About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Fox News misrepresents Sotomayor, Obama quotes to stir controversy

July 13, 2009 9:37 am ET

Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.

EMBED

SUMMARY: Fox News' special about Judge Sonia Sotomayor misrepresented Sotomayor's quote that "the Court of Appeals is where policy is made" to claim that she "apparently confess[ed]" to "legislating from the bench." The special also misrepresented President Obama's quote about "empathy."

30 Comments

During Fox News' July 12 special, Fox News Reporting: Judging Sotomayor, co-host Bret Baier aired a cropped clip of Judge Sonia Sotomayor's 2005 statement that "the Court of Appeals is where policy is made" to claim that she "apparently confess[ed]" to "legislating from the bench." In fact, the context of Sotomayor's comments makes clear she was simply explaining the difference between district and appeals courts after being asked to contrast the experiences in clerkships at the two levels. Moreover, Sotomayor's comments are in line with federal appellate courts' "policy making" role, as described by the Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States (2005) and explained by numerous legal experts.

Indeed, University of Texas-Austin law professor Frank B. Cross has written that "[t]he circuit courts play by far the greatest legal policymaking role in the United States judicial system." According to Jonathan Adler, a professor at Case Western Reserve University School of Law, Sotomayor's 2005 remark "seems to be nothing more than an observation that, as a practical matter, many policy disputes are resolved in the federal courts of appeals. This is an indisputably true observation." Adler has been honored by the Federalist Society, advised the Cato Supreme Court Review, and strongly supported the nominations of Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito. Other legal experts have similarly stated that Sotomayor's comment is not controversial, as The Huffington Post and PolitiFact.com have noted.

Baier also aired a cropped clip of President Obama's May 1 statement that he views "empathy" as "an essential ingredient for arriving at just decisions and outcomes" before airing video of The National Journal's Stuart Taylor asserting that "[t]he empathy line of argument may suggest to some, well, not really; we'll do better justice to the poor than to the rich. And so, that's why it's troublesome, I think." Baier later stated, "[T]hat is the issue. Would a Justice Sotomayor, in the name of empathy, see fit to place her thumb on the scales of justice from time to time?" But Baier ignored the statement Obama made immediately following the one he aired, in which Obama said: "I will seek somebody who is dedicated to the rule of law, who honors our constitutional traditions, who respects the integrity of the judicial process and the appropriate limits of the judicial role."

Further, as Democratic strategist Kirsten Powers noted later during the special while discussing Sotomayor's "wise Latina" comments, during their confirmation hearings, Justices Clarence Thomas and Alito each acknowledged the significant impact their background and personal experiences have had on their judicial thinking. Alito asserted during his 2006 confirmation hearing: "When I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or because of gender. And I do take that into account." During Thomas' confirmation hearing, Sen. Herb Kohl (D-WI) asked, "I'd like to ask you why you want this job?" Thomas replied in part: "I believe, Senator, that I can make a contribution, that I can bring something different to the Court, that I can walk in the shoes of the people who are affected by what the Court does."

Additionally, numerous Republicans -- including former Sens. Strom Thurmond (SC), Al D'Amato (NY), and Mike DeWine (OH) -- have previously praised compassion as a judicial attribute and highlighted the importance of the personal experiences of judicial nominees.

From Fox News' July 12 special, Fox News Reporting: Judging Sotomayor:

[begin video clip]

BAIER: In a 2005 speech at Duke, Sotomayor also ridiculed the notion that the role of the judge is simply to interpret the law.

SOTOMAYOR: Court of appeals is where policy is made -- and I know, and I know this is on tape and I should never say that, because we don't make law, I know.

BAIER: Conservatives have long accused liberal judges of legislating from the bench, but they rarely if ever hear one of those judges apparently confess to it. Some of her critics on the right think Sotomayor's speeches at Duke, Berkeley, and elsewhere, should disqualify her from the Supreme Court. At the same time, some of her supporters on the left think Sotomayor just tells it like it is.

Either way, it is Sotomayor's speeches and her activism, more than her legal rulings, that seem to project most forcefully a characteristic President Obama says he prizes in traditional appointees: empathy.

