vote. Advice and consent does not equate to obstruct and deny, regardless of which party is in power.

She disappoints me greatly. The Ricci case was clear cut - you either support racial discrimination or you do not. She chose to support racial discrimination. I find that despicable, but that's just me. Many clearly don't - the majority of them cowards who won't admit it under any circumstance.

She'll be confirmed. The GOP has fucked this up from the day after Newt called it like it is on the Judge. They disappoint me as well.

[barf]
Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


The judge who looks to legislative intent would say, "In reviewing the legislative history, the legislature stated that it intended to ban your conduct. Therefore, we hold that even though the law was poorly written, you shouldn't have done it."

I find it to be a travesty to do things like that. Instead, the solution is to invalidate the law on the basis that it is vague. A law must put people on notice of what is and what is not prohibited. Leaving each citizen to guess what an individual judge would hold is not a good thing, is it?



+1
We are all engines of karma

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

The Ricci case was clear cut - you either support racial discrimination or you do not. She chose to support racial discrimination. I find that despicable...

Sotomayor's ruling upholding a lower court's decision was based on 1) existing Federal law that held that if an employment-related action had a disproportionate adverse effect on an identifiable racial group, that action is held to be discriminatory, regardless of the intent of the action (so it is the effect that matters, not just the intent), and 2) prior SC rulings upholding that law. What you seem to want is an activist judge who disregards existing law and precedent in order to come up with decisions that fit YOUR desires. It is the current SC who rewrote the law to conform with their conservative philosophies, Sotomayor's ruling was the correct one at the time if following the law is what you want in a judge.

Don
_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I hope she gets a full floor vote in the Senate in a fairly short time period. Any president's nominee deserves a full floor vote. Advice and consent does not equate to obstruct and deny, regardless of which party is in power.

She disappoints me greatly. The Ricci case was clear cut - you either support racial discrimination or you do not. She chose to support racial discrimination.




Ever hear the expression "to be hoist by your own petard" - because it just happened to you.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Every Judge, whether he or she is on SCOTUS or is a trial court judge in jerkwater Montana, applies the law according to his or her life experiences, point of view, and yes, biases. There is NO Judge out there anywhere who simply applies the law in a machine-like manner. SCOTUS Judges have run the political spectrum from Scalia to Thurgood Marshall. Each one has interpreted the law through the prism of his or her life and viewpoints. Of course Sotomayor will do this. Scalia, Roberts, Thomas, and Alito do as well. To insist that Sotomayor leave her views and biases out of her judicial philosophy is simply ridiculous. No Judge does this, and no Judge is able to do this. To the conservatives who oppose Sotomayor, my question would be, would you really want Scalia et al. to leave their views and biases out of their judicial philosophy? My point is that it is unfair to insist that more liberal justices leave their life experiences at the door, but to applaud vigorously when conservative justices rule according to their biases.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

My point is that it is unfair to insist that more liberal justices leave their life experiences at the door, but to applaud vigorously when conservative justices rule according to their biases.



Sure.

It's also pretty unfair (and arrogant) to assume that someone with "more" life experiences is likely to come to a particular set of views.

Sonia Sotomayor definitely had some challenges growing up. But compare her biography with Clarence Thomas, and you'll notice that assuming a particular set of life experiences will lead you to specific conclusions (or even that they will somehow make you "wiser" or "better") is likely erroneous.
-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

My point is that it is unfair to insist that more liberal justices leave their life experiences at the door, but to applaud vigorously when conservative justices rule according to their biases.



Sure.

It's also pretty unfair (and arrogant) to assume that someone with "more" life experiences is likely to come to a particular set of views.

Sonia Sotomayor definitely had some challenges growing up. But compare her biography with Clarence Thomas, and you'll notice that assuming a particular set of life experiences will lead you to specific conclusions (or even that they will somehow make you "wiser" or "better") is likely erroneous.



I agree. I was simply trying to point out that everyone has their views and biases, and that these will inevitably creep into any Judge's decisions.

Sotomayor's "wise Latina" remarks make me very uneasy. But Scalia thinks he's smarter than everyone, too. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the intent of a law, and the interpretation of that law,
was totally clear - then everyone would agree on that intent
and interpretation.
So, there would only be a need for one SC justice to
let you know what it all means.

As we have seen with her recent case, 5 of the justices
disagreed with her interpretation while the others agreed.

I don't know of anyone who supports the idea of
a cut-and-dried application of law. That is why there
is always such a stink about SC nominees.

I can't think of anybody who believes that, so why is
she trying to sell such an obvious untruth?
:S

She should just tell the truth about her view of the
certain issues and the personal convictions (from her "life experience") that she will use to interpret the law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Please, by all means old boy, please elaborate.

GeorgiaDon - I desire race to have no place in American law. Period. Racial discrimination is despicable, be it in intent or effect.

[barf]
Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
does not matter what she says, "Judges don't make the law...."

If the law was THAT black and white - we would not need judges.

They INTERPRET and apply the law, and they do it differently. As a society, we have to accept that or write better laws.

Why is everyone so afraid to say that a judge has the right to interpret and apply a law in their own way? - that is the meaning on 'judge'

they might not make the law, but they sure set the precedents - and I am OK with that. We choose these people to do just that - and we need to let them do it. As a result, the rules and precedents over time will change, abortion, slavery, torture, and many other of the nasty subjects that they get faced with every day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If the so-called "best" 9 legal minds in the country come up with or 'interpret' a 5 to 4 vote on any law - then doesn't it seem that the law is crap?

It looks like anything that's split that hard one of two things have to happen

1 - the judges need to be replaced with those that don't bias so obtusely per their "life experiences" or;

2 - the law needs to be sent back to the legislature where the jokers that wrote the thing are required to rework it to be more clear


the goal of law should be to get as close to 'right or wrong' as we can. When we have "laws" that require art funding, or naming libraries, or fuzzy and contradictory applications of racism for the sake of non-racism, etc, then it's easy to see why it's so hard to do.

A judge's job should be easy if the law-makers do their jobs and only focus on the basics.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

If the so-called "best" 9 legal minds in the country come up with or 'interpret' a 5 to 4 vote on any law - then doesn't it seem that the law is crap?

It looks like anything that's split that hard one of two things have to happen

1 - the judges need to be replaced with those that don't bias so obtusely per their "life experiences" or;

2 - the law needs to be sent back to the legislature where the jokers that wrote the thing are required to rework it to be more clear


the goal of law should be to get as close to 'right or wrong' as we can. When we have "laws" that require art funding, or naming libraries, or fuzzy and contradictory applications of racism for the sake of non-racism, etc, then it's easy to see why it's so hard to do.

A judge's job should be easy if the law-makers do their jobs and only focus on the basics.



After 233 years you'd think we already have all the laws we'd ever need.

I bet 90% of them could be struck from the books and we'd still get on just fine.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

After 233 years you'd think we already have all the laws we'd ever need.
I bet 90% of them could be struck from the books and we'd still get on just fine.



Hm. Interesting idea, there, John. I say we start by striking Newton's laws, and work our way from there. Tomorrow I'm calling my congressman about repealing the Pythagorean Theorem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

After 233 years you'd think we already have all the laws we'd ever need.
I bet 90% of them could be struck from the books and we'd still get on just fine.



Hm. Interesting idea, there, John. I say we start by striking Newton's laws, and work our way from there. Tomorrow I'm calling my congressman about repealing the Pythagorean Theorem.



I'm ok with that - just the basics

give me 0, 1, e, i, and pi
and a handful of basic rules

we can derive the rest

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0