 |
          
  |
|
|
|
Stuart
Shephard, Focus on the Family’s resident wit, offers a
humorous illustration about why “impartiality” and not a misguided sense of
“empathy” should be the most important quality in a judge. Today’s episode of “Stoplight” shows why Chief
Justice Roberts’ philosophy of “impartial umpire” is preferable to Judge
Sotomayor’s “policy making appellate judge.”
Linda
Chavez explains what’s at state with the Sotomayor nomination. Excerpt:
Presidential elections have consequences --
and few are more important than the power to shape the federal judiciary. With
the selection of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to replace retiring Justice David Souter
on the U.S. Supreme Court, President Barack Obama has begun the process of
altering the federal courts.
Fox News reports
on this disturbing infringement on religious liberty. Normally, stories about the state clamping
down on “house churches” come from places like Communist China, not the United
States of America which is supposed to guarantee “free exercise of religion.” Chanel 10 San Diego also reports.
Matt
Barber explains. Excerpt:
This underscores the fact that all
hate-crimes laws, both state and federal, inarguably advance
"unequal" protection of the laws. This flies in the face of the 14th
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Cal
Thomas exposes the Left’s “biography” double standard when it comes to
judicial nominees. Excerpt:
If these humble beginnings mattered, as
they relate to Sotomayor's view of the Constitution, Clarence Thomas should
have sailed through his confirmation hearings instead of being subjected to
"a high-tech lynching," as he famously put it. Clarence Thomas also
came from humble beginnings (as did George W. Bush's Hispanic Attorney General
Alberto Gonzales), but biography matters only if you're a liberal. If you
evolve into a conservative, it is irrelevant, at least to the elites.
The
Heartland Instituted reports.
Excerpt:
South Carolina could become the latest
state to implement a tax credit scholarship program allowing low-income
children to attend the private school of their parents’ choice, if a bill
introduced during the spring session becomes law.
The
AP reports. Excerpt:
Sen. Richard Shelby said Friday the
government should have allowed the marketplace to decide General Motors' fate
and that the huge federal stake in the company puts Washington on "the road
to socialism."
Andrew
McCarthy explains what’s
at stake with the Sotomayor nomination.
Will we be a “nation of laws” in which all have a right to “equal
justice under law” or will become a nation where unelected judges dictate
policy regardless of the plain meaning of our Constitution? Excerpt:
Obama and the lawyers in his administration
are fond of invoking the rule of law. Yet that golden standard stands on the
conceit, honored more in the breach than in the observance, that “we are a
nation of laws, not of men.” It holds that there is an objective corpus of law
— of the community’s reasoned consensus, shorn of passion, fear, or favor —
under which we’ve agreed to be governed and to which those chosen to represent
us owe their fidelity. It’s a nice ideal. Increasingly, though, our real
governing standard is the one made infamous by the legendary litigator Roy
Cohn: “Don’t tell me what the law is. Tell me who the judge is.”
Our ideal of judging was perhaps best
explained by John Roberts during his 2005 confirmation hearings. The judge is
like an umpire, Roberts mused. The umpire calls balls and strikes; he doesn’t
design or alter the rules of the game. That’s how it’s supposed to work. The
judge’s courtroom is the level playing field where even the visiting team can
win if the law — the objective law — is on its side. Sure, the crowd and the local
paper will root, root, root for the home team. The rules, however, don’t have a
rooting interest. Justice is blind. The umpire is there to see that justice is
done — not manufactured.
As
The
Hill reports, the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee has called
for a thorough and deliberate examination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s record,
temperament, and judicial philosophy.
This is exactly what is needed.
As
the nation begins to examine President Obama’s first nominee for the Supreme
Court, an examination of his stated criteria in selecting a judge is
important. Obama has stated that an
important concern for him when considering a judicial nominee is that person’s
capacity for “empathy.” There is grave
concern that “empathy” is merely Barack Obama’s code word for liberal
activism. Several conservative commentators
have examined the “empathy” standard and what it means for the Constitution and
our liberty. Here’s a sampling:
Thomas
Sowell, “Sotomayor:
‘Empathy’ in Action”
You might think that this was some kind of
popularity contest, instead of a weighty decision about someone whose impact on
the fundamental law of the nation will extend for decades after Barack Obama
has come and gone.
…
For those who believe in the rule of law,
Barack Obama used the words "rule of law" in introducing his nominee.
For those who take his words as gospel, even when his own actions are directly
the opposite of his words, that may be enough to let him put this dangerous
woman on the Supreme Court.
Even if her confirmation cannot be stopped,
it is important for Senators to warn of the dangers, which will only get worse
if such nominations sail through the Senate smoothly.
