Scalia, Alito Quotes Blunt Conservative Attacks On Sotomayor
28 May 2009 1:24 pm by djjl
http://tinyurl.com/pfzozg
This is really just too precious. One sommentor at HuffPo asked where were the Democrats in pointing this stuff out to the media – I say, maybe just waiting a couple days to allow the Republicans sufficient time to hang themselves in their dishonesty and hypocrisy.
“Sotomayor needn’t worry about talking about how policy is made at the appeals level on videotape. Why, some justices on the Supreme Court have said the same thing and baked it into their judicial decisions. Like, say, noted leftist jurist Antonin Scalia, who, in the majority opinion of 2002 case Republican Party of Minnesota v. White, wrote:
This complete separation of the judiciary from the enterprise of “representative government” might have some truth in those countries where judges neither make law themselves nor set aside the laws enacted by the legislature. It is not a true picture of the American system. Not only do state-court judges possess the power to “make” common law, but they have the immense power to shape the States’ constitutions as well. See, e.g., Baker v. State, 170 Vt. 194, 744 A. 2d 864 (1999). Which is precisely why the election of state judges became popular.”
snip
you really need to read more – it is delicious! 
This post was submitted by djjl.
There’s more – let’s not leave out Alito (at his confirmation hearing):
“Additionally, Sotomayor’s critics are up in arms over the fact that she has admitted that her ethnic background has an affect on her decision making process. Who does she think she is? Well, as it turns out, she probably thinks she’s being very similar to Justice Sam Alito:
ALITO: Senator, I tried to in my opening statement, I tried to provide a little picture of who I am as a human being and how my background and my experiences have shaped me and brought me to this point. … And that’s why I went into that in my opening statement. 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 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.”
Of course, there is the ultimate empathetic Justice – Clarence Thomas:
‘ In July of 1991, “empathy” was one of the major selling points presented at the nomination of Justice Clarence Thomas! As President George H. W. Bush said:
” I have followed this man’s career for some time, and he has excelled in everything that he has attempted. He is a delightful and warm, intelligent person who has great empathy and a wonderful sense of humor. He’s also a fiercely independent thinker with an excellent legal mind, who believes passionately in equal opportunity for all Americans. He will approach the cases that come before the Court with a commitment to deciding them fairly, as the facts and the law require.”‘
This is just too good to believe.
BBL
I’d like to just give a well done! to djjl today. Tenacious additions “In the News,” you’ve revved the engine significantly. Great stuff from you.
Thanks, Taylor. That makes me feel better. I was getting worried I was being a pretentious post hog. But, there is a world of stuff out there today. What a world
The topics you’re posting are important! It helps everyone to see all the different things going on. Lurkers, I know, appreciate it.
I’ll tell you, it’s a shame that gutter politics has stooped to a new low with this nomination. There is nothing wrong with this nomination and the right wing has to trash her. It’s beyond the boundaries of spirited politics. It’s like everyone who gets nominated better prepare to get trashed. Amazing.
Yes, djjl, great job. I post health care articles for the lurkers to see as well as the regulars. It’s good to keep informed of what’s going on.
The Alito quote is great. But the Scalia quote may actually support the conservative position rather than undermine it. Scalia’s comment is restricted to state judges. They “make” policy by making common law. But that is not a problem for conservatives, since many if not most state judges are elected and, therefore, accountable to the populace.
Federal appellate judges, on the other hand, are not elected. They are appointed for life. Thus, to the extent they use legal opinions to make policy, they subvert the will of the people without any checks and balances. So what is appropriate for a state judge is not appropriate for a federal judge. Conservatives will argue that the Scalia quote makes their point.
That said, every lawyer knows that appellate judges make policy. So, in the end, it’s a stupid argument for conservatives to make.
The other point, which I’ve been making in my Sotomayor posts today, is that Obama got out of the gate quickly on his nominee, with all pr points blazing. It seems to be working.
Best defense, etc., especially when you know what’s going to come at you.
lynnette says:
28 May 2009 at 2:27 pm
Everyone appreciates the health care stuff! No doubt about it. You and djjl have been doing a great job, especially when you post on things that the news media do not cover.
Ovens
You may be right on the legal fine points – but it wasn’t a point the Republican hit squad intended to make – ant the public knows it. Let them try to now sell “what they really meant to say. Only lawyers will get it for the most part because the Republicans are swimming in the waters they muddied. Might say hoisted on their own petard.
28 May 2009 at 3:24 pm
Ovens
Oops – that was supposed to be “ogenec.” I need to quit trying to post from an iPhone.
LOL. That’s okay — I knew what you meant. At least you can post from an iphone. It’s virtually impossible to post from my Blackberry.
Here’s a bit more to drive them batty. Maybe the boys just fold when they play the game with girls? Of course not, they are simply exposed to a perspective they do not have the capacity to personally experience.
From the Washington Independent
http://tinyurl.com/mldvo5
…Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor :
“our experiences as women and people of color affect our decisions” and that “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”
… deprived of their context, these statements sound controversial, in the context of her lecture,…..” they made perfect sense.
Sotomayor’s view that judges are influenced by their background and experiences is backed up by studies that show that women judges, for example, tend to rule in a way that’s more sympathetic to plaintiffs in employment discrimination cases than male judges do — probably because, having experienced discrimination themselves as they struggled to advance in a male-dominated profession, they’re more attuned to its signs.
A recent study by political scientists and law professors Christina Boyd, Lee Epstein and Andrew Martin,.. found that “female judges are approximately 10 percent more likely to rule in favor of the party bringing the discrimination claim,”…..What’s more, they wrote, “[w]e also found that the presence of a female judge causes male judges to vote differently. When male and female judges serve together to decide a sex discrimination case, the male judges are nearly 15 percent more likely to rule in favor of the party alleging discrimination than when they sit with male judges only.”
snip
“As recognized by legal scholars,” she continued, “whatever the reason, not one woman or person of color in any one position but as a group we will have an effect on the development of the law and on judging.”
While Sotomayor’s comments, taken out of context, provide fodder for her right-wing critics, it’s worth noting that the judge has the evidence on her side.
http://epstein.law.northwestern.edu/research/genderjudging.pdf
Here’s the pdf of the actual research article – I’m only posting the Abstract:
Untangling the Causal E ects of Sex on Judging
We explore the role of sex in judging by addressing two questions of long-standing interest to
political scientists: whether and in what ways male and female judges decide cases distinctly|
\individual e ects”|and whether and in what ways serving with a female judge causes males to
behave di erently|\panel e ects.” While we attend to the dominant theoretical accounts of why
we might expect to observe either or both e ects, we do not use the predominant statistical tools to
assess them. Instead, we deploy a more appropriate methodology: semi-parametric matching, which
follows from a formal framework for causal inference. Applying matching methods to thirteen areas
of law, we observe consistent gender e ects in only one|sex discrimination. For these disputes,
the probability of a judge deciding in favor of the party alleging discrimination decreases by about
10 percentage points when the judge is a male. Likewise, when a woman serves on a panel with
men, the men are signi cantly more likely to rule in favor of the rights litigant. These results
are consistent with an informational account of gendered judging and are inconsistent with several
others.
Hubby just said “not only do courts set policy by interpretation of statutes, such interpretations become a battery of “case law”. The right wing chronically regurgitates the wrong understanding of the power of the judiciary as set forth in constitutions. Constitutions are living documents ever changing via interpretations by the judiciary. They are hardly static.”
Sorry, this is a little late but we’ve been on the go today.
Thanks for the input Betsy.
The wedding is about to be here – July 18th and almost everything is done – and almost all paid for – phew!
And, we’ll get to the see the new grandson about July 6th.
Big stuff coming to our house.
Wow djjl. I bet you are excited. Where do they live right now.
I think I told everyone that our kids are planning a big 50th Anniversary party for us on June 3rd. That was the day we were married and the day he graduated from the AFA. And believe it or not 50 years ago June 3rd was on a Wednesday just like this year. Anyway, we have 21 relatives coming in most of them on Tuesday. So Charlie said, I think we should have sandwiches and salad here for all of them that night. Fortunately my youngest sister and her husband are driving in and will be here on Sunday so she said she would help. But needed to still get a lot done. I’m exhausted already.
Our daughter called me and said that so far 70 people are coming. She’s hoping they all show up because they paid for 70 dinners. LOL. Fortunately she’s off work for six days so she will stay until Sunday. And our oldest son and his partner will be here too. I’m just really excited to see everyone. I sent all the relatives an email and told them to plan on being here tuesday night. Plus on Thursday hubby made reservations for the Flying W Ranch which is a real working cattle ranch but they also have great food. They will all be our guests there. Once everyone is gone I’m going to drop probably.
Betsy
We’ve both got a lot of excitement coming. The new baby and family are in Kuwait.
Oh wow djjl, that will be so fun for you. I can hardly wait on Kat’s which is due the 13th of Nov. She’s bringing a doppler with her so everyone can hear the heartbeat.