The battle against the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor for Supreme Court justice has begun.
The Right is all about interpreting the U.S. Constitution as it was written (like reading the Bible literally) and against “activist” judges who “create” policy out of “their” reading of the law (U.S. Constitution).
This is actually a tough subject to discuss because the Constitution was written some time ago (1787) and did not address issues that did not exist when it was written.
The Supremes are the final “interpreters” of the Constitution which means they render their decisions based on what they “think” the Constitution means or says about various issues. In many cases, the Constitution does not “directly’ say anything about specific issues and the judges are forced to rely on “judicial precedent” (what was ruled previously) or on “cultural norms” (what is normal to our culture). Please keep in mind that many of us disagree as to what is normal and accepted in our culture.
The pro-abortion decision was based on a very nebulous “right to privacy” clause in the Constitution while the “right to bear arms” issue (which was addressed directly by the Constitution) was, in my view, misinterpreted by the judges as a right for all to bear arms while the Constitution stipulated only people in “militias” can. The bottom line is that the Constitution is like the Bible, people can read whatever they want INTO it.
So when Rightists demand for strict “constructionists” and the liberals call for “empathetic interpretation”, judges will see what they want in the Constitution and that is that.
Obama keeps repeating that Sonia has been a judge longer than most and therefore has experience. Experience is a plus but if you are “flawed” as a jurist, you remain flawed throughout your years on the bench. The fact that Sonia Sotomayor has been often overturned by higher courts has me concerned. To me this says that she is not reading and understanding the law as her judicial peers are. I will have to see if she is overturned more times than what the norm is for judges.
She finished at the top of her classes throughout her education so she does have smarts or at least the ability to comprehend which is an important base to work from. George Bush was a C- student and look what great deeds he has accomplished in his public career.
My concern is not how many years you have of judicial experience; my concern is with your character and your thought process and your belief system and all those things that may play a role in your decision making on specific issues. As I mentioned before, some judges with very conservative histories have turned out very liberal on the Supreme Court.
Let me look deeper into who she is…………………..
The Right is all about interpreting the U.S. Constitution as it was written (like reading the Bible literally) and against “activist” judges who “create” policy out of “their” reading of the law (U.S. Constitution).
This is actually a tough subject to discuss because the Constitution was written some time ago (1787) and did not address issues that did not exist when it was written.
The Supremes are the final “interpreters” of the Constitution which means they render their decisions based on what they “think” the Constitution means or says about various issues. In many cases, the Constitution does not “directly’ say anything about specific issues and the judges are forced to rely on “judicial precedent” (what was ruled previously) or on “cultural norms” (what is normal to our culture). Please keep in mind that many of us disagree as to what is normal and accepted in our culture.
The pro-abortion decision was based on a very nebulous “right to privacy” clause in the Constitution while the “right to bear arms” issue (which was addressed directly by the Constitution) was, in my view, misinterpreted by the judges as a right for all to bear arms while the Constitution stipulated only people in “militias” can. The bottom line is that the Constitution is like the Bible, people can read whatever they want INTO it.
So when Rightists demand for strict “constructionists” and the liberals call for “empathetic interpretation”, judges will see what they want in the Constitution and that is that.
Obama keeps repeating that Sonia has been a judge longer than most and therefore has experience. Experience is a plus but if you are “flawed” as a jurist, you remain flawed throughout your years on the bench. The fact that Sonia Sotomayor has been often overturned by higher courts has me concerned. To me this says that she is not reading and understanding the law as her judicial peers are. I will have to see if she is overturned more times than what the norm is for judges.
She finished at the top of her classes throughout her education so she does have smarts or at least the ability to comprehend which is an important base to work from. George Bush was a C- student and look what great deeds he has accomplished in his public career.
My concern is not how many years you have of judicial experience; my concern is with your character and your thought process and your belief system and all those things that may play a role in your decision making on specific issues. As I mentioned before, some judges with very conservative histories have turned out very liberal on the Supreme Court.
Let me look deeper into who she is…………………..
No comments:
Post a Comment