OBAMA: I view that quality of empathy, of understanding and identifying with people's hopes and struggles, as an essential ingredient for arriving at just decisions and outcomes.

BAIER: That's a troublesome approach to judging that should give Americans pause, says Stuart Taylor, a respected legal commentator from National Journal magazine.

TAYLOR: They take an oath that they will apply the law equally, do equal right to the rich and to the poor. The empathy line of argument may suggest to some, well, not really; we'll do better justice to the poor than to the rich. And so, that's why it's troublesome, I think.

BAIER: Right. A big corporation comes in, in a case, and if the judge is seen as empathetic, it's not often that the big corporation is the receiver of the empathy.

TAYLOR: Yeah. That's right. And sometimes, the big corporation is right. Empathy shades into favoritism. It has been taken by a lot of people as meaning that the finger is on the scales a little bit.

[end video clip]

BAIER: And, Megyn, that is the issue. Would a Justice Sotomayor, in the name of empathy, see fit to place her thumb on the scales of justice from time to time?

MEGYN KELLY (co-host): Yeah. And that is exactly what the Senate Judiciary Committee will be looking into during these confirmation hearings that begin tomorrow, hearings that in the past few decades have been plagued with controversy. That's next on Fox News Reporting.

[...]

BAIER: Clearly, one of the first questions in these hearings to Judge Sotomayor is going to be about a certain quote, part of a speech she gave back in 2001, and she's delivered it at least a half dozen other times. Some have called it a 32-word issue for her, quote: "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

Question to the panel: How do you expect her to explain this tomorrow, and will that answer really be a barometer for how these hearings go? Charles.

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER (Fox News contributor): Well, I think it's going to be the toughest issue for her because she used the word "better." She's going to try to explain it as she was simply talking about how her rich experience, her ethnic past, the poverty of her childhood -- all of that -- enriches her life, and she has a better empathy, understanding of the law and of people's circumstances.

But she used the word "better," and that -- and there's no explaining that away. It means a superiority; and it is a reflection of the identity politics of liberals and Democrats in which there is sort of ethnic and racial groups are endowed with attributes of wisdom, and also spoils system that are not according to white males.

Now, that's going to be hard to explain. I think she will fudge it and successfully do so, but the fact is, it was not off the cuff. It was not a random statement. As you said, it was said over and over again. It's her core belief.

BAIER: Kirsten.

POWERS: I mean, I think it's true that it probably was her core belief, and maybe it still is 'cause she's recently said it, and I think it's sort of endemic of something that you see in liberal politics -- and I'm a liberal. And it's sort of -- she's almost a victim of her generation, I feel like, of her time; or this is a very common way of thinking. And I think that people of my generation maybe have gotten a little bit away from it. And so, it's even offensive to people like me to hear things like that, but people in her generation don't think so.

And I think Charles is right. She's going to fudge it. She's going to just say, "Look. I misspoke, or I meant to say that, you know, we all gain from our experience. Look at Clarence Thomas. In his hearings, he talked about, you know, his upbringing, the poverty. With Alito, they discussed his blue collar background and how that informs it, and we all are a product of those experiences and, ultimately, you have to look at my record."

And that's what I would tell her to do. I would say, "Please just look at my record." And in analysis of cases dealing with discrimination cases, it was found that she and the panel, out of 96 cases, they rejected the claim of discrimination in 78 of the -- in 78 of them. So, her -- if you can just redirect it to her rulings, I think that will work better for her.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by pointofview (July 13, 2009 9:58 am ET)
        9
      Ok...if she was not confessing to it, than what was she doing. And second, if, as MMFA claims, she was not confessing to anything wrong or bad, than why not just defend the confession outright?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by captfoster2 (July 13, 2009 10:23 am ET)
        5  
        Tell ya what POV,

        You come up with even one court case that Sotomayer 'legislated' from the bench and I will ask... scratch that... demand that each and every one of us posters (that know me well enough) here at MMfA to stop giving you the well deserved crap we give you from now on, no matter the kind of post you give.

        FYI: It won't happen... why? Not because your lazy or unwilling... but because those kind of court cases...DON'T EXIST!

