Print this story |
E-mail story |
This story has 11 comments Add your own |
iPod friendly | Bookmark this
What is this?
We'll gauge Sotomayor's philosophy
Published Wednesday, July 1, 2009
Conventional wisdom predicts a smooth confirmation process for Judge Sonia Sotomayor. Many say her appointment as Justice David H. Souter’s replacement would simply maintain the balance of the court, and many pundits emphasize that President Obama is simply trading one “liberal” for another.
This reasoning is flawed in minimizing the serious nature of any Supreme Court nomination — undervaluing the significance of a lifetime appointment to a court that bears the responsibility of defending the Constitution. Any nominee warrants an inquiry into his or her views on the Constitution and willingness to respect the judiciary’s limited role in our democracy.
The outcome of activist judges’ unwillingness to respect the limited role of the judiciary is well known as it relates to social issues. Justice Souter himself was quite expansive when it came to the authority of the court to rule on cases concerned with protecting the rights of the unborn and the role of religion in the public square.
This narrow focus on Justice Souter’s rulings on social issues has led to the claim that Mr. Obama is merely trading one liberal for another.
But there were other areas, such as those affecting free enterprise, where Justice Souter’s decisions were much more constrained and deferential to government’s two other branches, specifically relating to determinations that markets needed to be protected from overreaching liability, litigation risk or federal regulation. This was the case in areas such as shareholder liability, punitive damages, labor issues, class actions, antitrust and tort liability cases.
As the Senate determines whether Judge Sotomayor is qualified to serve on our nation’s highest court, I believe it is imperative that we carefully review her record.
Activist judges present a threat not only to our social policy, but also to our economic stability.
We have heard much about a 1996 article written by Judge Sotomayor in which she approvingly discussed the view of some legal scholars that the “indefiniteness” of the law is something to be celebrated. Any small-business owner knows, however, that job creation, investments in emerging technology or the expansion of stores or factories will not happen in a judicial climate where law is not knowable, consistent and predictable. People do not make investments and take the risks associated with expanding a business if they have no assurances that the law will protect them.
I look forward to learning how Judge Sotomayor addresses these realities in her judicial philosophy.
Every Supreme Court nomination is a reminder that the Constitution is a fragile but vital document — vulnerable to justices whose goal may be to create policy from the bench.
This is especially important to bear in mind today, when some of our government leaders have invoked economic crisis to justify abandoning a number of constitutional and legal limits on the national government’s power. The bailout program’s ever-changing responsibilities and authorities to wield taxpayer money without many checks and balances is just one example.
Hopefully, the confirmation process will be an opportunity to refresh our memories about the importance of our system of checks and balances on our three branches of government, which includes constitutional limits on our judicial branch.
It should instill a greater zeal to have our other branches defend that system when enacting future laws and programs.
Sen. David VITTER is a Louisiana Republican.
Comments
Posted by Bobaloo (anonymous) on July 1, 2009 at 10:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)
hey Davey.....
Wendy's on the phone for you...... says you missed your appointment yesterday....... but you're still gonna get billed.
Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on July 1, 2009 at 10:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Wow, lions and tigers and ACTIVIST JUDGES -- OH MY.
Now a Republican mouthing all the Party sound bites as if we were all idiots -- THAT's something to be sacred of!
I feel it is good that President George H. W. Bush's appointment of the liberal Souter would see replacement by someone of similar ideology to provide "consistency" in the court that would protect investment and security in this country and give businesses the stability they need. Lucky little George isn't in there any more or the balance would be gone for a lifetime.
If we balanced the court any more to the "right" they might reinstate slavery and let the president launch nuclear strikes by himself.
Posted by DuncanPark (anonymous) on July 1, 2009 at 3:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)
If David Vitter gets to question Sotomayor, he should ask about her position on prosecution for patronizing prostitutes.
Since he admitted breaking the law, why hasn't he been charged?!
Posted by rushinghjr (anonymous) on July 1, 2009 at 4:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)
What law did he break? Typical Liberal BULL! Vitter has done no worst that the Socialist DemocRats!
Posted by unclered (anonymous) on July 1, 2009 at 7 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The most activists judges on in the courts today are conservatives. An excellent example is Antonin Scalia. He can't even render a legal opinion, just right-wing rants. Bush and his legal ideologues trampled the Constitution into the ground.
rushingjr: What law did Vitter break? The last I heard, the only state where prostitution is legal is Nevada.
Posted by bayougal (anonymous) on July 1, 2009 at 8:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Sotomayor's judicial record took a blow this week when the Supreme Court overturned a decision by the appellate court on which she sat concerning white firefighters in New Haven, Connecticut. Many called her ruling against these men and women as racially bias. However, she denied that saying she followed her circuits precedents on this matter.
Whatever the case, this is fresh ammo for those wanting to make a case against her nomination to the court. The timing of this decision was calamitous.
Posted by EnKiKur (Marty Ellerbe) on July 2, 2009 at 5:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I wish these Republicans would quit pussy footing around and call a spade a spade- critcal legal theory, the type of law Sotomayor practices, is the enculturation of Marxism into the legal system.
Sotomayor is a Marxist. Simple, and plain. She has served on the national board of La Raza, a racist, communist organization. "La Raza" means "The Race".
When she says law is indefinite she is referring to the principle of indeterminancy which holds that any given case can be defended with opposite arguments at the same time, and that any decision made will be as valid as any other; in this theory the judge has and should have the power to determine the law according to the prejudice of the judge. This is the "thesis" and "antithesis" of Marxism.
Critical legal theory says there are no universal laws applicable to all people. A law applicable to white males is not applicable to white females; nor is any law applicable to either of these two groups applicable to gays or racial minorities. Critical legal theory has as its goal the total destruction of traditional legal structure through critique- yet is offers no alternative, only the vague assurance that everything will be better if judges have the power to make law from the bench. This is why she voted the way she did in the New Haven firefighter case. Laws preventing discrimination to blacks do not apply to whites.
The idiocy of this position is that one can never know whether one is violating a law or not, because "all law is politics" and one cannot know if a particular judge agrees with the statute governing a particular behavior in question. A litigant is put into the position of possibly being in complete conformance with statute, yet still in violation of whatever the judge holds the law to be.
Support for Sotomayor is support for the position that there is and cannot be any universal standard of behavior.
Posted by rushinghjr (anonymous) on July 2, 2009 at 9:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Un/ Prostitution and the Act of is not a Federal Crime! You can contact the U. S. Attorney for the D. C. area to pursue charges against Vitter or the U.S. Department of Justice for further info. Just remember, the skeleton's in the closets of the DemocRATS! They will just laugh in your face!
Posted by Bobaloo (anonymous) on July 2, 2009 at 10:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"This is especially important to bear in mind today, when some of our government leaders have invoked economic crisis to justify abandoning a number of constitutional and legal limits on the national government’s power."
Oh so different from using war and terrorism to take away our rights and do something similiar, huh Mr. Walking Contradiction?
Vitter the Hippocritter.... ANYBODY run against this fool and win please..
Rushingjr, how bout you? Even you would be an improvement.
Posted by rushinghjr (anonymous) on July 2, 2009 at 2:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Bob/you are a typical self-serving, still sounding like a liberal with the Owhampy tribe. Hope you enjoy the change and enjoy paying for it! Enk can recite to you, because he knows what's going on with his truths! Owhampy with all of his tribal members can't see all of the trees in left field! He's never worked at an honest job other that the community organizer bit as a lawyer for ACORN, another useless organization! And to "Boot" he doesn't know where he was even born! Big cover-up by the DemocRATIC Party! But at least we know where he stands! Just look at his so-called "Roots"! People with your standards and beliefs are destroying capitalism and America!
Posted by DuncanPark (anonymous) on July 2, 2009 at 4:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Vile Vitter patronized prostitutes in or near DC and in Louisiana and admitted to doing so in front of the media with his wife cringing at his side. Although personally, I oppose laws relating to prostitution, paying for sex is against the law, local law. Therefore, I ask again...why haven't charges been filed.
Post a comment (Terms of Use Policy)
(Requires free registration.)