Wash. Times prejudges Sotomayor
July 13, 2009 9:05 am ET by Media Matters staff
From a July 13 Washington Times editorial:
The Senate Judiciary Committee today opens hearings on the most radical Supreme Court nominee in memory. Despite her compelling story of personal accomplishment, Judge Sonia Sotomayor has proved by her own words and actions that she is unfit for the nation's highest court.
[...]
From top to bottom, this record is extremely troubling. In an interview with The Washington Times on Friday, Sen. Jeff Sessions, Alabama Republican, put it all into perspective:
"The thing that overrides all of this is the president's stated view that a judge should show empathy in deciding cases. That's not a legal standard. It's more politics than law, and [Judge Sotomayor's] speeches seem to go in that direction, perhaps even further so than the president. At the core of what we'll be talking about is whether or not this judge will be committed to objectivity and impartiality in the conduct of the office. I think it's a modern legal heresy that personal background and experiences can legitimately impact a decision of a court."
Mr. Sessions is as correct as correct can be. That's ample reason to defeat the nomination of this impressive woman, who is a demonstrably bad judge.
More radical than Thomas? Scalia? Bork?
I think she's not.
And she's also not demonstrably a bad jurist. What led them to that conclusion?
Using one's personal experiences, and empathy makes for a good jurist, always has, always will. You can have empathy, and also have objectivity, and respect for the law.
That said, the righties use of superlatives to describe political opponents has transformed them into cartoon characters in the Saturday morning kids show that is their party.
Surprising. Who would have thunk it?
Oh pot, this is kettle...actually no it isn't. She is 10 times the jurist that Sessions ever dreamed of being.