        Fox-Noise (and nearly all the rest of the corporate owned media) lies, distorts, and makes garbage up pulling it out from their backsides!
        Report Abuse
        • Author by pointofview (July 13, 2009 10:28 am ET)
          1 7
          You are totally ignoring my point. Why not simply defend what she said. If she thinks a latina would make a better judgment in a discrimination case then so be it.....but defend it.

          Dont give me this taken out of context crap, especially when her comment about making policy is ON TAPE. Why are you so afraid of her defending her own words?
          Report Abuse
          • Author by captfoster2 (July 13, 2009 10:44 am ET)
            4  
            POV,

            As long as she does not 'legislate' from the bench and uses precedent of law as part, if not for all her reasoning in making decisions or judgments... I for one can forgive her words that might grate on people.

            As for the 'making policy' comment caught on tape... again... I ask... find even one court case in which she used those words as motivation in deciding on any case?

            It's undeniable that she said it... but they are only words unless you can put past context in them?

            Find any and you do that, if not, then you are looking to create outrage where none is needed.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by pointofview (July 13, 2009 12:13 pm ET)
                2
              I don't disagree with you, in that I can also live with her comments that might grate on people. That still does not mean that it is not fair to ask her about them, and I still see a lot of back peddling and tying to have things both ways.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by magnolialover (July 13, 2009 12:32 pm ET)
                2  
                Nobody is backpedaling on her comments. Not Sotomayor for certain. Nobody is trying to "have it both ways." Well, republicans are, but not Sotomayor.
                Report Abuse
          • Author by garmarn1080 (July 13, 2009 10:53 am ET)
            1  
            POV:"Dont give me this taken out of context crap, especially when her comment about making policy is ON TAPE."

            That's nuts, and even you should know it.Whether it's on tape, in transcript or tattooed on your ass doesn't change the fact that it was taken out of context.

            Put this another way: If everything on tape is "X", and you remove part of "X" from the context of "X" (let's call what you remove and quote "Y"), X is STILL ON TAPE! But "Y" has been quoted out of context! Get the concept?

            Jeez.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by skiploader1111 (July 13, 2009 12:13 pm ET)
            3  
            Exactly. Her comment about policy is on tape. And so is the context which is what you want to avoid talking about. What did MMFA already do? Debunk it.

            http://mediamatters.org/research/200907130008

            Here's a quote from the MMFA article:

            Moreover, Sotomayor's comments are in line with federal appellate courts' "policy making" role, as described by the Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States (2005) and explained by numerous legal experts.



            Report Abuse
            • Author by pointofview (July 13, 2009 12:22 pm ET)
              1 2
              Just because others agree with her does not "debunk" anything. You are kidding right? You mean to tell me because there is a source that agrees with her, that no reasonable person can possible disagree?
              Report Abuse
              • Author by magnolialover (July 13, 2009 12:36 pm ET)
                1  
                Yeah, sources namely people who are experts within the field that we're talking about. So, their informed opinions seem to hold more sway than say, yours. Or mine. Or just about anyone on here.

                In case you forgot, the court system is in place to mete out justice for criminals, but it is also in place to determine if laws made by our Congress, and signed into law by our President are legal, and Constitutional, and hence, the reason why there are times throughout our history where the courts "legislate" from the bench. You may call it that, but I call it, striking down something that does not fit the mold of our Constitution. And just like that said same Constitution, the courts are fluid, and opinions change over time as to what the Constitution means, and how it applies to the laws being made by our Congress.

                It's called equal but separate branches of the government, and checks and balances. The courts are SUPPOSED to make policy at times, because at times, Congress gets it wrong.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by captfoster2 (July 13, 2009 12:45 pm ET)
                  3  
                  "You may call it that, but I call it, striking down something that does not fit the mold of our Constitution."

