"This nomination hearing is critically important for two reasons:

 

First, Justices on the Supreme Court have great responsibility, hold enormous power, and have a lifetime appointment.

 

Just five members can declare the meaning of our Constitution, bending or changing its meaning from what the people intended.

 

Second, this hearing is important because I believe our legal system is at a dangerous crossroads.

 

Down one path is the traditional American legal system, so admired around the world, where judges impartially apply the law to the facts without regard to their own personal views.

 

This is the compassionate system because this is the fair system.

 

In the American legal system, courts do not make the law or set policy, because allowing unelected officials to make laws would strike at the heart of our democracy.

 

"Indeed, our legal system is based on a firm belief in an ordered universe and objective truth. The trial is the process by which the impartial and wise judge guides us to the truth."

 

http://blog.al.com/breaking/2009/07/sessions_opens_sotomayor_heari.html

 

Couldn't agree more senator! :thumb:

Did he voice similar sentiments before the confirmation hearings for Alito and Roberts?

Did he voice similar sentiments before the confirmation hearings for Alito and Roberts?

 

The same concerns weren't there with Alito and Roberts. There was no need to talk about things that weren't of concern.

The same concerns weren't there with Alito and Roberts. There was no need to talk about things that weren't of concern.

The answer I expected ...

 

I guess it depends on what side of the fence you're on, huh?

The answer I expected ...

 

I guess it depends on what side of the fence you're on, huh?

 

No, it depends on past history. She has shown by her past decisions and statements that she allows her personal feelings and opinions on issues impact judgement. That wasn't the case with Alito or Roberts as far as I recall.

No, it depends on past history. She has shown by her past decisions and statements that she allows her personal feelings and opinions on issues impact judgement. That wasn't the case with Alito or Roberts as far as I recall.

And that often depends on your point of view ...

And that often depends on your point of view ...

 

So are you saying personal feelings and opinions should influence a judges decision in the courtroom?

I think that probably happens with every judge, on some level.

 

As long as Sotomayor is eminently qualified for the position, I have no problem with her nomination.

No, it depends on past history. She has shown by her past decisions and statements that she allows her personal feelings and opinions on issues impact judgement. That wasn't the case with Alito or Roberts as far as I recall.

 

Is that not what Alito says in his interview here:

 

http://dissentingjustice.blogspot.com/2009/05/is-justice-alito-biased-judicial.html

I will not vote for -- senator should vote for -- an individual nominated by any President who is not fully committed to fairness and impartiality towards every person who appears before them.

I will not vote for -- no senator should vote for -- an individual nominated by any President who believes it is acceptable for a judge to allow their own personal background, gender, prejudices, or sympathies to sway their decision in favor of, or against, parties before the court.

Sounds like he has his mind made up on any nominee of Obama.

Sounds like he has his mind made up on any nominee of Obama.

 

Do you really think anyone on either side doesn't?

Graham had some interesting questions about her time with the Puerto Rico Defense Fund.

 

She sat and was at times leading their board when they were "advocating" (her word) for using taxpayer funds for abortions. The Fund's view in a brief was that if you did not allow poor women to use taxpayer funds to get an abortion, it is another form of slavery.

 

The Fund also wrote briefs saying the death penalty is a form of racial discrimination.

I think that probably happens with every judge, on some level.

As long as Sotomayor is eminently qualified for the position, I have no problem with her nomination.

 

It may, but that's not the issue. The issue is whether it is proper for a judge to allow her experiences and thoughts on issues to affect her legal analysis on a case.

 

Judges have, are and should be encouraged to leave their personal, experiences, beliefs and opinions outside the court room. If I understand Sotomayor's thinking correctly, she seems to be saying not only should she not attempt to leave those experiences, beliefs and opinions outside the courtroom, they should be brought in to the courtroom with ready acceptance and accolades.

 

Consider: if the General Assembly had passed a law permitting video slot gambling and a lawsuit was filed over the constitutionality of the law, if you believe in Sotomayor's thinking as I understand it, you would have no problem with a judge ruling that the law was unconstitutional because he personally felt that gambling was immoral and wrong based on his life experiences and the fact that his brother was an addictive gambler. That's not being a judge in my opinion, that's being a legislator. Heck, rather than embracing the judge being allowed to have his/her experiences and beliefs affect his/her legal decisions, I believe that judges that cannot set those experiences and beliefs aside should recuse themselves from affected cases.

 

This lawyer was originally probably okay with Sotomayor, but the more I've read of her judicial philosophy and the more I've thought about the matter, I've come to change my mind. I hope she doesn't get affirmed.

 

What should be scary to both sides is if her nomination is approved and her judicial philosophy becomes the norm, every judge is going to be allowed to have his or her personal experiences and perspective enter into every legal decision. That will be a big, big step in the direction of the further polarization of the judiciary and this country. We will become a country whose legal decisions are based on the tyranny of the majority rather than a country whose legal decisions are based on the Constitution.

 

Maybe I'm all wet on this, but I don't think so.

What, specifically, from her judicial philosophy leads you to those conclusions, leatherneck? And what of her previous rulings and opinions? Those seem to contradict what you've described.

It may, but that's not the issue. The issue is whether it is proper for a judge to allow her experiences and thoughts on issues to affect her legal analysis on a case.

 

Judges have, are and should be encouraged to leave their personal, experiences, beliefs and opinions outside the court room. If I understand Sotomayor's thinking correctly, she seems to be saying not only should she not attempt to leave those experiences, beliefs and opinions outside the courtroom, they should be brought in to the courtroom with ready acceptance and accolades.

 

Consider: if the General Assembly had passed a law permitting video slot gambling and a lawsuit was filed over the constitutionality of the law, if you believe in Sotomayor's thinking as I understand it, you would have no problem with a judge ruling that the law was unconstitutional because he personally felt that gambling was immoral and wrong based on his life experiences and the fact that his brother was an addictive gambler. That's not being a judge in my opinion, that's being a legislator. Heck, rather than embracing the judge being allowed to have his/her experiences and beliefs affect his/her legal decisions, I believe that judges that cannot set those experiences and beliefs aside should recuse themselves from affected cases.

 

This lawyer was originally probably okay with Sotomayor, but the more I've read of her judicial philosophy and the more I've thought about the matter, I've come to change my mind. I hope she doesn't get affirmed.

 

What should be scary to both sides is if her nomination is approved and her judicial philosophy becomes the norm, every judge is going to be allowed to have his or her personal experiences and perspective enter into every legal decision. That will be a big, big step in the direction of the further polarization of the judiciary and this country. We will become a country whose legal decisions are based on the tyranny of the majority rather than a country whose legal decisions are based on the Constitution.

 

Maybe I'm all wet on this, but I don't think so.

I'm not an attorney and I'm certainly no expert on legal and judicial matters, but I think it's naive to assume that a judge's personal feelings don't play a factor in at least some of their decisions.

 

As an example, does anyone really believe that the right wing's "Fab Four" on the Supreme Court (Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Roberts) doesn't share a pro-life bent that probably comes into play when they rule on cases dealing with abortion rights?

 

And I suspect that the same applies for pro-choice judges that are on the bench.