• Andrew Ramonas
    Lobbying Reporter
  • Beth Frerking
    Editor in Chief
  • David Brown
    Vice President/Editor, ALM
  • Diego Radzinschi
    Photo Editor
  • Jenna Greene
    Senior Reporter
  • Marcia Coyle
    Chief Washington Correspondent
  • Mike Scarcella
    Washington Bureau Chief
  • Todd Ruger
    Capitol Hill Reporter
  • Tony Mauro
    Supreme Court Correspondent
  • Zoe Tillman
    D.C. Courts Reporter

« Court Rejects Exclusive Cable Contracts for Apartments | Main | ABA Review of Judge Sotomayor is Underway »

May 26, 2009


David Sizemore

To be sure, Judge Sotomayor has qualities and life experiences that enhance her qualifications for the Supreme Court. She will be confirmed- the only question is by what margin.

But Obama has it part wrong to emphasize empathy and life experience over other crucial skills. Every Judge has had an outside life and race, creed, and color should not be an issue affording more weight than the simple trait of the possession of horse sense to be able to see both the forest and the trees.

Judges on the Supreme Court must adhere to the blindfolded lady: Justice is blind in the determination of what the law is. We cannot and will not be well served if the application of the Constitution or any other Statute is applied in one way for one category and in another way for some other category.

We hope that the hearings explore her key abilities and keep a high tone. All American's must keep in mind the role of the Senate, most assuredly including the Republican members, and not persist in pointless rancor and rhetoric about the process. That perfect Justice has never been born and never will. A thorough examination of some of her off the cuff comments and other possible shortcomings gives all the chance to feel good about the appointment and improve the public's perception about the justice system in this country.


Bob4232. Of course the law is to be applied within the Constitution as meant by the Founders. However, we have only men (and women) to decide what the Founders meant. And, even the Founders did not all agree. You and I might -- or might not -- agree as to the meaning intended with respect to any given issue. That is why we have judges. Were the constitution so clear that it required no interpretation, there would be no need for judges -- or lawyers. So, while what you say is technically correct, there is nothing profound about what you say at all.


Yes, this woman deserves a lot of credit for the achivements she has scored in her life. Not doubt about it that when it comes to issues derived from statutes or the common law that a capacity for empathy is needed.

But when the issue before the Court is derived directly from the Constitution as in issues of interest between Federal vs State jurisdiction or concerning the limited and enumberated powers of Congress as spelled out in ART. 1, Sect. 8 the law to be applied should be only be the meaning that the Founders had in mind as a basis for the Court's decisions.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad