Sotomayor Flip-Flops Again During Nomination Proceeding, Says Court Isn’t Where Policy Is Made

Proof • July 16, 2009

Yesterday during her second day of nomination hearings Sonia Sotomayor attempted to repudiate her now-infamous “wise Latina” comments by suggesting that she doesn’t actually believe that race gives anyone a leg-up in sound judicial rulings. Which obviously runs contrary to what she had previously said.
Today Sotomayor has been caught in a bit of a flip-flop again. Judge Sotomayor claimed during during questioning that she doesn’t believe policy is made from the bench. Senator Tom Coburn reminded her that she didn’t always feel that way:

JUDGE SONIA SOTOMAYOR: “We don’t make policy choices in the court. We look at the case before us with the interests that are argued by the parties, look at our precedent, and try to apply its principles to the arguments parties are raising.”
SEN. TOM COBURN (R-OK): “I’m reminded of one of your quotes that says you do make policy.”

Senator Coburn, of course, was referring to her 2005 line where she Judge Sotomayor said the “Court of Appeals is where policy is made”
State Senator Joe Miller, who serves on the North Dakota Judicial Confirmation Hearing steering committee, noted to me that Sotomayor’s inconsistencies are troubling: “We went into this hearing with questions about Judge Sotomayor, and it turns out we may end it with even more questions. Clearly, there have been several inconsistencies, and that is concerning.”
We can agree or disagree about whether or not Sotomayor is fit for the court, but shouldn’t we all at least expect that she be honest?

Tags: Asshats, Domestic Issues, Politics

http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ proof_positive

I was completely disgusted by Judge Sotomayor’s testimony today. If she was not perjuring herself, she is intellectually unqualified to be on the Supreme Court. If she was perjuring herself, she is morally unqualified. How could someone who has been on the bench for seventeen years possibly believe that judging in hard cases involves no more than applying the law to the facts? …

Perhaps Justice Sotomayor should be excused because our official ideology about judging is so degraded that she would sacrifice a position on the Supreme Court if she told the truth. Legal academics who defend what she did today have no such excuse. They should be ashamed of themselves.

-Georgetown (liberal) law professor Mike Seidman
Lioncourt

Policy is clearly made from the bench.

When Miranda was decided there was not law that said prisoners must be read their rights, the Court created that policy.

The state having to appoint counsel for indigent defendants is policy.

Telling the state that they must discard all illegally obtained evidence is a policy.

The question is not whether they make policy but whether that policy is rooted in the law and not made out of whole cloth.
Bat One

Policy is clearly made from the bench.

Lioncourt,

Of course you’re right. All judicial decisions have consequences beyond any precedential value.

But that kinda begs the question: Is judge Sotomayor lying, is she simply too ignorant to understand what she’s saying, or is she pandering by saying what she assumes those on the Senate panel want her to say?
Lioncourt

The question is should it be made from the bench.

The court has to give guidance in how to interpret the laws. And in doing so they make policy. It is the only way it works.

The laws are never written clear enough to apply to every situation.

My guess is you’re ok with it as long as it’s liberal policy.

Miranda and Gideon may have been liberal decisions, but they were also right.
Lioncourt

Is judge Sotomayor lying, is she simply too ignorant to understand what she’s saying, or is she pandering by saying what she assumes those on the Senate panel want her to say?

She is pandering because that is what is required to be confirmed.

Roberts pandered also.
robert108

The question is not whether they make policy but whether that policy is rooted in the law and not made out of whole cloth.

Wrong! The Court is supposed to interpret in light of the Constitution, and then policy is adjusted to fit that interpretation. Roe v Wade was not in that mold, as a fictitious “right” was manufactured to approve wholesale abortion.
http://www.thedailyslant.com/ Hairy Polemic

It is made from the bench, sure. The question is should it be made from the bench.

My guess is you’re ok with it as long as it’s liberal policy.

The biggest proponents of 4th and 5th Amendment rights policy have been “conservative” judges Scalia and Thomas. Just saying. It’s not all so cut and dry on a nice neat left-right scale.
Lioncourt

The biggest proponents of 4th and 5th Amendment rights policy have been “conservative” judges Scalia and Thomas.

I don’t know if I would go that far, but they did concur in Arizona v. Grant.
Bat One

Roberts pandered also.

Really?

So which of Roberts’ pandering answers were in direct contravention of statements he had made earlier in his career?
Lioncourt

So which of Roberts’ pandering answers were in direct contravention of statements he had made earlier in his career?

Solicitor General Griswold devotes a section to the so-called right to privacy; acquiring, as we have — that such an amorphous arguing, as we have, that such an amorphous right was not to be found in the Constitution.

At his confirmation:

Senator, I do. The right to privacy is protected under the Constitution in various ways.
JMT

The only thing she seems to be consistent w/ in these hearings is showing her inconsistency.
http://insanereindeer.blogspot.com/ Kenny

Senator, I do. The right to privacy is protected under the Constitution in various ways.

Yet, a quick search of his legal opinions shows that he does believe in a right to privacy. And he has ruled on it multiple times in the past.

Try again Lioncourt.
Lioncourt

Yet, a quick search of his legal opinions shows that he does believe in a right to privacy. And he has ruled on it multiple times in the past.

Which ones? He joined the dissent in Arizona v. Grant.
http://www.rabidamerican.net/ Rabid American

LIAR!
Lioncourt

Yet, a quick search of his legal opinions shows that he does believe in a right to privacy. And he has ruled on it multiple times in the past.

I keep searching and can’t find them, Samson v. California, Hudson v. Michigan …
http://sayanythingblog.com robport

It is made from the bench, sure. The question is should it be made from the bench.

My guess is you’re ok with it as long as it’s liberal policy.

SayAnythingBlog.com

Sotomayor Flip-Flops Again During Nomination Proceeding, Says Court Isn’t Where Policy Is Made

Create a SAB Readerblog

Recent Comments