Sonia Sotomayor, Strict Constructionist In The Mold Of Scalia
July 19th, 2009 . by glendeanObviously, Sonia Sotomayor should be enthusiastically confirmed. Just take a look at some of the things she said last week.
“I do not believe that foreign law should be used to determine the result under constitutional law or American law.”
Asked whether the Constitution is a living, breathing document, she replied it is “immutable” but for amendments. “It doesn’t live other than to be timeless,” she said.
“It is very clear that I don’t base my judgment on my personal experiences.”
I am so relieved, and I thought that Obama would appoint a left-winger. Thank goodness, we ended up with Bork jr.
So you think she was misleading? You think she was just trying to get confirmed? Oh, don’t be so cynical. I mean, with 60 Democrat votes in the Senate, and the country firmly in support of liberal judicial activism, why would she feel the need to mislead? I mean, surely the country agrees with her past statements. Surely.
Bork? He hated the 2nd amendment.
Or, as Jeffrey Toobin notes:
There’s some judicial activism for ya.
.
JP:
It’s only “activism” when it advances liberal causes. When you have an activist ruling that, say, emasculates a key provision of the Civil Rights Act, that’s not activism, that’s conservative jurisprudence at its finest!
So if a justice votes to overturn Kelo v. London, he’s a judicial activist? How about Plessy? You guys are a trip. You redefine judicial activism as overturning precedent. Unbelievable. Well actually, with you all it is quite believable.
Judicial activism is defined by conservatives as judges interfering with the job of the legislature by overturning legislatively-enacted laws. When judges overturn laws, they’re “legislating from the bench” and “making law.” Ergo, overturning something the legislature enacted is “activist” jurisprudence. Unless, of course, it’s a law that conservatives don’t like, in which case that’s okay.
I’ve seen no consistent, intellectually honest definition of “judicial activism” that, when fairly applied, wouldn’t classify Brown v. Board of Education as an “activist” ruling.