The Sotomayor Nomination: The hidden costs of presidential empathy. (Be Very Scared Alert)

Forbes ^ | May 26, 2009 | Richard A. Epstein

[Zakeet]

In a previous Forbes column, I decried President Barack Obama's insistence that empathy would weigh heavily in the scales when it came to his next Supreme Court nominee. And reading the arguments that were put forth to justify the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor of the Second Circuit to the Supreme Court, it appears that all the bad chickens have come home to roost.

Evidently, the characteristics that matter most for a potential nominee to the Supreme Court have little to do with judicial ability or temperament, or even so ephemeral a consideration as a knowledge of the law. Instead, the tag line for this appointment says it all. The president wants to choose "a daughter of Puerto Rican parents raised in Bronx public housing projects to become the nation's first Hispanic justice."

Obviously, none of these factors disqualifies anyone for the Supreme Court. But affirmative action standards are a bad way to pick one of the nine most influential jurists in the U.S., whose vast powers can shape virtually every aspect of our current lives. In these hard economic times, one worrisome feature about the Sotomayor nomination is that the justices of the Supreme Court are likely to have to pass on some of the high-handed Obama administration tactics on a wide range of issues that concern the fortunes of American business.

[Zakeet]

Here is one straw in the wind that does not bode well for a Sotomayor appointment. Justice Stevens of the current court came in for a fair share of criticism (all justified in my view) for his expansive reading in Kelo v. City of New London (2005) of the "public use language." Of course, the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment is as complex as it is short: "Nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." But he was surely done one better in the Summary Order in Didden v. Village of Port Chester issued by the Second Circuit in 2006. Judge Sotomayor was on the panel that issued the unsigned opinion--one that makes Justice Stevens look like a paradigmatic defender of strong property rights.

I have written about Didden in Forbes. The case involved about as naked an abuse of government power as could be imagined.

Richard A. Epstein is the James Parker Hall distinguished service professor of law at the University of Chicago, the Peter and Kirsten Bedford senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and a visiting professor at NYU Law School. He is a columnist at Forbes.

[truthguy]

OK another moronic decision from Obama. But what did you expect from the guy? We get another third rate rack appointed to government “policy making” post and she could be in their for life. We have reaped what we soed. Now I wonder if all the Romney hater like what they get with this SCOTUS pick. And we could get others. Yes Romney (or any other Republican) might have lost as well but he had a much better chance against Obama.

Do you really think Romney would have appointed a choice this awful? This woman is the worst of the worst. I don’t’ know if Republicans can do much about this.

Pound on the people you know who appointed Obama. Let them know how stupid and foolish their decision was. This is terrible news and we are going to get more terrible news from the California State Supreme Court in about 5 minutes

[AngelesCrestHighway]

Empathy trumps experience and knowledge. Of course it does! Why would we expect a president who lacked experience and knowledge to pick outside the box? This is a supreme disaster for our country! The damn moderate republicans need to get off their asses and object but they are so weak knee it may not happen.....

[Twotone]

Letter to my senators:

Dear Senator,

I am absolutely appalled at President Obama’s choice to replace Judge Souter. Sonia Sotomayor is very obviously someone who has no business serving on the Supreme Court as she does not understand the purpose of the appellate court she currently serves on. She has stated in a speech that she believes the purpose of the court is to form policy. That is outrageous.

She has also stated that she does not believe the problem of racism can ever be fixed in the United States, despite the fact that her own history indicates the opposite. And she believes that you “cannot succeed if you are born poor; you simply cannot.” It seems to me that ‘Rags to Riches’ stories are the essence of the American experience. Surely, she has to be joking!

As a student at Princeton Ms. Sotomayor stated her belief “that the Second Amendment to the Constitution did not actually afford individual citizens the right to bear arms, but only duly conferred organizations, like the military.” She argued that guns have been illegal for individuals to own since the passing of the Bill of Rights. Apparently she did not bother to read what the Founders said as part of her studies:

“The constitutions of most of our states assert, that all power is inherent in the people; ... that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.” - Thomas Jefferson

“(The Constitution preserves) the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation... (where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” - James Madison

“No free man shall be debarred the use of arms within his own land.” -Thomas Jefferson

“... arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property ... Horrid mischief would ensue were (the law-abiding) deprived of the use of them.” - Thomas Paine

“The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that’s good.” - George Washington

Ms. Sotomayor does not understand the role of a Judge, she does not understand the Bill of Rights, and she does not understand America. Please withhold your support from this nomination.

Sincerely yours.

Do I think this will do any good? Not really. But we’d all better be writing & calling. If there’s enough of a firestorm, they may think twice about it.

[Verginius Rufus]

The electorate picked someone even less qualified for the office of President, largely because of his race. (If Obama had been white, he wouldn’t even have been considered for VP on the Democratic ticket last year.) At least a Supreme Court justice is only one of nine, not the one person making the deicisions.