Posted by
Brad B on Friday, May 29, 2009 1:26:25 PM
A person must decide if they believe that a judge should create laws or policy from the bench. They are often termed as "activist judges", those who shape or create legislation rather than make a determination or interpretation of the law with regards to the case they are presented. Should a single person or a small group of people wield greater power than the elected representatives of congress or greater power than the citizenry?
Once a person decides this for themselves they can then determine if a judge who has openly stated that they "create policy" from the bench should be a member of our nations highest court. The
Supreme Court is after all the highest court charged with making interpretations with regard to the constitutionality of a law - a dangerous place for an activist judge who wield their opinion in place of a constitutional understanding.
Frame the selection with this quote from President Obama:
"We need somebody who's got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom, the empathy to understand what it's like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that's the criteria by which I'm going to be selecting my judges."
Understanding of the constitution seems to have not found its way into the Presidents selection process.
Judge Sonia Sotomayor:
"All of the legal defense funds out there, they're looking for people with court of appeals experience, because it is, court of appeals is where policy is made"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXBAgh7qtdc
"Like other liberal activists who assert the importance of empathy, Sotomayor remarkably finds the need to reach into her “heart” only when the litigant’s cause aligns with her own. In fact, as Clinton appointee Judge José Cabranes noted with some frustration, Sotomayor’s “empathy” with New Haven’s position was so relentless that she took unprecedented procedural steps to bury the claims of the firefighters.
In an attempt to prevent effective review, Sotomayor’s three-judge panel originally issued a one paragraph summary order affirming the district court’s ruling, then withdrew it and issued an unsigned opinion.
Neither the order nor the opinion made any attempt to seriously consider the firefighters’ arguments. According to Cabranes, they did not even address the core issues in the case. Thanks to judges like Cabranes, this attempt at evasion failed, and the case is now being reviewed by the Supreme Court."
--Deborah O'Malley (reposted from
Townhall.com)
Hopefully the senate will call into question some of these issues so we will have a clearer view of who our President has chosen. Though, I am sure that they will have no trouble getting the 60 votes needed. There have been many accusation and/or allusions to to race and gender issues at hand - especially the race issue. Given that the President favors amnesty and there is talk of policy to make the "anchor baby" practice illegal - this could have huge implications as far as pandering to our newly legalized voting block and painting anyone who opposes the Judge as a racist. Nevermind her beliefs and actions!
--Brad Burleson
Right Wing Extremist
(Caucasian,Conservative, Christian, Anti-Abortion, Anti-ILLEGAL Imigration, Gun Owner, Iraq War Veteran)
A response, additional thought:
On the YouTube video....you have to consider her change in tone when she goes on to say "I shouldn't say that...this is on tape...we 'don't' make policy...." There is a wink-wink in her tone change and attitude. That is why the actual audio and video is necessary instead of a printed text.
Its no mystery that I have a conservative view and I believe that the Supreme Court is charged with interpreting the consitution as the framers intended, with regard to modern topics. Not to re-interpret what the framers were trying to accomplish. Any re-interpretation would need to come through an amendment - a total change to the consitution. For instance, section 1 of the 14th Amendment was enacted to give slaves rights as citizens after the civil war. It was iron-clad in their minds and left no room for states to supercede. However, the law is now being bastardized to allow illegal immigrants to have "anchor babies" and avoid deportation. I do not think that the original writers had this in mind - and I believe that an amendment is necessary to clarify since there is little room for logical interpretation. the writers of the 14th amendment wanted to avoid all loopholes and ended up creating one.
Womens right to vote was guaranteed by a constitutional amendment, not by the court. It was called for by the majority of representatives and became law. It was not left to a group of 9 to decide.
The supreme court in California didn't uphold the vote because they oppose homosexuality, they upheld the ruling because there was no legal basis for it to be overturned. It was not their individual or collective opinions or biases, it was based on constitutionality. The people of California were given the opportunity to present a majority decision in a direct democracy style and they did so.
The 14th amendment is also the constitutional basis for Roe v Wade, I disagree with the ruling as I do not think that killing unborn children was on the minds of the law makers at that time- however, to change the law we would have to literally change the law.
Justice should be blind. A judge has a higher calling and cannot give in to the temptation to abuse his/her position to further their own cause. They are charged with service to our nation and entrusted to maintain justice. President Obama's choice has shown bias on the basis of race ad gender in her rulings and in her statements. I do not believe that a White Male would ge tthe same consideration as a minority in her court. I think that her agenda will be put ahead of all else.
I am big on the 2nd Amendment - our alst defense against government oppression and our first line of defense against those who would harm us. She bel;ieves that the state or city has the right to ban all guns, inspite of the constitution. That is not what the framers had in mind, they never wanted the people of the USA to be defenseless victims of an oppressive government - should it ever come to that.