SCOTUS Hearings

Calendar July 15, 2009 | Posted by Michael S. Langston

Wow… for a nominee to the Supreme Court, you would figure that ability to communicate ideas effectively would be a strong suit, but for Sotomayor it might be harder than most.

First – let’s give her some benefit of the doubt.  If someone followed any one of us around all day long asking questions, recording the answers, checking those answers against speeches and legal papers written in the last decade… well, let’s just say most of us are not consistent enough thinkers to handle this level of scrutiny.

Having said that, I still found one part of the recent political maneuvering interesting.  During some questioning in reference to the 2nd Amendment, Ms. Sotomayor said something funny (here):

The judge also stressed that she understood “how important the right to bear arms is to many, many Americans” and said some of her friends are gun owners and hunters.

It’s probably my sense of humor more than anything else, but anytime someone states to me, “But some of my best friends are X” it usually means they don’t really like X all that much.

& when a SCOTUS nominee does so – then it’s just pure gold.

On the serious side, for those who think the second amendment is as sacrosancct as the first amendment, this wasn’t the only disconcerting thing (even if amusing) that was said.  She went on to add that the 14th amendment doesn’t apply to the 2nd as it does to the rest of them.

During the exchange, which bounced back and forth for a few minutes, Sotomayor said: “Well, the government can remedy a social problem that it is identifying or a difficulty it’s identifying (as long as the law) reasonably seeks to achieve that result. In the end, it can’t be arbitrary and capricious.” (In other words, many anti-gun laws enacted by states might end up being perfectly constitutional, as long as they weren’t “arbitrary and capricious.”)

Of course the real gist of this statement will depend upon how she and others will judge the phrase “arbitrary and capricious”, but it seems on the face of it she seems to believe less highly in the 2nd amendment than the 1st.

Always wondered how some people could argue that the 1st amendment is the most important amendment , but the 2nd amendment was written by old guys who had no idea what things would look like today.

Either way you happen believe, most of what is going on is nothing more than political posturing of each side.  One is attempting to increase her credibility, the other side attempting to decrease her credibility, all the while both knowing it’s unlikely to change the eventual outcome.

So from that point of view – might as well pick out little quotes here and there and laugh.  It’s more rational than worrying about the future.

Category Categories: SCOTUS  |  Tag Tags: , , , ,  |  Comments No Comments

America – Meet Sotomayor, Another Great Obama Pick

Calendar May 28, 2009 | Posted by Michael S. Langston

Apparently, our new SCOTUS nominee has a belief that her background, being both a woman and a Hispanic gives her the ability to make better judgments than her white male counterparts.

As reported (here – emphasis is theirs):

Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O’Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O’Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, 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.

First, she does have a valid point about judges life experiences being brought into judicial thinking.  & I think it’s a myth wroth destroying that justices are more prone to objectivity than any other human beings.  After all, in the end, we are humans with similar limitations.

Having said that, this portion of her speech seems to imply she’s a racist and certainly should make people question her decision making ability.

She notes, that while there can never be a universal definition of wise, her background makes her more wise?

This is the convoluted logic that has a large percentage of the country banging their heads when reading any judicial opinions as judges everywhere jump over illogical hurdles in order to rationalize bad decisions.  The 9th Circuit is famous for this, but they might start sharing their propensity for illogical gymnastics with a Supreme Court Justice.

& just for the record – Obama’s picks seem a little worthless, two treasury department picks who can’t pay their taxes, but now are trying to run the economy & the IRS.  Many picks never went to fruition due to tax and other problems.  More than one pick that directly broke a pledge of Obama’s and a new regulation he instituted stating no lobbyists in his administration.

It’s as if we don’t even care enough to pay attention, because it’s much more disconcerting knowing these things than being blissfully ignorant of politics in general…

Category Categories: Critical Thinking, SCOTUS  |  Tag Tags: , , , , ,  |  Comments No Comments