Commentary Magazine


Contentions

Re: 32

Supporters of the Sotomayor nomination are getting nervous about those 32 words. Lanny Davis declares, “She misspoke.” But did she? And how would Davis know that?

The difficulty with implementing all the helpful suggestions (“Don’t just clarify the statement, take it back.”) is that this may really represent her deeply held views and not be an isolated utterance. It just might be that she doesn’t think much of the notion that judges can or should be impartial and instead thinks it’s a good thing to bring some distinctive Latina jurisprudence to the bench. ( Don’t get me wrong — this is nonsense in my view, but I take her words crafted for a speech at a prominent law school as representative of her thinking, not some off-the-cuff slip.)

John Eastman points to other troubling statements, and the Wall Street Journal suggests there is more of this sort of thing out there:

Judge Sonia Sotomayor receives an honorary degree at Northeastern University in 2007. In law-school lectures, she has argued that the law reflects the experiences of those applying it.

“The law that lawyers practice and judges declare is not a definitive, capital ‘L’ law that many would like to think exists,” Judge Sotomayor said in her 1996 lecture at Suffolk University Law School, summarizing Judge Frank’s work.

Confidence in the legal system falters, she said, because the public “expects the law to be static and predictable” when in fact courts and lawyers are “constantly overhauling the law and adapting it to the realities of ever-changing social, industrial and political conditions.”

The fact that the White House hasn’t swooped in with the repair crew indicates either they don’t know what she thinks or they don’t know how to fix it without upsetting the very same leftist interest groups and civil rights groups that think this sort of thing is just swell. It is hard to believe the White House didn’t see this coming and didn’t have a game plan, but then we’ve seen their vetting process before. And, of course, in a White House and Justice Department populated by those who support the cottage industry of racial grievances and preferences this simply might not have seemed all that exceptional.

Once again, we see that Supreme Court confirmations are always interesting and rarely predictable.



Join the discussion…

Are you a subscriber? Log in to comment »

Not a subscriber? Join the discussion today, subscribe to Commentary »





Welcome to Commentary Magazine.
We hope you enjoy your visit.
As a visitor to our site, you are allowed 8 free articles this month.
This is your first of 8 free articles.

If you are already a digital subscriber, log in here »

Print subscriber? For free access to the website and iPad, register here »

To subscribe, click here to see our subscription offers »

Please note this is an advertisement skip this ad
Clearly, you have a passion for ideas.
Subscribe today for unlimited digital access to the publication that shapes the minds of the people who shape our world.
Get for just
YOU HAVE READ OF 8 FREE ARTICLES THIS MONTH.
FOR JUST
YOU HAVE READ OF 8 FREE ARTICLES THIS MONTH.
FOR JUST
Welcome to Commentary Magazine.
We hope you enjoy your visit.
As a visitor, you are allowed 8 free articles.
This is your first article.
You have read of 8 free articles this month.
YOU HAVE READ 8 OF 8
FREE ARTICLES THIS MONTH.
for full access to
CommentaryMagazine.com
INCLUDES FULL ACCESS TO:
Digital subscriber?
Print subscriber? Get free access »
Call to subscribe: 1-800-829-6270
You can also subscribe
on your computer at
CommentaryMagazine.com.
LOG IN WITH YOUR
COMMENTARY MAGAZINE ID
Don't have a CommentaryMagazine.com log in?
CREATE A COMMENTARY
LOG IN ID
Enter you email address and password below. A confirmation email will be sent to the email address that you provide.