Sotomayor: Courts are where policy is made

posted at 7:55 pm on May 3, 2009 by Allahpundit

Via Gabriel Malor and Verum Serum, I’m trying to muster some outrageous outrage but can’t pull it off. Of course courts make policy. Every time they “interpret” a constitutional clause or statute, they add interpretive rules to guide lower courts; because of stare decisis, every court opinion is in essence a new bit of binding policy gloss on the statute in question. For example, there’s nothing in the Constitution about when defamatory speech should be protected. The public figure/private figure standard is a judicial creation which operates in effect as policy because that’s the standard lower courts apply when weighing a First Amendment defense to defamation.

All Sotomayor’s saying, I think, is that it’s pointless to pretend judges don’t have an active hand in shaping policy. That’s standard legal realism, contra the silly legal formalist theory of judges somehow suppressing all human bias and “scientifically” deducing the answers to tough problems. Because she’s a sitting judge she has to pay lip service to the idealism of the latter, but let’s not kid ourselves.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Yep, make it up as you go along – that’s a good plan!

savvydude on May 3, 2009 at 7:57 PM

We need activist Judges in the courts because some of the laws on the books are inherently racist

nice343 on May 3, 2009 at 7:58 PM

Dude, that’s so pragmatic….

on a side note…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_VAfJyzN3ak

fair n balanced

therightwinger on May 3, 2009 at 7:58 PM

We need activist Judges in the courts because some of the laws on the books are inherently racist

Which ones?

aengus on May 3, 2009 at 7:59 PM

That snarky part about how judges don’t “make law,” however, might cause her a little trouble. “What were you laughing at Judge Sotamayor?”

Wethal on May 3, 2009 at 7:59 PM

Yeah, this is real comforting. Don’t these people forget that unless they are voted into their position by the people, they don’t have a right to influence or change law?

pjean on May 3, 2009 at 7:59 PM

We need activist Judges in the courts because some of the laws on the books are inherently racist

Sexist & homophobic, too!

jgapinoy on May 3, 2009 at 8:00 PM

aengus on May 3, 2009 at 7:59 PM

I perceived that he was being sarcastic…?

jgapinoy on May 3, 2009 at 8:00 PM

Niiice AllahP.
Your legal chops are showing.
Where did you make your bones?

strangelet on May 3, 2009 at 8:01 PM

I’ll take Gabrial Malor’s view on this over AP’s

aikidoka on May 3, 2009 at 8:01 PM

We need activist Judges in the courts because some of the laws on the books are inherently racist

nice343 on May 3, 2009 at 7:58 PM

If judges want to make law, they need to run for congress.

Johan Klaus on May 3, 2009 at 8:01 PM

We need activist Judges in the courts because some of the laws on the books are inherently racist

nice343 on May 3, 2009 at 7:58 PM

Then why have a legislature? The court can just make the policy and the executive can carry it out. Would you feel this way if the courts had decided that abortion is murder, that affirmative action is against the equal protection clause, that women could not vote etc., or do you just like ‘activist judges’ because you think they’ll decide things your way?

gwelf on May 3, 2009 at 8:01 PM

We need activist Judges in the courts because some of the laws on the books are inherently racist
Which ones?

aengus on May 3, 2009 at 7:59 PM

Bill Clinton’s welfare reform. The first “black president” turns out to be a racist.

Wethal on May 3, 2009 at 8:01 PM

Looking for clues to her judicial philosophy? I thought we were supposed to ask if anyone in her family became pregnant out of wedlock and make fun of her accent and photoshop pictures of her in revealing clothing. Isn’t that the new standard for how we evaluate females in American government?

D0WNT0WN on May 3, 2009 at 8:02 PM

therightwinger on May 3, 2009 at 7:58 PM

Thank you for, uh, for making me more angry! …yet a little more informed.

jgapinoy on May 3, 2009 at 8:03 PM

pretty gal…

D2Boston on May 3, 2009 at 8:03 PM

jgapinoy on May 3, 2009 at 8:00 PM

you could almost say that the laws are just “downright mean”.

but someday, we will be able to be proud of them for the first time.

homesickamerican on May 3, 2009 at 8:03 PM

Nice343
Inherently racist…. name one. You mean voter I.D. is that racist? How… because you need to show you are a resident and legal… that’s racist? Why? The Legislature changes laws not judges…. dimbulb! You don’t like this nation or culture go find another one… who is stopping you? You can take your racist canard and stick it.