                  If only we can get a Supreme Court to consider that line of logic and rid us once and for all the more than illegal and never approved of precedent (except by rich wealthy scum over the years) of Santa Clara County v Southern Railroad
                  Report Abuse
                • Author by pointofview (July 13, 2009 12:46 pm ET)
                    1
                  So by your own statement, you agree with the Ricci case correct. The court read the experts views, and sided with the FFs.
                  Report Abuse
                • Author by garmarn1080 (July 13, 2009 1:03 pm ET)
                     
                  "The courts are SUPPOSED to make policy at times, because at times, Congress gets it wrong."

                  Actually, no. If the SC finds that Congress or the executive have erred, the SC is supposed to kick it back to the Congress so they (Congress) can get it right.

                  Unfortunately, both liberal courts and conservative courts have, in the past opted not to do that from time to time.
                  Report Abuse
                • Author by zevonsky72 (July 13, 2009 1:10 pm ET)
                    1
                  Most of the time, courts aren't ruling on whether a given law is constitutional so much as clarifying what the law means. Many laws are poorly drafted and incoherent, or don't clearly address the facts at hand. Faced with such circumstances, appellate courts have to make a judgment call based on principles of statutory construction, the intent of the law, and the facts of the case (which may in certain circumstances involve considerations of - EEK - empathy).
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by pongotwistleton (July 13, 2009 3:53 pm ET)
                    1 1
                    Good call. That's exactly what the Court did in Ricci. One provision of an anti-discrimination statute paradoxically permits race-based remedial discrimination under certain circumstances. This flew in the face of another provision that prohibited race-based discrimination. In an extremely well-reasoned opinion, the Court reconciled these two conflicting provisions so as to give effect to both.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by solon (July 15, 2009 6:07 am ET)
                         
                      A frankly delusional take on the Ricci case. Straight from the Limborg hivemind. The SC changed the law to add a NEW obligation to cities that feel vulnerable to a lawsuit because they dont think they can show a business necessity to their promotion tests. NOW, not before NOW, they have to show evidence that the plaintiff would have a good chance of winning said Title VII suit.
                      Report Abuse
              • Author by zevonsky72 (July 13, 2009 12:57 pm ET)
                2 1
                Look, there is absolutely nothing controversial about the policymaking role of the appellate courts. When they get conflicting interpretations of the law from the district courts, they have to make policy choices about how to resolve the dispute.

                There is this myth out there that the law is very easy to apply. Just pull out your "Here is what the law says and what you have to do" guide, and - PRESTO! - you have the right answer. But those aren't the kind of cases that get to the appellate courts. The ones which reach the appellate courts are ones like, "What does 'reasonable' mean in this context?" or "which of these mutually conflicting statutory provisions should prevail?" or "what should the court do in the absence of relevant law or precedent on the matter?" Those aren't easily resolved, and reasonable people can disagree. That's when appellate courts step in and make what are essentially policy determinations.

                There's no news here. That's the essence of our common law system, and courts have been making policy for hundreds of years.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by SMTDL (July 13, 2009 1:14 pm ET)
                  1  
                  Good Comment!!!Another made up controversy for disagreement with results,decisions or outcomes that gets used to smear and attack.Why is no one talking about the Alito/Roberts reversals at The SCOTUS..were they legislating from the bench too?? Ohhhhh... Of course not ..they're conservatives!!!
                  Report Abuse
                • Author by skiploader1111 (July 13, 2009 1:45 pm ET)
                     
                  I just want to add something else.
                  What are the purposes of the three branches of government?

                  1. Legislative Branch: To write laws.

                  2. Executive Branch: To enforce laws.

                  3. Judicial Branch: To interpret laws.

                  Making policy, in no way interferes with the writing of laws. It is right there in the word, "INTERPRET"

                  It means to tell the meaning and explain and to help understand. They are supposed to tell us how the law should be applied and doesn't change what the law is.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by skiploader1111 (July 13, 2009 1:53 pm ET)
                    1  
                    Right here on the U.S. Federal Government website it says that, "Courts decide arguments about the meaning of laws and how they are applied." If that's not making policy, I don't know what is?
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by skiploader1111 (July 13, 2009 1:54 pm ET)
                      1  
                      I forgot to include the website.

                      http://www.usa.gov/Agencies/federal.shtml
                      Report Abuse
                    • Author by zevonsky72 (July 13, 2009 2:41 pm ET)
                         
                      Thanks, skiploader. What baffles me about conservatives is that, for all their professed love for their country, they actually have contempt for the legal system we inherited from England. They seem to believe that courts should act as a rubber stamp for Congress, and that when the law isn't clear, it should defer to Congress and ask it to pass a new law.

