Sen. Jeff Sessions on Judge Sonia Sotomayor

[Hatz]

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.

 

 

I'm like you. In fact the post and link I made above shows that Alito said practically the same things as Sotomayor and yet no one is calling for Alito's head on those statements.

[mcpapa]

I'm like you. In fact the post and link I made above shows that Alito said practically the same things as Sotomayor and yet no one is calling for Alito's head on those statements.

 

Maybe because Judge Alito isn't a pointy-headed East Coast liberal elitist.

[Hatz]

Maybe because Judge Alito isn't a pointy-headed East Coast liberal elitist.

 

:lol:

[leatherneck]

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.

 

As I mentioned but will mention again to make sure my point gets acrossed, in my opinion a judge should not allow his her feelings, beliefs, background, etc to influence his/her legal decisions. Perhaps you are right on the lower level judges, but I feel strongly that at the Supreme Court level, because of the magnitude of their decisions, the justices work very, very hard to prevent that from happening. To put it bluntly, I am not as cynical as you are about the decisions of the justices.

 

I believe that the "Fab Four" looks at the abortion issue not from their pro life bent but from a strict reading of the constitution bent. By the way, that strict construction of the constitution philosophy is found throughout their decisions on a wide magnitude of issues.

 

 

It will be a huge mistake and will do irreparable harm in my opinion to the integrity of our judicial decisions if we start permitting (and even encouraging) judges to make legal decisions based on personal experiences. The outcome of Supreme Court decisions will be based on a justice's personal experiences when they should be based solely on the law. I find it abhorrent to the law that a justice would ignore the constitution to uphold or strike down a law based on what he or she experienced growing up. If that person wants to change society based on what he or she experienced growing up, he or she should be a legislator, not a judge; not a judge on any level but most definitely not a Supreme Court justice.

 

In the example I gave about a judge handling a gambling law, would you be okay with the judge basing his decision on the constitutionality of the law based in whole or in part on his life's experiences? It's a yes or no question.

 

And I read Alito's comments when he was being nominated. If Alito is basing his decisions on his experiences growing up, he is equally wrong. But I do think people are missing this quote from his comments: "It's not my job to change the law or to bend the law to achieve any result." which he stated after saying that he would naturally look at cases based on his life experiences. To me that indicates that while he would naturally look at cases with his life experiences in mind, he would not base his decisions on those experiences to change the law or bend the law to get the result he wanted. If that's Sotomayor's position, then I'd be fine with it. But from what I've read she seems to be saying that it is perfectly acceptable to change the law or to bend the law to address her life's experiences. Maybe that's too subtle of a difference for some, but to me, it's a big, big difference.

Edited July 15, 2009 by leatherneck

[leatherneck]

Maybe because Judge Alito isn't a pointy-headed East Coast liberal elitist.

 

If you are implying that I feel that way about liberal judges, you are wrong and I'd like an apology. Frankly your comment did absolutely nothing to further this discussion in an intelligent manner.

[RowdyRedRam]

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.

Anyone who believes they can truely act impartialy is either a fool, a liar, or more than a slight bit to self rightous.

[mcpapa]

If you are implying that I feel that way about liberal judges, you are wrong and I'd like an apology. Frankly your comment did absolutely nothing to further this discussion in an intelligent manner.

 

No can do. My comment was directed to no one (as noted in Hatz's post).

 

Has Ms. Sotamayor indicated in the hearings that it is her job to change the law or bend the law to achieve a result? All I've read are newspaper summaries of the hearings, and they don't indicate that this is the case.

[HHSDad]

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.

I've heard Sotomayor on many occassions say that a judge should make decisions on his/her feelings and not on the law. It's up to the judge to act fairly on how they see fairness being enacted.

[Hatz]

As I mentioned but will mention again to make sure my point gets acrossed, in my opinion a judge should not allow his her feelings, beliefs, background, etc to influence his/her legal decisions. Perhaps you are right on the lower level judges, but I feel strongly that at the Supreme Court level, because of the magnitude of their decisions, the justices work very, very hard to prevent that from happening. To put it bluntly, I am not as cynical as you are about the decisions of the justices.

 

I believe that the "Fab Four" looks at the abortion issue not from their pro life bent but from a strict reading of the constitution bent. By the way, that strict construction of the constitution philosophy is found throughout their decisions on a wide magnitude of issues.

 

 

It will be a huge mistake and will do irreparable harm in my opinion to the integrity of our judicial decisions if we start permitting (and even encouraging) judges to make legal decisions based on personal experiences. The outcome of Supreme Court decisions will be based on a justice's personal experiences when they should be based solely on the law. I find it abhorrent to the law that a justice would ignore the constitution to uphold or strike down a law based on what he or she experienced growing up. If that person wants to change society based on what he or she experienced growing up, he or she should be a legislator, not a judge; not a judge on any level but most definitely not a Supreme Court justice.