MNDavenotPC on May 3, 2009 at 8:03 PM

Sexist & homophobic, too!

jgapinoy on May 3, 2009 at 8:00 PM

Bill Clinton signing the Defense of Marriage Act and Don’t Ask – Don’t Tell.

The man is a walking encyclopedia of prejudice.

Wethal on May 3, 2009 at 8:03 PM

I need a judge who interprets the constitution in a way that is applicable to modern societies way of life not the way of life at the time the law was written. Which may be tens or hundreds years ago

nice343 on May 3, 2009 at 8:04 PM

Your legal chops are showing.
Where did you make your bones?

strangelet on May 3, 2009 at 8:01 PM

Looks like someone has been watching ‘Soprano’s’ reruns.

thomasaur on May 3, 2009 at 8:05 PM

I need a judge who interprets the constitution in a way that is applicable to modern societies way of life not the way of life at the time the law was written. Which may be tens or hundreds years ago

nice343 on May 3, 2009 at 8:04 PM

How long have you been a lawyer?

Wethal on May 3, 2009 at 8:05 PM

nice343 on May 3, 2009 at 8:04 PM

Just make it up as you go, huh?

Johan Klaus on May 3, 2009 at 8:06 PM

We need activist Judges in the courts because some of the laws on the books are inherently racist

nice343 on May 3, 2009 at 7:58 PM

Yeah, like the laws that protect abortion.

Weight of Glory on May 3, 2009 at 8:07 PM

I guess ACE’s hope this cat wouldn’t leave the bag too soon is out of the question?

bluelightbrigade on May 3, 2009 at 8:07 PM

Obama is going to have a problem finding a liberal who doesn’t have a paper or video trail of left wing comments. He needs one vote in judiciary, and some lefties may be too much even for Graham or Grassley.

Wethal on May 3, 2009 at 8:10 PM

The founders thought that the Constitution should never be changed, that is why they made it so there could be no amendments.

Johan Klaus on May 3, 2009 at 8:11 PM

I need a judge who interprets the constitution in a way that is applicable to modern societies way of life not the way of life at the time the law was written. Which may be tens or hundreds years ago

nice343 on May 3, 2009 at 8:04 PM

Again I would ask you to please be more specific. Which laws are racist or repulsive to modernity?

Also what changes would you propose and why?

aengus on May 3, 2009 at 8:12 PM

Niiice AllahP.
Your legal chops are showing.
Where did you make your bones?

strangelet on May 3, 2009 at 8:01 PM

Wikipedia.

Vigilante on May 3, 2009 at 8:12 PM

I perceived that he was being sarcastic…?

I don’t think this guy is kidding.

aengus on May 3, 2009 at 8:13 PM

aengus on May 3, 2009 at 8:12 PM

Getting an answer is like trying to get blood from a turnip.

Johan Klaus on May 3, 2009 at 8:13 PM

Johan Klaus on May 3, 2009 at 8:11 PM

They made it possible, but very difficult. 2/3 of each house of Congress, and then 3/4 of the state legislatures. It was to be a drawn-out process with as much public input as possible. And lots of time to think it over, including the full ramifications of the change.

Wethal on May 3, 2009 at 8:13 PM

Wethal on May 3, 2009 at 8:13 PM

Maybe, they were smarter than a lot of people give them credit.

Johan Klaus on May 3, 2009 at 8:15 PM

Great, a justice who resembles Jeanine Garafalo. Exactly what the Supreme Court needs.

jimmy the notable on May 3, 2009 at 8:19 PM

Sotomayor, come to Boston. I will show you the results of policy being set by the courts. Bring a calculator so we can total the monetary costs along with the body count.

TheBigOldDog on May 3, 2009 at 8:19 PM

TheBigOldDog on May 3, 2009 at 8:19 PM

NO KIDDING!!

