No one should be surprised that one of the judges on Obama’s short list to replace Souter said the following: (h/t Verum Serum)
“All of the legal defense funds out there– they’re looking for people with court of appeals experience. Because court of appeals is where policy is made. And I know, I know this is on tape and I should never say that because we don’t make law. [Laughs] I know. I know. [Laughter] I’m not promoting it, I’m not advocating it, I’m…y’know.”
Ha Ha….so funny Sonia
It’s hilarious to Judge Sonia Sotomayor, but she does acknowledge this is what she believes and even acknowledges she isn’t supposed to utter those words.
Scary!
See author page
I’d say she just aptly defined the meaning of “activist judge”.
What’s more . . .she’s ugly!
She will fit right in with this Administration or any Banana Republic Dictatorship but not fit to be on the Bench at SCOTUS or any Court that follows the US Constitution as Law.
Give her a daytime TV show opposite the soaps or a stand up routine on the Comedy Channel with the rest of the liberal buffoons that I find more disgusting than amusing.
I’m sure Obama will appoint a centrist with bipartisan appeal. I hear Jeananne Garafalo is available.
Wow…joking about makings laws malleable, at the whim of a judge…yeah, I’m down with a comedian for a seat on SCOTUS.
If she says policy is made in the Appeals Courts, what will she think she can do, when there is no reviewing authority beyond her? Probably sends a tingle up her leg.
Where are the Vigilantes when you need them?
Can you post the entire short list?
@trizzlor.myopenid.com:
Obama’s Supreme Court Short List:
Jeananne Garafalo
George Soros
Rod Blagojevitch
Aunt Zeituni
William Ayers
Perez Hilton
Of course there are soooo many self loathing America hating liberals to choose from I wouldn’t be surprised if the selection process took quite some time.
You could try actually understanding what she said.
You quote one part of an answer to a question without quoting the question, or the part of the answer that preceded the quote – which the quote contrasts with – or the rest of the answer. Why not just make up your own quote? – it’s equally honest.
Her answer was in response to a question about the difference between trial courts and the court of appeals. She said that trial courts focus on one individual case, but appellate courts make decisions with broader implications. The “policy” function she is referring to is the fact that appellate courts make decisions which, unless they are overturned by the Supreme Court (which happens in only a negligibly tiny fraction of cases) set the terms of decision for all similar cases in an entire Circuit or possibly the nation. So obviously they make policy – not by “judicial activism” but by simply deciding cases and settling unclear aspects of law, which is what they are supposed to do. There is no way for appellate courts not to “make policy”, because their decisions set precedent for all lower courts, where trials are actually held and laws are applied; it is their function to determine how each law applies so that the lower courts apply them consistently.
She was laughing at the recognition that certain kinds of people would obviously jump on her use of the term “policy”, take her words out of context, and gin up an empty controversy grounded on ignorance and distortion. Looks like she was right.
The correct word for what you describe, Kevin, is precedent… not “policy”. Every decision can be a precedent if not overturned by a higher court.
She is a lawyer and a judge… she would not describe precedents as policy. As she copped to… they aren’t supposed to make laws. But nice spin attempt.
The word I used for what I describe is “precedent” (see above). However, that word refers to the legal status of the decisions made by an appellate court. “Policy” refers to the effective content of those decisions. “Precedent” describes the relationship between a decision and later decisions on the same point of law; “policy” describes the substance of the decision itself. Both may be applicable to a given decision, because many things, including legal decisions, have more than one noteworthy characteristic.
It is not, in fact, the case that “every decision can be precedent if not overturned” – most decisions are not overturned and are also not precedent (because they address a point of law that is not controversial, or is already settled by a previous decision – which is the precedent). However, in cases in which open controversies are settled by an appellate court, a decision that functions as precedent may serve to set policy.
A lawyer and a judge who understands the law will know that, and use the appropriate language to say so.
But nice reading comprehension attempt.
In the context of her own words, she admitted it meant she shouldn’t be saying that since the courts are not supposed to create policy, but interpret existing laws. She meant exactly what she said.
I comprehend just fine. Your problem is you’re trying to read nuance between words. Some things are just plain black and white, Kevin. Many judges feel the need to influence *legislative* policy as their moral calling. And this judge is most certainly one of them. In Ricci, it’s her affirmative action cause, now being argued, coincidently enough, in front of the Supremes.
Precedents continue to evolve. The older the precedent, the less relevant in a legal argument. Thus they choose more recent precedents. Nor is every case identical, so some have more applicability than others.
BTW, nice cut/paste from Blacks
She implies, if taken literally, that only two branches of Government are relevant.
*Judicial
*Executive
Activist Judges legislating from the bench and the Executive branch accepting it as Policy which should totally eliminate her from consideration and is also impeachable offense. Judicial appointments are political in nature anyway because of the confirmation process so…elections do have consequences. As stated, every case is unique or it would not reach appeal level at SCOTUS because it should have been decided by precedent rulings if the lower court had adjudicated the case competently.
Her flippant statement in the video clip should be grounds for her dismissal from the bench anyway.
I don’t think obambozo knows what a centrist is. His world has been influenced by the likes of ayers and alinsky for so long that he thinks someone like sotmayor is a centrist when in fact she is so far left it isn’t funny. If you want to trust him, fine. But I told you so.
Of course Obama will appoint a centrist with bipartisan appeal. He himself is a centrist with bipartisan appeal, he tells us so all the time. I say, straight to hell with centrism and bipartisanship. McCain is the bipartisan’s bipartisan and he would have been 15% less disastrous (domestically) than O. This tells us that the bipartisan consensus is a swift drive into the left ditch. Sorry, no thanks. Sotomayor or some other candidate… it is really immaterial. Obama has said explicitly that the qualification he seeks is demographic so as to skew outcomes towards so-called minorities and any actual application of Constitutional principles is tertiary at best. If you are white, tremble at any appearance before an Obama appointee. If you are “rich”. If you are any person who actually has succeeded, however modestly in business or indeed, life if your plaintiff is a protected class under “hate crimes” laws. The courts are to be nakedly an instrument of plunder and this is an applause line. For centuries this has been thought to be a dangerous state of affairs. Whether it is or not we shall find out and endure for the lives of these Code Pinkers in black just as we shall find if Mussolini was right after all on economics. This truly is disgusting.
Forward.
A lesson from history:
Souter was nominated by President George H.W. Bush because he thought he was a conservative who wouldn’t attract the kind of nasty confirmation fight that Robert Bork suffered at the hands of Democrats. It was thought to be a safe choice. Despite that he was still opposed by the National Organization for women with the usual hyperbole such as insisting that Souther would “end… freedom for women in this country.” The NAACP opposed him too.
Souter turned out to be a safe bet for liberals and not conservatives.
President George H.W. Bush finally found enough courage to nominate Clarence Thomas as his next Supreme Court appointment. And most of us remember what a nasty battle that was.
Souter may have been the easy choice for a Republican President in the short run. But in the long run he was a disaster. Justice Thomas was a hard sell in the short run but a reliable right of center vote throughout his tenure on the court to date.
The lesson for future Republican presidents is that it’s better to take the hard road now and be rewarded by history by doing the right thing.
Her name really should be Sonia Sodomayor
Obama ll do the right thing am sure
Just what we need, another extreme liberal in the Supreme Count who thinks we’re such a bad country that they must bring us to our knees….