[good judges] respect the rule of law & [believe] that its enforcement should be blind, rather than actively promoting a person’s personal policy preferences.
Matt made a particularly good point, generally, about the divide between liberals & conservatives regarding the role of the judiciary:
I hate that applying the law impartially, without respect for outcomes, is seen as ultraconservative. Shouldn’t that actually be considered a moderate approach?
This is something where I don’t believe there will ever be reconciliation between conservatives and libs–judicial interpretation.
To which I responded:
Liberals see the courts as a way to advance their agenda–as a great ex post facto leveler & righter of (perceived) wrongs. They view the court as a way of equalizing everyone rather than as everyone being equal before the court.
- In addition to filling racial and gender quotas herself, she rules in favor of them. (h/t Dan K.)
- Like Obama, she believes “empathy” is more important in judicial rulings than blind or impartial application of the law.
- Finally, we know that she believes that courts should make policy. Per John Fund, in today’s Political Diary (h/t Scott L.):
The leading piece of evidence against her is a statement made at a conference at Duke University Law School in 2005, in which she said, “The court of appeals is where policy is made.”
Way too soft on Sotomayor. Regardless of [her] political views or decisions from the bench, she is incredibly incompetent and unqualified.
- Is the judge a liberal activist?
- Does the judge fit our racialist view of America? (how many boxes can we tick by nominating him or (preferably) her?)
If you have tips, questions, comments, or suggestions, email me at email@example.com.