D2Boston on May 3, 2009 at 8:20 PM

Wait a second…you mean Judges shouldn’t nake decisions based on European Law? And they should make decisions based on American Law and…gasp…the Constitution? What do you think this is…a Republic or something?

kingsjester on May 3, 2009 at 8:20 PM

Article III, Section 1

Clause 2: There shall be thirteen justices and on the Supreme Court who are appointed for life in keeping both competence and good behavior. All justices are subject to impeachment.

PrincipledPilgrim on May 3, 2009 at 8:22 PM

on a side note…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_VAfJyzN3ak

fair n balanced

therightwinger on May 3, 2009 at 7:58 PM

more telling was what Barry said to them
“I’m tired of Gibbs screwing this thing up”

alexraye on May 3, 2009 at 8:22 PM

Never trust a woman with a bad Lilt perm from the 1970′s.

SouthernGent on May 3, 2009 at 8:23 PM

All Sotomayor’s saying, I think, is that it’s pointless to pretend judges don’t have an active hand in shaping policy.

Well if that’s the case, and you truly can’t muster any outrage… why did you post this? I seem to recall you arguing with one of your critics here recently, who accused you of doing things for traffic, and you were claiming you wouldn’t ever do such a thing. I’m just curious, then, why would you write a post telling us that this isn’t anything to post about?

RightWinged on May 3, 2009 at 8:23 PM

Here is the actual wording:

Section 1.

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

PrincipledPilgrim on May 3, 2009 at 8:24 PM

D2Boston on May 3, 2009 at 8:20 PM

I will never live under judicial tyranny again. Never.

TheBigOldDog on May 3, 2009 at 8:24 PM

allah, your interpretation is akin to the administrations interpretation of bidens travel advice last week. She said exactly what she meant and then gave a snotty, disingenuous, smart ass disclaimer. A snotty, liberal, holier than thou, elitist, smart ass disclaimer. Bitch.

peacenprosperity on May 3, 2009 at 8:27 PM

Wait a second…you mean Judges shouldn’t nake decisions based on European Law? And they should make decisions based on American Law and…gasp…the Constitution? What do you think this is…a Republic or something?

kingsjester on May 3, 2009 at 8:20 PM

Obviously not. But the larger question is why did the US create the League of Nations which it did not join and the United Nations which conservatives advocate the US leaving but not destroying as an institution? If the UN is bad in itself then what justifies its continued existence without US participation?

US conservatives went along with Bill Clinton’s decision to support the extradition of General Pinochet to Spain on crimes of war charges. So my question is do American conservatives support or oppose universalist ideas about justice or do they hold to more traditional idea of, for instance, Westphalian sovereignity?

Obviously conservatives believe in American sovereignity but do they believe in the principle of sovereignity in itself and if not what do they believe in? Liberal internationalism?

aengus on May 3, 2009 at 8:30 PM

I need a judge who interprets the constitution in a way that is applicable to modern societies way of life not the way of life at the time the law was written. Which may be tens or hundreds years ago

nice343 on May 3, 2009 at 8:04 PM

Yeah, I agree because back in 1972 when they upheld Roe V. Wade, they didn’t have the ultrasound evidence of the development of the baby. Back then you could delude yourself into thinking it was a “clump of cells” but now even a toddler can recognize that the image on the ultrasound is a baby.

How about that smarty?

mrsmwp on May 3, 2009 at 8:30 PM

RightWinged on May 3, 2009 at 8:23 PM

Libs like Kerry, Obama, Sotomayor, etc., always get the benefit of the doubt. Conservatives? Not so much.

TheBigOldDog on May 3, 2009 at 8:31 PM

Obama is going to have a problem finding a liberal who doesn’t have a paper or video trail of left wing comments. He needs one vote in judiciary, and some lefties may be too much even for Graham or Grassley.

Wethal on May 3, 2009 at 8:10 PM

I heard yesterday that judges were rushing to contact their accountants to pay their “long over-due” taxes.

