Hermenuetics

Comments

Sigh. Really. The leaps taken in these statements are at least as troubling as anything Sotormayor might have said.

Posted By: Christine A. Scheller | July 10, 2009 7:36 PM

Okay so we should ban abortion like Brazil and Mexico. They just happen to be countries where abortion rates are 3-4 times HIGHER than in the U.S. Yeah that'll work.

Posted By: Paula | July 10, 2009 9:17 PM

Especially as Christians we should not be making statements like these. There is not anything that she has done to justify statements like "she has a radical pro-choice agenda". And if anything her record shows a decidedly non-activist stance. What I don't understand is that she is being criticized both for being activist and her vote in the New Haven case (where she was following the law and precedent). You can't be a activist judge and a constitutionalist at the same time, unless your definition of activist is "disagrees with my stance". Which is the definition that many conservatives really use.

Posted By: Adam S | July 10, 2009 9:54 PM

Wow! Sotomayor is an activist judge? We have a severe case here of inversion between true and false or black and white.

In the Ricci case Sotomayor was an appellant judge and the whole group of them decided that the lower court decision was right according to the current law. Appeals courts can only evaluate legality, and not decide that laws are wrong. There was no 'judicial activism' here.

Then the case went to the Supreme Court where judges can rule that laws are wrong because they violate the Constitution. By the slimest margin the right-wing Supreme Court ruled that that a law governing the decision was wrong without giving any constitutional basis. THIS IS JUDICIAL ACTIVISM.

Posted By: MonkeyBoy | July 11, 2009 6:08 AM

It's hard to understand what these groups hope to accomplish with such demonstrably incorrect statements.

One thing that makes these statements so pointless is that there IS actually reasonable criticism from conservative scholars about some of Judge Sotomayor's decisions. See the law profs who blog at the Volokh Conspiracy for example. (I disagree with the conservative criticism, but that doesn't mean the criticism is unreasonable.) But these statements reported here are just completely divorced from reality and offer no substance at all.

Why only voices from the right wing of the Evangelical movement here? Surely there are other prominent evangelicals with differing views?

Posted By: Christian Lawyer | July 11, 2009 7:19 PM

No one is frightened by her statement that she has "never thought about" whether an unborn human being has rights? Either she is a liar, or she is completely ignorant regarding a matter of grave, indeed first, importance. Both should disqualify her from such a high and important decision-making position.

Posted By: M | July 13, 2009 6:29 PM

Yes, that "never thought of it" definitely worries me. I mean this woman went to how many expensive colleges on the taxpayer money, "learned" law, is recommended by Obama, and has never thought of the hottest issue for the last how many years. Maybe the problem is what she learned while I was paying for all of my college while working at two jobs, doing my homework, raising kiddies and while doing all this keeping up on current events. When everything is handed to you free, why pay attention to current events when you figure everything else will also be handed to you free like a position on the Supreme Court when you haven't thought about possibly the hottest issue ever. That's taxpayer money being paid back for you.

Posted By: original Anna | July 13, 2009 7:32 PM

I cannot believe that Sotomayor has truly never considered the question of the unborn child having rights or not. Regardless of her conclusions, what she learned in law school or any other school, what opinions/beliefs that have influenced her, what discussions relevant to the question that she has or has not engaged in, she cannot have arrived at her present place in life without that issue having come up for consideration. From that standpoint alone, I would be hesitant to vote for her confirmation, were I a senator, for if I cannot trust her to truthfully answer one simple question, one must question the veracity of other answers, as well as the quality of her character and her ability to properly carry out the responsibilities of a Supreme Court justice.

Posted By: marjie | July 13, 2009 9:44 PM

To M and original Anna -- Depending on how Sen. DeMint asked the question, it could very well be that she had never thought about the "rights of the unborn child" since that's not how the question would come into court. The legal questions about abortion are mostly presented as whether and how far a state can go in forbidding or regulating abortion and whether a woman has a right to procure an abortion. She certainly didn't say she had never thought about the legal question of abortion. It's not fair to read that into her answer.

To original Anna -- to say that Judge Sotomayor got "everything for free" and went to school "on the taxpayer money" just doesn't come close to the truth of her life. She earned, by her hard work and study (she was valedictorian at her parochial high school), full scholarships to both Princeton and, after graduating Princeton summa cum laude, to Yale Law School. That's not taxpayer money and in any event was hardly "for free."

Posted By: Christian Lawyer | July 13, 2009 10:59 PM

Her Mother worked two jobs and parochial school lets a % of kids in who can't pay, as these schools are Christian and are supposed to educate and give opportunity to the poor. Full scholarships had to come from some place if not the taxpayer. My point is I got my six years of college by paying for it myself at much denial to myself and family and none of it was at the most expensive colleges there are. And it is much easier getting high marks when you aren't working and worrying about expenses, believe me. And, yet I sure have given much thought, much thought to abortion and many other issues, whether from a personal viewpoint or a law viewpoint while living my life. And,the reason why I had to pay was because I wasn't eligible for the grants being offered back than. Now the poor have no reason not to go to college because there are piles of money for them, both taxpayer money and private money. I just finished watching tv and the lady did say she hadn't given thought to when a woman's right to abort should be allowed and that the law is set. I say no law is set when enough politicians actually want the law changed. Where are the politicians who have enough passion and guts to stand up for what they believe, unless what they believe is abort, kill, whatever keeps me in office, and if that's the case with the politicians and judges we have in office now, this country is in real moral trouble. These Supreme Court judges should not be appointed, they should be elected by the people or at least limited in time served and not for life. They start thinking they are God instead of looking at reality. Justice is supposed to be blind not one sided which abortion is, totally one sided.

Posted By: Original Anna | July 15, 2009 10:56 PM

Original Anna, it is unlikely that you really paid the full price of your education either since most schools have endowments that pay for as much as half the cost of even full price tuition. And most likely a full scholarship came from the endowments, not taxpayer money. And Christians schools that educate poor students would seem to be a great use of funds, both to bring about stronger communities and educate people in the faith. I would think that is a good things. As is someone actually working hard and moving from poverty to a very successful job in public service. Why is it that you are complaining about that?

Posted By: Adam S | July 16, 2009 12:19 PM