 

In the example I gave about a judge handling a gambling law, would you be okay with the judge basing his decision on the constitutionality of the law based in whole or in part on his life's experiences? It's a yes or no question.

 

And I read Alito's comments when he was being nominated. If Alito is basing his decisions on his experiences growing up, he is equally wrong. But I do think people are missing this quote from his comments: "It's not my job to change the law or to bend the law to achieve any result." which he stated after saying that he would naturally look at cases based on his life experiences. To me that indicates that while he would naturally look at cases with his life experiences in mind, he would not base his decisions on those experiences to change the law or bend the law to get the result he wanted. If that's Sotomayor's position, then I'd be fine with it. But from what I've read she seems to be saying that it is perfectly acceptable to change the law or to bend the law to address her life's experiences. Maybe that's too subtle of a difference for some, but to me, it's a big, big difference.

 

He does say the above bolded as disclaimer but it's in the middle of his testimony about how he looks at a case and factors in family he's know who experienced discrimination (in the cases that are about that) and those who have experienced handicap accessibility (in cases concerning that issue), etc.

 

I'm not sure that testimony is that much different from Sotomayor's statements about the influence of looking at a case from a Latino perspective, or a woman's perspective who has experienced discrimination or other issues related to that experience. If there is a difference it may be found in record (as you alluded to) or it might be that her's is more first person in experience whereas Alito has to look through the lens of family experience rather than his own.

 

Good discussion leatherneck. :thumb:

[leatherneck]

Anyone who believes they can truely act impartialy is either a fool, a liar, or more than a slight bit to self rightous.

 

Than consider me self rightous. I often have to put aside my personal feelings on decisions I have to make and feel that I can and have done so. I did so as a Summary Court Martial Officer (in effect a judge) in the Marine Corps, I do so in my legal practice and I do so in a quasi judicial board that I currently serve on that affects a lot of people throughout this state.

 

As you may have noted, I am not a fan of Obama, yet if you search my posts on Obama since he has been elected, I have put those feelings aside and given him the benefit of much doubt on multiple occassions. It CAN be done if you believe it SHOULD be done.

Edited July 15, 2009 by leatherneck

[leatherneck]

No can do. My comment was directed to no one (as noted in Hatz's post).

 

Has Ms. Sotamayor indicated in the hearings that it is her job to change the law or bend the law to achieve a result? All I've read are newspaper summaries of the hearings, and they don't indicate that this is the case.

 

If it wasn't directed at me, then you don't owe me an apology.:thumb:

[leatherneck]

He does say the above bolded as disclaimer but it's in the middle of his testimony about how he looks at a case and factors in family he's know who experienced discrimination (in the cases that are about that) and those who have experienced handicap accessibility (in cases concerning that issue), etc.

 

I'm not sure that testimony is that much different from Sotomayor's statements about the influence of looking at a case from a Latino perspective, or a woman's perspective who has experienced discrimination or other issues related to that experience. If there is a difference it may be found in record (as you alluded to) or it might be that her's is more first person in experience whereas Alito has to look through the lens of family experience rather than his own.

 

Good discussion leatherneck. :thumb:

 

Thx. Here's another reason why it's so important for a Supreme Court justice not to allow his or her feelings and experiences to affect or drive his or her legal decisions: many folks on here were very, very upset with David Williams opposition to the recent gambling bill. Perhaps his opposition was based on some of his own personal experiences. If so, as his decisions based on those personal experiences are made, the people of his district (and the state to the extent he is elected President of the Senate) have some recourse: he is not re-elected to the Senate or as the President of the Senate as the case may be. But a Supreme Court justice is appointed for life. The people have no ability to take action or remove a justice as those life experiences start affecting his or her legal decisions. Huge, huge difference folks.

 

If we go the route of Sotomayor, then confirmation hearings will necessarily have to explore in detail how every life experience and belief will affect every possible legal issue that could possibly confront a nominee on the Supreme Court. That is exactly what we should not be trying to do. Politics already plays too much of a role in the confirmation of Supreme Court nominees; if we go the Sotomayor route it will be much, much, much worse in the future. God help the judiciary and our legal system if that occurs.

[Clyde]

It is ironic that the person being quoted has a checkered past in regards to his views on race.

[westsider]

Leatherneck, do you not feel that personal and political considerations were part of the Supreme Court ruling that ended the Florida recount in 2000?

[westsider]

I've heard Sotomayor on many occassions say that a judge should make decisions on his/her feelings and not on the law. It's up to the judge to act fairly on how they see fairness being enacted.

You've actually heard her say that, or is that simply your interpretation of her comments?