Rovin on May 3, 2009 at 8:31 PM

I need a judge who interprets the constitution in a way that is applicable to modern societies way of life not the way of life at the time the law was written. Which may be tens or hundreds years ago

nice343 on May 3, 2009 at 8:04 PM

Chronological snobbery. Nothing has changed with mankind. Though technology changes, the problems our new devices seek to address are the same as it ever was; they are born out of the same desires, the same condition, for the same ends. To say our Constitution is out of date because of things like the internet (this was actually a story HA linked to last year) is silly. Our founding fathers, though completely ignorant of such things as blogs, nevertheless had complete knowledge of how the rapid dissemination of information can change local and global events. For they knew of Gutenberg‘s press and how that bit of tech changed the West. King Solomon was correct when he penned, thousands of years ago, “There is nothing new under the sun.” Don’t be fooled by the outer trappings, nice343; peel it back a bit and you will find that everything old is new again. There is nothing new under the sun. Also, the Constitution is filled with propositions. And propositions do not get more or less correct by the passing of time. If the statement that men are endowed by their creator with the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is no longer correct, it can’t be shown by pointing to how old the statement is. No, my friend, you must mount an argument against it. But that is more difficult than saying, “Ewwww! That’s old!”.

Weight of Glory on May 3, 2009 at 8:32 PM

Which ones?

aengus on May 3, 2009 at 7:59 PM

The ones that allow Affirmative Action to exist.

Aristotle on May 3, 2009 at 8:37 PM

Judicial supremacy in interpretation is neither Constitutional nor wise.

JohnJ on May 3, 2009 at 8:38 PM

I agree, and those who actually think they are constitutional purists may be in danger of not considering their own biases.

AnninCA on May 3, 2009 at 8:41 PM

What’s that old line about liberals getting elected (or confirmed) by concealing rather than revealing where they stand? Seems to apply here.

If this is how she actually sees it (how it actually is?), let her defend this view before the Senate.

John on May 3, 2009 at 8:46 PM

Judges have to use judgement to apply generic law to specific case facts. Providing guidence on how that may be done to lower courts is part of the higher level judicial process. The problem comes when courts “find” entire new protections like “a right to privacy” or “a right to be iformed of your rights” which then requires infinite rulings to provide guidance on what it means because there is no legilative record or prior case law.

KW64 on May 3, 2009 at 8:47 PM

informed of your rights — ie Miranda

KW64 on May 3, 2009 at 8:48 PM

pretty gal…

D2Boston on May 3, 2009 at 8:03 PM

Judging by the picture shown of her you are either being sarcastic or you should be classified as legally blind. If the later please don’t drive.

MB4 on May 3, 2009 at 8:51 PM

Great, a justice who resembles Jeanine Garafalo. Exactly what the Supreme Court needs.

jimmy the notable on May 3, 2009 at 8:19 PM

Ya beat me to it. I was just going to say, she resembles a heavyer version of Jeanne Garafalo, and that doesn’t give me a good feeling at all…

4shoes on May 3, 2009 at 8:52 PM

I need a judge who interprets the constitution in a way that is applicable to modern societies way of life not the way of life at the time the law was written. Which may be tens or hundreds years ago

nice343 on May 3, 2009 at 8:04 PM

The constitution authorizes how it can made applicable to “modern socities” and it is not by judges pushing their policy or morals over what the legislature has said.

If you throw out the constitution, you also throw out any authority judges do have as their’s is derived from that document.

aikidoka on May 3, 2009 at 8:56 PM

The ones that allow Affirmative Action to exist.

Aristotle on May 3, 2009 at 8:37 PM</blockquote

Actually, Sotomayor may get slapped down, along with several other jdudes in the 2d Circuit in a case called Ricci, in which a group of CT white men and one Hispanic had firefighter promotion tests voided because no blacks scored high enough to qualify.

The test had been carefuly drafted so there were no cultural biases against any group in language or anything. Despite an unbiased test, the results didn’t fit AA’s quota goals, so 2d Circuit said it was ok to toss it out. Oral argument seemed to indicate SCOTUS will reverse 2d Circuit.

Also on tap is a case challenging part of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, which requires certain southern states to be under extra scrutiny as far as drawing congressional district lines. The states say it should be struck down, given there is no evidence of more racial discriminaton today in their states than in any other. Oral argument also seemed to indicate Court agreed with states.

Of course, oral arugment can be deceiving, but still..

Wethal on May 3, 2009 at 8:59 PM

Gotta agree with AP on this one. She’s clearly NOT saying that in theory the judicial branch is supposed to make law; she’s saying that IN PRACTICE they do. Prof. Volokh, over at the Volokh Conspiracy, explains what her general point was, with full context referenced.