                      But that's the Napoleonic system used in Europe, not our system. Under common law, courts frequently make laws, not just interpret statutes. Where do conservatives think we got contract and property law from? It turns out much of it comes from Elizabethan-era English courts, not legislative bodies. Did they legislate from the bench? You're darned right they did - and those laws stand today largely unchanged.

                      This whole thing about "legislating from the bench" is simply ridiculous. We hear a lot of huffing and puffing about supposed activist judges - even from otherwise credible conservatives - but no one ever shows their cards. And when they do point out what they claim is activism, such as Sotomayor's ruling on the Second Amendment or in Ricci, it usually turns out that the court was merely applying precedent that conservatives don't like - hardly the hallmark of activism.
                      Report Abuse
              • Author by solon (July 14, 2009 12:33 am ET)
                   
                It is plain FACT. It is axiomatic that some legal decisions make policy. The fact you think YOU ought to REDEFINE the role of the court is just a delusion you have and has nothing to do with, you know, REALITY.
                Report Abuse
          • Author by blueline99 (July 13, 2009 6:43 pm ET)
            1  
            pointofview

            In the most recent Supreme Court decision regarding Ricci and the firefighters, the Supreme Court created new guidelines for the legislation... it didn't make any headlines because it was the conservative judges who made the new legislation.

            The fact of the matter is that the appellate courts and the Supreme Court legislate in the real world... that is why Judge Sotomayor made the "I know, I know, we don't legislate" comments because she wanted to recognize the intended role of the courts but was commenting on the real world role of the courts.

            As far as her "wise Latina" comment, you have to read the entire speech before you say that. If you read the entire speech and then think her comment really meant that she thought she was inherently smarter than a white man... then so be it, but I doubt that you will.
            Report Abuse
      • Author by smarshall1432997 (July 13, 2009 2:52 pm ET)
        1  
        POV, you will hear the answers to these Republicans' and FoxNews Channel's misrepresentations of what Judge Sotomayor statements were "all" about very soon. FoxNews Channel and Republicans lie, misquote, crop-out, and make-up false arguments about anyone that are "NOT" Republican/Conservative/Neo-Conservative so they will have opposing arguments on radio and tv airwaves.

        Oh, and you may want to watch Judge Sotomayor on CNN, CSPAN, or MSNBC not the 'tabloid newschannel' FoxNews Channel. Just a little fyi...LOL
        Report Abuse
        • Author by zevonsky72 (July 13, 2009 3:44 pm ET)
          1  
          It's bad enough when a news organization is biased against a particular political party or mainstream point of view.

          It's even worse when they crop quotes and blatantly distort facts to fit that bias. A therein lies the reason why Fox gets such high ratings. 70% of its audience are true-believers who are afraid they will be brainwashed if they turn the dial. The other 30% watch Fox the way most of us slow down while passing a traffic accident on the freeway - it's ugly, but it's fascinating.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by smarshall1432997 (July 13, 2009 6:21 pm ET)
            1  
            FoxNews Channel is the 'tabloid newschannel' that entertains it's audience from a bias, Republican/Right-Winged/Conservative/Neo-Conservative way 24/7. Remember how Glenn Beck cried to get noticed when he joined FoxNews Channel earlier in the year? Glenn Beck's crying spell was just laughable entertainment over at the 'tabloid newschannel' known as FoxNews Channel. Too funny indeed.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by EZ4you2say (July 14, 2009 2:39 pm ET)
                1
              Wow!
              27 comments and nobody blamed anything on Limbaugh!
              Amazing.....A new MMA record
              Report Abuse
              • Author by solon (July 14, 2009 3:51 pm ET)
                   
                28 comments and only one dumb trollpost snivelling that the bloviators that do the thinking for so many on the right are being held accountable. Not bad.
                Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.