Posted on 12/27/2010 4:22:41 PM PST by Erik Latranyi
At her confirmation hearings last year, Sonia Sotomayor spent a lot of time assuring senators that empathy would play no part in her work on the Supreme Court.
That was a sort of rebuke to President Obama, who had said that empathy was precisely the quality that separated legal technicians like Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. from great justices.
Justice Sotomayor would have none of it.
“We apply law to facts,” she told the Senate Judiciary Committee last year. “We don’t apply feelings to facts.”
We are now three months into Justice Sotomayor’s second term on the court. That is awfully early in a justice’s career to draw any general conclusions. But some things are becoming tolerably clear.
Justice Sotomayor has completely dispelled the fear on the left that her background as a prosecutor would align her with the court’s more conservative members on criminal justice issues. And she has displayed a quality — call it what you will — that is alert to the humanity of the people whose cases make their way to the Supreme Court.
So far this term, the court has issued two signed decisions in argued cases. Both were unanimous, and both were insignificant.
But for anyone looking for insight into the justices, there was much more information to be gleaned from another genre of judicial writing. In the last three months, the court has turned down thousands of appeals, almost always without comment. On seven occasions, though, at least one justice had something to say about the court’s decision not to hear a case.
Such writings are completely discretionary, and they open a window onto the author’s passions. They are also a good way to keep track of the divisions on the court.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
How such mediocrity got to the court is beyond me.
Of course, she was selected by perhaps the most mediocre president EVAH.
Just wait until Kagan starts joining in. Can you impeach a Supreme?
How can this be true?? The media ASSURED US that Sotomayor was a MODERATE.
The MSM wouldn’t lie to us, would they?
She has proven even worse than her predecessor. I can only take comfort in the fact that she has nil influence on the other justices.
The US Constitution is supposed to guide the court.
The Supreme Court’s function is not to MAKE LAW but to interpret existing law as it applies to the Constitution.
Liberals on the court must recognize that fact or they do a grave disservice to the country and the American people.
In fact, doing otherwise is treasonous.
There is no place on the Supreme Court for activist liberal judges.
We are a nation of laws and God given rights and freedoms as guaranteed in our Constitution.
Yeah that was some fear, man.
‘The Supreme Court’s function is not to MAKE LAW but to interpret existing law as it applies to the Constitution.
Liberals on the court must recognize that fact or they do a grave disservice to the country and the American people’
LIBERALS DON’T CARE ABOUT THE COUNTRY OR IT’S PEOPLE! We are too stupid to know what’s good for us. Just ask the Obamabots!
On the one hand, ugh. Such a mediocre mind, shackled all the more by leftist knee-jerking.
On the other hand, Obama’s laziness helped us a dodge a bullet. He wanted the two for one (Hispanic woman) and he wanted the safe shot of a Circuit Judge with double Ivy credentials and no history of worrying private sector or criminal defense clients. If he’d have been willing to take any risk at all — a white woman, a Hispanic man, a Hispanic woman not on the Court of Appeals — he’d have had dozens of better choices. As is, Sotomayor will hardly ever persuade Kennedy, and sometimes she’ll even lose Breyer or Kagan (not on social conservativism issues, but on other issues of importance).
On the one hand, ugh. Such a mediocre mind, shackled all the more by leftist knee-jerking.
On the other hand, Obama’s laziness helped us a dodge a bullet. He wanted the two for one (Hispanic woman) and he wanted the safe shot of a Circuit Judge with double Ivy credentials and no history of worrying private sector or criminal defense clients. If he’d have been willing to take any risk at all — a white woman, a Hispanic man, a Hispanic woman not on the Court of Appeals — he’d have had dozens of better choices. As is, Sotomayor will hardly ever persuade Kennedy, and sometimes she’ll even lose Breyer or Kagan (not on social conservativism issues, but on other issues of importance).
An affirmative action justice appointed by an affirmative action pres__ent. How fitting.
It is altogether too probable that we now have a 5 to 4 Supreme Court favoring the Fundamental Transformer.
Yes
This is just the Times signalling its followers to praise the divorced hispanic whenever possible, and to cast her writings as divine wisdom.
That's not what the Wise Latina told us.
a law firm would not hire her to be a receptionist
Yes, you can impeach a justice, and it should be on the table in 2013. Violation of the oath, and adherence to anti-constitutional principles should qualify as high crimes. Treason, in fact.
One justice will have to die before the left has a working majority. They are considering ways to make that happen. Their window is closing.
I pray every morning against her and Kagan...That God would tie the hands of the crafty that their schemes would not succeed.
There was only a brief statement of the case in question. I agreed with sotomyer.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.