Not that I trust a Democratic judge to avoid creating law from the bench, mind you… she just didn’t say that in this clip.

philwynk on May 3, 2009 at 9:03 PM

I need a judge who interprets the constitution in a way that is applicable to modern societies way of life not the way of life at the time the law was written. Which may be tens or hundreds years ago

nice343 on May 3, 2009 at 8:04 PM

Actually no, you don’t. You’re just too ignorant to know it.

Jaibones on May 3, 2009 at 9:12 PM

Jefferson was asked “What would happen if the Supreme Court became tyrannical?

Jefferson replied, “Where are it’s Armies?”

The Tree of Liberty…..

GunRunner on May 3, 2009 at 9:17 PM

Gotta agree with AP on this one. She’s clearly NOT saying that in theory the judicial branch is supposed to make law; she’s saying that IN PRACTICE they do. Prof. Volokh, over at the Volokh Conspiracy, explains what her general point was, with full context referenced.

philwynk on May 3, 2009 at 9:03 PM

Her scrambling “oh shit, did I just say that on tape?!” reaction to her own comment suggests that at some level she disagrees with you, AP, and Volokh.

Jaibones on May 3, 2009 at 9:19 PM

Actually no, you don’t. You’re just too ignorant to know it.

Jaibones on May 3, 2009 at 9:12 PM

SWEET

That’s gonna leave a mark. heh heh heh

Tim Zank on May 3, 2009 at 9:20 PM

Niiice AllahP.
Your legal chops are showing.
Where did you make your bones?

strangelet on May 3, 2009 at 8:01 PM

Allahpundit is a licensed lawyer, he passed the New York State Bar if I remember correctly.

doriangrey on May 3, 2009 at 9:23 PM

I need a judge who interprets the constitution in a way that is applicable to modern societies way of life not the way of life at the time the law was written. Which may be tens or hundreds years ago

nice343 on May 3, 2009 at 8:04 PM

Agreed. Write new laws then, and invalidate the old ones. “I need a judge who interprets…” — bang! Right there, you’re already on the wrong track, worried about “who” instead of “how”. The point of the rule of law is to make law — the monopoly of force — objective, not subjective. The rule of law, which rests on the idea of enforcement, has to be predictable for people to live their lives without fear. The state writes down what we’re gonna do, and then we all do it. If what’s written down doesn’t jibe with what’s going on, then you rewrite it. Your solution is to have have some frizzy haired Hera hurling down thunderbolts from Olympus at random based on how the text “feels” to her at any particular moment. If the plain meaning of the text is an impediment to the “rule of law” as you see it, why have the text at all? Why not just appoint philosopher kings?

shazbat on May 3, 2009 at 9:28 PM

All Sotomayor’s saying, I think, is that it’s pointless to pretend judges don’t have an active hand in shaping policy.

Of course…what’s wrong with a little ‘real-politik’ on the bench after all.

AUINSC on May 3, 2009 at 9:28 PM

Breaker breaker Allah, breaker breaker, cannot deny reality. She’s right on.

True_King on May 3, 2009 at 9:31 PM

If you’d ever seen the legal process up close in some of the counties I’ve lived in, you’d understand why Ambrose Bierce compared it to the making of sausage, which also shouldn’t be observed too closely.

That’s why some people feel like this.

warbaby on May 3, 2009 at 9:34 PM

It’s a Kinsley gaffe, Allah. I appreciate your open-mindedness, but it’s not necessary or appropriate here.

Attila (Pillage Idiot) on May 3, 2009 at 9:37 PM

Niiice AllahP.
Your legal chops are showing.
Where did you make your bones?

strangelet on May 3, 2009 at 8:01 PM

Wherever it was it probably beats your pimp bailing you out every Sunday morning

jdkchem on May 3, 2009 at 9:47 PM

nice343 on May 3, 2009 at 8:04 PM

I got that you’re an idiot after your first post. You can stop proving it now.

jdkchem on May 3, 2009 at 9:49 PM

Yes, and as Andrew Jackson said on a ruling by the Supreme Court ” Let’s see if they can enforce it….” I, for one, will try to disobey every ruling the soon to be leftist Supreme Court will make that was not based on the Constitution. Such as, I won’t abort, I am against Affirmative Action because it is inherently racist , I am against hate legislation because it is unconstitutional. A gay person is more important than my wife or son?…. bite me!

