(no subject)
I happen to be in front of the TV while there is coverage of the Supreme Court nomination hearings. I just saw Senator Grassley make comments about what a "good judge" does and how the "empathy" statements bothered him, because he feels that is contrary to what a good judge does ... and since I can't be there to knock some sense into him, I feel compelled to rant here.
The Republicans are painting themselves as the party of "rule of law" and I think it's unfortunate that the Democrats are falling into the trap by letting themselves be portrayed as *not* supporting the rule of law. There is nothing contradictory between "empathy" and the qualities that Grassley thinks makes a "good judge": applying the law as written and not as the judge wishes it were written.
I see "experience" and "empathy" being important from two directions:
(1) Even if you apply the law exactly as written, without applying any prejudice to the *law*, you need to understand the *parties* in the case in order to apply the law (as written!) to their situation! If the law says "the person should not be subjected to undue hardship" ... what stops a rich priviledged judge from saying "There was no hardship; they should have gotten their butler to drive them!" If the judge doesn't understand the person's situation, they cannot apply the rule of law accurately to that person.
(2) It is ludicrous to assume that the law is so clear that a judge is not required to interpret (or, even, as Senator Kyl just said, with distaste, "to go with his gut"). The recent case in Britain of whether Pringles qualifies as a "potato chip" (for purposes of taxes and trade) shows this. If the most mundane words like "potato chip" are not without ambiguity, how can we expect any less mundane laws to not require interpretation by judges?
I think the Democrats should be arguing that comments on "empathy" and "experience" are in no way contradictary with the Republican's desire for "rule of law" or for judges to "follow" the law and not "make" it. I think it's dangerous to argue the other way.
(Also, given her judicial record, it's surprising that Republicans would vote against her. I can't imagine a Democrat appointing a judge any more perfect for the right than Sotomayor, just looking at her record. Her experience as Assistant DA prosecuting criminals and her experience in private practice as a commercial litigator fighting for corportations are exactly the sides you associate with Republicans -- would they rather that Obama nominated someone who was entirely a fighter for unions and social justice causes?)
(Wow, Senator Graham was more cogent than I expected. I guess I'm pretty ignorant about him and just assumed that he'd embarrass my state, but I actually have a little more respect for him.)
----
Usono nun eniras la proceson por konfirmi (aŭ nei) nomumiton por vaka loko en la Suverena Kortumo. La debato estas nun polusigitaj [ĉu?] kaj jen miaj komentoj.
The Republicans are painting themselves as the party of "rule of law" and I think it's unfortunate that the Democrats are falling into the trap by letting themselves be portrayed as *not* supporting the rule of law. There is nothing contradictory between "empathy" and the qualities that Grassley thinks makes a "good judge": applying the law as written and not as the judge wishes it were written.
I see "experience" and "empathy" being important from two directions:
(1) Even if you apply the law exactly as written, without applying any prejudice to the *law*, you need to understand the *parties* in the case in order to apply the law (as written!) to their situation! If the law says "the person should not be subjected to undue hardship" ... what stops a rich priviledged judge from saying "There was no hardship; they should have gotten their butler to drive them!" If the judge doesn't understand the person's situation, they cannot apply the rule of law accurately to that person.
(2) It is ludicrous to assume that the law is so clear that a judge is not required to interpret (or, even, as Senator Kyl just said, with distaste, "to go with his gut"). The recent case in Britain of whether Pringles qualifies as a "potato chip" (for purposes of taxes and trade) shows this. If the most mundane words like "potato chip" are not without ambiguity, how can we expect any less mundane laws to not require interpretation by judges?
I think the Democrats should be arguing that comments on "empathy" and "experience" are in no way contradictary with the Republican's desire for "rule of law" or for judges to "follow" the law and not "make" it. I think it's dangerous to argue the other way.
(Also, given her judicial record, it's surprising that Republicans would vote against her. I can't imagine a Democrat appointing a judge any more perfect for the right than Sotomayor, just looking at her record. Her experience as Assistant DA prosecuting criminals and her experience in private practice as a commercial litigator fighting for corportations are exactly the sides you associate with Republicans -- would they rather that Obama nominated someone who was entirely a fighter for unions and social justice causes?)
(Wow, Senator Graham was more cogent than I expected. I guess I'm pretty ignorant about him and just assumed that he'd embarrass my state, but I actually have a little more respect for him.)
----
Usono nun eniras la proceson por konfirmi (aŭ nei) nomumiton por vaka loko en la Suverena Kortumo. La debato estas nun polusigitaj [ĉu?] kaj jen miaj komentoj.