Rich
Lowry, “A
Bad Day for Impartiality: Obama Uses Empathy as a Code Word for Judicial Liberalism”
Impartiality has been supplanted by
empathy. The old-fashioned virtue of objectivity — redolent of dusty law books
and the unromantic task of parsing the law and facts — is giving way to an
inherently politicized notion of judging based on feelings. Lady Justice is to
slip her blindfold and let her decisions be influenced by her life experiences
and personal predilections.
Jonah
Goldberg, “Empathy
vs. Impartiality: When they Conflict, the Supreme Court must Choose the Latter”
But Obama has something specific in mind
when he talks about empathy. He wants the justice’s oath to in effect be
rewritten. Judges must administer justice with respect to persons, they must be
partial to the poor, and so on.
Curt
Levey at the Committee for Justice answers
some common concerns about the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor for the
Supreme Court. He particularly addresses
concerns over Sotomayor’s record on the Second Amendment right to bear
arms. Excerpt:
Obama’s choice of one of the few federal
judges with a bad record on gun rights is particularly perplexing. Earlier this
year, Sotomayor and two of her Second Circuit colleagues ruled that Americans
have no individual Second Amendment rights in the face of state or local
regulation of firearms – that is, unless they happen to live in the District of
Columbia. Even the liberal Ninth Circuit ruled the other way. Now every red and
purple state Democratic senator who considers voting for Sotomayor will be
forced to explain to his constituents why he’s supporting a nominee who thinks
those constituents don’t have Second Amendment rights. Because they can send
red state Democrats running for cover, gun owners are the one interest group
that could completely change the political equation on judicial nominations if
they’re drawn into the debate. Obama’s selection of Sotomayor makes that
virtually certain.
As
mentioned by Levey, Ken
Blackwell also examines Sotomayor’s record on gun rights. Excerpt:
She [Sotomayor] is one of only three
federal appellate judges in America to issue a court opinion saying that the
Second Amendment does not apply to states. The case was Maloney v. Cuomo, and
it came down this past January.
That means if Chicago, or even the state of
Illinois or New York, wants to ban you from owning any guns at all, even in
your own house, that’s okay with her. According to Judge Sotomayor, if your
state or city bans all guns the way Washington, D.C. did, that’s okay under the
Constitution.
Stuart
Taylor explains at the National Journal.
Excerpt:
Sotomayor also referred to the cardinal
duty of judges to be impartial as a mere "aspiration because it denies the
fact that we are by our experiences making different choices than others."
And she suggested that "inherent physiological or cultural differences"
may help explain why "our gender and national origins may and will make a
difference in our judging."
So accustomed have we become to identity
politics that it barely causes a ripple when a highly touted Supreme Court
candidate, who sits on the federal Appeals Court in New York, has seriously
suggested that Latina women like her make better judges than white males.
George
Will also
examines the identity politics of the Sototmayor nomination.
 This morning President Barack Obama announced
Sonia Sotomayor as his nominee to replace retiring Justice David Souter on
the U.S. Supreme Court. Despite
Sotomayor’s inspiring life story of overcoming hardship, her record indicates
that she is a radical liberal who seriously misunderstands the proper role of
the judiciary. In a snickering response at a
Duke University forum, she said that “the court of appeals where policy is made”
indicating that she takes for granted that judges (and not the elected
representatives of the people) take an active role in shaping public
policy. She has scorned the idea of judges
remaining impartial in rulings. And
in a controversial case now before the Supreme Court, she upheld
a racially discriminatory policy in Connecticut.
AdvanceUSA
(and many other organizations and concerned citizens) urge the Senate to take
their constitutional responsibility to provide “advice and consent” to the
president on judicial appointments seriously.
They should thoroughly and carefully examine Sotomayor’s record and
judicial philosophy in Judiciary Committee hearings, on and off the Senate
floor, and in the forum of public debate.
Despite
a substantial Senate majority for the President’s party, Sotomayor’s
confirmation is not a certainty. If
enough concerned citizens raise objections to her nomination, Senators could
feel pressure to oppose her nomination.
But
even if Sotomayor is nominated, a robust debate over her qualifications (specifically)
and of the proper role of judges (generally) will be of great benefit for this
nation and for conservatism.
Keep
checking AdvanceUSA Blog for the latest information on Sotomayor’s nomination
and on the proper role of judges in our constitutional representative
democratic republic. You should also
check the Bench Memos blog at
National Review Online for more insightful commentary.
President Obama
announcing his Supreme Court nominee
Harry
R. Jackson, Jr. explains the background story behind the need for
Congressional action to protect the traditional definition of marriage in the
District of Columbia and praises the “courageous” Congressmen who proposed the
DC Defense of Marriage Act.
Kathryn
Jean Lopez explains another reason to support the DC Opportunity
Scholarship school voucher program which Congress and President Obama are
trying to kill.