MNDavenotPC on May 3, 2009 at 9:49 PM

Allahpundit is a licensed lawyer, he passed the New York State Bar if I remember correctly.

doriangrey on May 3, 2009 at 9:23 PM

Rumor has it he’s a New Yorker
He’s a reckless lawyer
I hear he carries several whips
With women at his fingertips
They say he’s nearly seven feet tall
And yet quite graceful……all in all
I’m told he waddles when he walks
And often twitches when he talks
Is he a dolt? No, he’s very deep!
Oh, Hotair’s losing sleep!
Who is Allahpundit?

PercyB on May 3, 2009 at 10:11 PM

Niiice AllahP.
Your legal chops are showing.
Where did you make your bones?

strangelet on May 3, 2009 at 8:01 PM

Surely such an informed commenter as yourself must know that Allahpundit is in fact a lawyer?

I’m shocked in light of your assertion in The Green Room that you knew AP from the old days before he “sold out.”

Hmmmm?

hillbillyjim on May 3, 2009 at 10:26 PM

pretty gal…

D2Boston on May 3, 2009 at 8:03 PM

I didn’t know that Janeane Garafolo had a doppelganger in the legal world. Yikes.

She could almost make Ruth Vader Ginsburg look presentable.

Almost.

hillbillyjim on May 3, 2009 at 10:43 PM

Since no one has yet brought it up, the way to prevent judicial activism is to make judges easier to impeach.

JohnJ on May 3, 2009 at 10:47 PM

Sotomayor has developed a well known tact of bullying from the bench as well. Cutting off those standing before her court to the extent that her decisions are oft made with barely a tad of citation of law. She is a perfect match for Obama. Lot’s of “empathy”…lite on Law.

She has a chip…a large one…one her shoulder. The more I read about her, the less I am thrilled at this equal-opportunity, affirmative action, choice.

coldwarrior on May 3, 2009 at 11:25 PM

As long as you brought it up what’s up with AoSHQ?
It’s down for me.

Rocks on May 3, 2009 at 11:43 PM

I guess she was asleep during the session of Intro to American Government… You know, the one in which her classmates learned that the legislative and the executive actually make and set policy… NOT THE COURTS!

Even I, horribly deficient in English as I was when I first took that class on my first semester in college (I had made the direct jump from life in Puerto Rico to life in the Mainland), I learned that from the get-go.

newton on May 4, 2009 at 12:48 AM

shazbat is my hero.

Before we find the right despot, however, this will be acceptable:

All court decisions should have an “empathy” test.

The SCOTUS should attempt wealth redistribution. This saves Dems from losing elections after they raise taxes.

All new laws should be approved by the NYT.

IlikedAUH2O on May 4, 2009 at 12:53 AM

Agreed. Write new laws then, and invalidate the old ones. “I need a judge who interprets…” — bang! Right there, you’re already on the wrong track, worried about “who” instead of “how”. The point of the rule of law is to make law — the monopoly of force — objective, not subjective. The rule of law, which rests on the idea of enforcement, has to be predictable for people to live their lives without fear. The state writes down what we’re gonna do, and then we all do it. If what’s written down doesn’t jibe with what’s going on, then you rewrite it. Your solution is to have have some frizzy haired Hera hurling down thunderbolts from Olympus at random based on how the text “feels” to her at any particular moment. If the plain meaning of the text is an impediment to the “rule of law” as you see it, why have the text at all? Why not just appoint philosopher kings?

shazbat on May 3, 2009 at 9:28 PM

.
I just about the write up something similar but you did a much better job. You are correct.
.
Its amazing and frightening, the ignorance shown here on Hotair by some of the three bodies of the American system. If many of the folks on this blog don’t get it, imagine the rest of the citizens! I blame this on a failed educational system and a corrupt media, including hollywood, for furthering the ignorance.

