July 28, 2009

"I don’t believe that Judge Sotomayor has the deep-rooted convictions necessary to resist the siren call of judicial activism."

"She has evoked its mantra too often. As someone who cares deeply about our great heritage of law, I must withhold my consent."

Jeff Sessions, one of 6 Senators on the Judiciary Committee voting no, just now. But 13 Senators voted yes — all the Dems, plus Lindsey — so the smooth path to confirmation is as clear as it's always been.

16 comments:

traditionalguy said...

Sessions made a pretty good point man for setting up and beating down a strawman image. But only a southern conservative could see a strawman being beaten down on heroic principle in another "lost cause". Everybody else sees Republicans engaging in a useless rejection of our next moderate Justice for her daring to be an hispanic who serves us in a role other than our maid at the hotel.

Bissage said...

I think I might understand what Senator Sessions is trying to say here.

Judge Sotomayor would cut a road through the law to get after the Devil. And when the last law is down, and the Devil turns on her, where will she hide, the laws all being flat?

This country is planted with laws from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's. Once she cuts them down – and she’s just the woman to do it – does she really think she could stand upright in the wind that would blow?

So you see, Senator Sessions is trying to do Judge Sotomayor a big favor. He’s voting against her for her own safety's sake.

The guy’s a saint!

Alex said...

traditionalguy - speak for yourself. A sizable plurality of Americans oppose judicial activists like "wise Latina". SPIT>

Cedarford said...

all the Dems, plus Lindsey

That is because Lindsey is as treacherous as McCain, and equally well liked by his Republican colleagues.

===================
Traditional guy - "Everybody else sees Republicans engaging in a useless rejection of our next moderate Justice for her daring to be an hispanic who serves us in a role other than our maid at the hotel."

Right. Just as Obama, Hillary, Schumer, Feinstein, and the Old Libs "useless rejection" votes against Roberts and Alito showed they hated white Christians...

knox said...

This country is planted with laws from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's. Once she cuts them down – and she’s just the woman to do it – does she really think she could stand upright in the wind that would blow?

Bissage, well said. Sotomayor aside, this is a very good defense of Rule of Law. As my puny non-legal brain understands it, anyway.

traditionalguy said...

Alex...My point is that you can put Activist Tags on any strawman and go to town on it, but that doesn't make Sotomayor into an activist. We will see whose instincts are right in coming years. But she has always been unbeatable just because she has always been a boring centrist who looks for precedents to decide cases and not for new Constitutional ground to break.If you hate activists, then figure out how to elect Republicans to the House and Senate, in your state. When you start to do that, you may suddenly become aware of the hispanic vote that you now ignore in a futile attack on this Strawman.

Cedarford said...

Bissage - "Judge Sotomayor would cut a road through the law to get after the Devil. And when the last law is down, and the Devil turns on her, where will she hide, the laws all being flat?

This country is planted with laws from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's. Once she cuts them down – and she’s just the woman to do it – does she really think she could stand upright in the wind that would blow?"

I'd like more than just Sotomayor taking a stand against law, law planted from coast to coast with a new law or statute added every 5 minutes or so nationally. Law so voluminous, so complex, so stuffed with the fruits of corruption and favor that legislators cannot take time to read it anymore.

"The federal tax code with its 44000 pages, 5.5 million words, and 721 different forms is a patchwork maze of complexity and a testament to conflicting interests and corrupt earmarks inserted that actually put compliance out of reach of practicality. One section of code against the other .

Or, as Lavrenty Beria noted to Stalin, Soviet law had become so complex, thanks to the Bolsheviks, that everyone was in knowing or inadvertent violation of it. And that was good for Stalin. "Show me an enemy, Josef Vissarionovich, and I will find a law he violated.."

It is a fundamental change in America...we transitioned to the Talmudic and the law of special interests - from the law of the People, and swift and certain sort.

To endless due process from finality and conclusive findings. To quality of justice being a function of money or backing by an interest group.

Murder and several other class of serious felony trials that used to take 3-6 months to conclude following indictment now are out to 2-3 years. Some take 5 years or longer.
The delay in resolving lawsuits has gone from 2, to 6-8 years or longer. Some major highway, levee, dam, environmental cleanup projects have been tied up over 30 years by litigation.

When FDR wanted to stimulate the economy, 85% of the money he got from Congress went to "shovel-ready" infrastructure jobs that hired, bought material, broke ground within 6 months. Obama says perhaps 20% of his stimulus will be at work on actual projects in 2 years, given all the regulatory and legal hurdles..

Sotomayor is not the vehicle to begin the uproot of laws and work on ending the progressive ossification of America and growing ineffectiveness of once-excellent systems, economic centers.
She had a chance to mention chapters of the Civil Rights Act in fundamental conflict with one another, causing massive doubt and fear of noncompliance in various entities.........but instead Sotomayor punted.
Maybe she will help uproot other laws.
Personally, I think the problems and laws and regulations have grown so large and so entrenched it will take a 3rd American Revolution (Civil War was the 2nd) - to repair the country and make it work as the citizens want it to work.

Maguro said...

Do we really need a Supreme Court justice who doesn't know the difference between "imminent" and "eminent"?

hdhouse said...

I gotta laugh at this. If you (in)doctrine(ated) oafs are afraid of this woman can you possibly image what the cringe factor is every time Thomas and Scalia are mentioned? Then of course there is Harriet Myers....

holdfast said...

Me fail English? That's unpossible!

-Ralph Wiggins

Leland said...

I gotta laugh at this. If you (in)doctrine(ated) oafs are afraid of this woman can you possibly image what the cringe factor is every time Thomas and Scalia are mentioned?

Black and Italian judges make you cringe? Why is that?

mccullough said...

Who is a worse writer, Sotomayor or Souter?

MadisonMan said...

Why is this news?

downtownlad said...

Jeff Sessions is a racist.

Got that BOY.

Anne Marie said...

William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!

Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?

William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!

Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!

~Robert Bolt (A Man for All Seasons - 1966)

kentuckyliz said...

the Wise Latina is very friendly towards broad use of police powers. I'd love to hear her comment freely on Crowley/Gates. She'd probably give props to Crowley and dress down Gates in a way the POTUS is afraid to.