Based on the following quote, Karl Rove – and I can’t believe I’m saying this – might be right about the empathy argument swirling around Supreme Court Nominee Sonia Sotomayor:

I don’t come from an affluent background or a privileged background. My parents were both quite poor when they were growing up.

And I know about their experiences and I didn’t experience those things. I don’t take credit for anything that they did or anything that they overcame.

But I think that children learn a lot from their parents and they learn from what the parents say. But I think they learn a lot more from what the parents do and from what they take from the stories of their parents lives.

…Because when a case comes before me involving, let’s say, someone who is an immigrant — and we get an awful lot of immigration cases and naturalization cases — I can’t help but think of my own ancestors, because it wasn’t that long ago when they were in that position.

And so it’s my job to apply the law. It’s not my job to change the law or to bend the law to achieve any result.

But when I look at those cases, I have to say to myself, and I do say to myself, “You know, this could be your grandfather, this could be your grandmother. They were not citizens at one time, and they were people who came to this country.”

When I have cases involving children, I can’t help but think of my own children and think about my children being treated in the way that children may be treated in the case that’s before me.

And that goes down the line. When I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or because of gender. And I do take that into account. When I have a case involving someone who’s been subjected to discrimination because of disability, I have to think of people who I’ve known and admire very greatly who’ve had disabilities, and I’ve watched them struggle to overcome the barriers that society puts up often just because it doesn’t think of what it’s doing — the barriers that it puts up to them.

So those are some of the experiences that have shaped me as a person.Sonia Sotomayor No! It was Samuel Alito answering a question by Senator Tom Coburn during his confirmation hearing.

In today’s Wall Street Journal Karl Rove wrote:

“Mr. Obama said he wanted to replace Justice David Souter with someone who had “empathy” and who’d temper the court’s decisions with a concern for the downtrodden, the powerless and the voiceless.

“Empathy” is the latest code word for liberal activism, for treating the Constitution as malleable clay to be kneaded and molded in whatever form justices want. It represents an expansive view of the judiciary in which courts create policy that couldn’t pass the legislative branch or, if it did, would generate voter backlash.”

I know it’s confusing so allow me translate what Karl is actually saying: I am a partisan hack.

H/T: Glenn Greenwald

  • Share/Bookmark

Despite what Kleinheider used as his post title over at Post Politics (“a blogjam of NashvillePost.com), Judge Sotomayor’s 2005 remarks about the experiences of a district court clerkship versus a circuit court clerkship are thoughtful and fully-fleshed out:

“[T]they’re looking for people with court of appeals experience, because it is — court of appeals is where policy is made. And I know — and I know this is on tape and I should never say that because we don’t make law, I know. OK, I know. I’m not promoting it, and I’m not advocating it, I’m — you know. OK. Having said that, the court of appeals is where, before the Supreme Court makes the final decision, the law is percolating — its interpretation, its application. And Judge ______ is right, I often explain to people that when you’re on the district court, you’re looking to do justice in the individual case. So you’re looking much more to the facts of the case than you are to the application of the law. because the application of the law is not precedential. So the facts control. On the court of appeals, you are looking to how the law is developing, so that it will then be applied to a broad class of cases. And so you’re always thinking about the ramifications of this ruling on the next step in the development of the law. You can make a choice and say, “I don’t care about the next step and sometimes we do. Or sometimes we say we’ll worry about that when we get to it – like what the Supreme Court just did. But the point is, that’s the differences – practical differences – in the two experiences are. The district court is controlled chaos. And not so controlled most of the time. You are jumping from one project to another at a million miles an hour on any given day.”

  • Share/Bookmark
Tagged with:
 

This is why I love The Twitter. In one recent tweet, one local liberal taunts CNN’s John King: “You know, #sotomayor is *not* that liberal. I’m not sure if **I** support her. Hey John King, you found one! @cnnbrk.

Then a few places down, Politico tweets a link to one of their stories: “Sotomayor starts taking hits from right: Top conservatives describe her as a hard-line libera.. http://tinyurl.com/pkptxy.

So who is Judge Sotomayor? Is she a justice who isn’t liberal enough for self-described liberals? Or is she a “hardline liberal who would impose her personal agenda on the Court?

My guess is that to the GOP, aka the Grand Obstructionist Party and the party that hopes for Barack Obama to fail, it doesn’t matter that she may be a reasonable moderate.

Their lips may say “fair hearing” for Sotomayor, but their rabid, glassy-eyes say, “obstruct at all costs!

So expect to hear lies, obfuscations, and demonization from Republican opposition during the confirmation process. But it’s certainly will not be because of any real disagreement with Judge Sotomayor’s judicial record.

The real reason they will oppose President Barack Obama’s selection is that even during these trying economic times, when putting aside petty partisan differences and delaying power-struggles in order to work with the opposition is in the best interest of the American people, that’s the very last thing they want to do.

  • Share/Bookmark

Studies have found that conservative justices are more likely to strike down laws passed by Congress and as well as decisions by federal regulatory agencies.

From “So Who Are the Activists?,” By Paul Gewirtz and Chad Golder (NY Times):

We found that justices vary widely in their inclination to strike down Congressional laws. Justice Clarence Thomas, appointed by President George H. W. Bush, was the most inclined, voting to invalidate 65.63 percent of those laws; Justice Stephen Breyer, appointed by President Bill Clinton, was the least, voting to invalidate 28.13 percent. The tally for all the justices appears below.

Thomas 65.63 %
Kennedy 64.06 %
Scalia 56.25 %
Rehnquist 46.88 %
O’Connor 46.77 %
Souter 42.19 %
Stevens 39.34 %
Ginsburg 39.06 %
Breyer 28.13 %

From “Who are the bench’s judicial activists?,” By Thomas J. Miles and Cass R. Sunstein (LA Times):

The Judicial Activism Award, for aggressive use of judicial power, goes to a most surprising winner: Justice Antonin Scalia. He upholds agency decisions only about half the time. This is an impressively low number. Under established principles, to which all members of the court subscribe, agencies are supposed to get the benefit of the doubt.

Fun Fact: Did you know that Judge Sotomayor, who is of Puerto Rican decent, was raised by her single mom, a nurse, because her father died when she was 9? She also received a scholarship to Yale and was appointed to a federal judgeship by President George W. Bush President George H.W. Bush.

  • Share/Bookmark
Tagged with:
 

Looking for something?

Use the form below to search the site:

Still not finding what you're looking for? Drop a comment on a post or contact us so we can take care of it!

Visit our friends!

A few highly recommended friends...