I wonder if she will be sitting at the table with just a glass of water, without notes or anything schooling the Senators like John Roberts did during his hearings. No notes, no aides, no pens or anything. Reciting dissenting opinions from obscure cases all the way back to the 1850's. Whether you agree with his views or not, the intellect he showed at his confirmation hearings was impressive.
So what's the point of this comparison? When Sotomayor has some notes in front of her we can dismiss her as inferior/unqualified?
No, you can just assume that John Roberts has the most brilliant legal mind in the world. Sotomayor or anyone else sitting on the Supreme Court are not even comparable.
Lawrence Tribe liberal Harvard Law Professor, from your side of the aisle, would agree with my statement. May loathe him for being a conservative, but cannot deny his brilliance.
Sotomayor may well have notes on the 2 firefighters who will testify. Dems have been digging up any dirt they can on the 2 ..... excuse me, Opposition research.
so matt, the point of your post entitled "Sonia Sotomayor" is that John Roberts is brilliant? wonderful.
I'm not sure what "Brilliant Legal Mind" means, but here it sounds like it is meant to describe "someone in the legal profession with a really good memory." So are we to assume that Clinton had the most "Brilliant Presidential Mind" in history?... And that W had the most "Retarded Presidential Mind" in history based on memory? Clinton made a whole hell of a lot of decisions that would not be described as "brilliant", but he could discuss virtually any topic at length like a professor in that field. W didn't use note (like Roberts), but he couldn't discuss anything. They both made plenty of mistakes. I'm personally a fan of intelligence. I think that in this past election Hillary was the most intelligent candidate out of the top 10 on each side of the aisle. I think that Obama is definitely in the top half of all time presidents (though I have no way of evaluating this). I believe that Scalia and/or Kennedy (can't remember which) has a "brilliant legal mind" (which I would see more as shaping an argument rather than pure memory), but whichever one I don't care for I don't have to respect at all. I can which heart disease and high blood pressure on him and never have to respect him ever. Yeah Roberts has a good memory. Good for him!
"Does the method of interpretation focus on a judge's personal sentiment, or on some external principle? -------------------------------------------------------------------------- I would guess that Roberts, Alito, & Scalia use both. Don't you?
do you believe that Justices should only use law or legal reasoning that's old? Why is old legal reasoning better than new legal reasoning? _________________________________________________ well, although most courts in the past reached conclusions they wanted through stretching the law of prior decisions and dissents, it may have been wrong at times and agenda driven but it was based on intelligent reasoning and analysis. some of the courts today go so far, they do not have a rational basis for reaching their conclusions and therefore, simply render a decision with no analysis because there is no basis in law or facts for their decision, that is the problem. but if you like this new form of legal reasoning, i think it is simply another example of the dumbing down of america.
Plessy v. Ferguson was a 7 to 1 vote. I doubt its authors considered their decision to be unsupported by existing case law or the requirements of the Constitution. There are lots of tough cases in which the Constitution must be interpreted and the social inclinations of the deciders (thank you, GWB) will inevitably have an impact on that interpretation. IMHO, "empathy" does not have to be mutually exclusive from an appreciation and fair application of existing law -- it is just the factor that causes judges faced with interpreting the law in a tough case to chose the Brown v. Board of Education route over the Plessy v. Ferguson route -- to make the decision that is more consistent with the secular principles upon which the nation was founded ("all men are created equal" etc.).
Couldn't you have condensed Robert's judicial record into a volume about the size of the your average Cliff's Note summary? Sotomayor's record is considerably more volumous than Robert's.
"Does anyone really believe this woman is the very best person in this country right now for this job? Pretty easy answer really, but it appears once again it is a political move rather than one that is best for the country." Great, turned this into a Sarah Palin thread.