JeffVader on May 4, 2009 at 12:58 AM

We need activist Judges in the courts because some of the laws on the books are inherently racist

Which ones?

aengus on May 3, 2009 at 7:59 PM

The ones liberal, America-hating, Che-loving, Castro-butt-kissing, Commie-pinko judges didn’t make up don’t ya know!

Bubba Redneck on May 4, 2009 at 2:09 AM

Allahpundit is a licensed lawyer, he passed the New York State Bar if I remember correctly.

doriangrey on May 3, 2009 at 9:23 PM

How many times did take him to pass?

Bubba Redneck on May 4, 2009 at 2:11 AM

Bubba Redneck on May 4, 2009 at 2:11 AM

I passed a lot of New York bars.

With the prices they have, might as well drink at home. :-)

coldwarrior on May 4, 2009 at 2:13 AM

Just let her not be stupid. Please.

AnninCA on May 4, 2009 at 2:53 AM

Lordy, lefty women are godawful ugly.

infidel4life on May 4, 2009 at 3:21 AM

Silly me – here I thought Americans got to have a hand in policy making by ELECTING their government. When the majority of citizens don’t think one group has the right policies they elect a different one. Then if they’re not happy with the new Congress/President, they have an opportunity to pick someone else.

When I get to vote on SC justicess every 2/4/6 years, instead of them having ifetime appointments, they are entitled to make policy.

katiejane on May 4, 2009 at 9:11 AM

Why do we need more female, black, white, hispanic, gay, athiest, hindu, muslim, representation in the court? It’s not about representing, it’s about the CONSTITUTION.

marklmail on May 4, 2009 at 9:35 AM

They may have an active hand in shaping policy, but they should not welcome the opportunity. It is fraught with danger and should be respected as the double-edged sword that it is. They don’t respect that danger anymore. They are like toddlers turned loose in a room full of loaded guns and table saws. Bad stuff’s gonna happen.

SKYFOX on May 4, 2009 at 9:55 AM

I’m trying to muster some outrageous outrage but can’t pull it

Try using intelligent analysis, AP. She’s a liberal. Therefore it’s likely she’s an anti-democracy judicial oligarchist. She quite content to have policy decisions made by unelected liberal elites. The rule of law applies only to conservatives.

Judges who make it up as they go think they are above the law. It’s the liberal way.

Basilsbest on May 4, 2009 at 10:04 AM

I’m trying to muster some outrageous outrage that AllahPundit defends the liberal legal perspective while explaining like a media type does for Card Check & the UAW owning Chrysler why a living constitution interpretated via foreign laws and public opinion polls was always the intent of The Founding Fathers…. But I can’t.

Sultry Beauty on May 4, 2009 at 10:07 AM

Let’s see. Courts, not congress, makes policy. I guess that makes congress just 535 potted plants. But, people make revolutions

kens on May 4, 2009 at 10:07 AM

All Sotomayor’s saying, I think, is that it’s pointless to pretend judges don’t have an active hand in shaping policy.

Allah, Do you think we’re idiots? That was about as direct a comment as you can make. She even mentioned it was probably unwise for her to make it.

She meant exactly what she said. Why can’t you accept that?

rcl on May 4, 2009 at 10:32 AM

I need a judge who interprets the constitution in a way that is applicable to modern societies way of life not the way of life at the time the law was written. Which may be tens or hundreds years ago

nice343 on May 3, 2009 at 8:04 PM

The Constitution is a contract like any other legal document. If you don’t follow it legally, to the letter, then you do not have a contract and you do NOT have a society following the rule of law.

What if your mortgage company changed your “fixed” mortgage rate from 5% to 18% twenty years down the road because “times have changed from when we signed this.”

This is called anarchy. If that’s what you want then say so; but remember: then I can come for you and there will be no laws to stop me.

Go for it. Heh.

ex-Democrat on May 4, 2009 at 10:33 AM

She meant exactly what she said. Why can’t you accept that?rcl on May 4, 2009 at 10:32 AM

Because AP, like O’Reilly, fears being accused of being an unreasonable partisan. It’s why O’Reilly gave Obama a B on the economy. And it’s one of the reasons why Democratic Party incompetence does not get the scrutiny it should.

Basilsbest on May 4, 2009 at 12:50 PM

Comment pages: 1 2