Congressman
Mike Pence (R-IN) proposed an amendment to the Foreign Service reauthorization
bill which would have eliminated mandates that require the State Department to
promote the radical homosexual agenda overseas.
Unfortunately the amendment was defeated. Congressional
Quarterly reports (article for subscribers only). Excerpt:
Mike Pence, R-Ind., who said that the
language would prioritize gay rights over other issues, offered an amendment to
strike the language and replace it with a broad statement of support for
universal human rights that did not mention sexual orientation.
“I oppose mandating that our secretary of
State, diplomatic and consular staff promote a gay-rights agenda around the
globe, over and above other issues,” Pence said.
The amendment fell on a voice vote.
Congressman
Chris Smith (R-NJ) also proposed a pro-life amendment which would have ensured
that the innocuous-sounding
“Office for Global Women’s Issues” contained in the bill would not have
promoted abortion. His amendment
was also defeated.
New Hampshire
In
a surprising but welcome twist, it appears the New Hampshire same-sex marriage
bill might be stopped
in its tracks, at least for now.
Governor Lynch had promised to veto the original same-sex marriage bill
if some protections were not inserted for religious freedom. The NH Senate quickly adopted the changes,
but the NH House rejected the bill by a vote of 188-186. Maggie
Gallagher explains today’s events at NRO as does CitizenLink.
California
The
Supreme Court of California is expected
to soon announce its ruling on whether the recently passed ballot
initiative to ban same-sex marriage will be upheld. Not only is traditional marriage at stake,
but whether judges will be allowed to usurp their Constitutional power and
overrule the clear will of the people regarding the definition of marriage.
Washington, DC
Though
it is not a state (although some would like to treat it like one through
unconstitutional means), the District of Columbia has become an epicenter of
the growing rift over the definition of marriage. The DC City Council recently voted to
institute same-sex marriage in the District and its resolution will become law
if Congress fails to act. While many African
Americans in the District are outraged over the prospect of “gay marriage,”
a bi-partisan group of Congressmen proposed legislation to preserve the
traditional definition of marriage in the District at a press conference
today.
Maine
Voters
in Maine might get the chance
to vote on the traditional definition of marriage if enough signatures can
be gathered. The Maine Marriage Alliance
and others are hoping to collect 70,000 signatures or more so the recent law
enacting same-sex marriage in Maine can be overturned. Click
here for more information on the signature campaign.
Ed
Gillespie gives a preview of the upcoming Supreme Court nomination fight
and urges Senators to take their Constitutional “advise and consent” duties
seriously, even if that means vocal opposition.
The
Boston Herald reports on the grassroots effort to overturn the recently
passed same-sex marriage law by the Maine legislature.
There
is grave concern over how proposed legislation designed to reauthorize funding
for the State Department would promote the homosexual agenda on marriage and hate
crimes and could lead to promoting abortion world-wide. The bill would mandate special benefits for
homosexual members of the Foreign Service and Peace Corps and for their “domestic
partners.” It would also establish other
pro-homosexual policies, and could even lead to the promotion of abortion as a “woman’s
right” as part of American foreign policy.
CitizenLink also
reports.
LifeNews reports on this
positive news for the pro-life movement.
Pro-lifers must continue the work to expand the “culture of life” so
that we can see real protections for the unborn in our laws and courts. Don’t let elitist media coverage discourage
you. Pro-lifers are not a political
liability and the “rights of the unborn” is still an important issue.
The
Reuters blog also reports.
Senator
Jeff Sessions (R-AL), now the ranking member on the Senate Judiciary Committee,
explains in
the Washington Post the kind of Justice President Obama should appoint to
the Supreme Court and warns against nominating a liberal extremist. Excerpt:
If President Obama nominates to the Supreme
Court a highly qualified individual with a distinguished record that
demonstrates judicial restraint, integrity and a commitment to the rule of law,
his nominee will be welcomed in the Senate and by the American people.
But if the president nominates an
individual who will allow personal preferences and political views to corrupt
his or her decision making, he will put before the public a central question:
Are we willing to trade America's heritage of a fair and neutral judiciary --
anchored in the rule of written law that applies equally to all people -- for a
high court composed of robed politicians who apply the law differently based on
their personal feelings toward a particular person or issue?
Ken
Blackwell makes the case for keeping the “three-legged stool” of
conservatism united. Social, economic,
and foreign policy conservatives must work together to ensure our nation and
national values remain strong. Excerpt:
The conservative movement in America must
unite. The movement is often spoken of as having three parts: economic, social
and national security. All three parts of the conservative movement are gravely
threatened by the alliance of President Barack Obama, Congressional Democrats
led by Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Majority Leader Harry Reid, activist judges,
and the president’s loyal supporters in the mainstream media. Conservatives
must realize their common interests and unite around a shared agenda to
preserve the core conservative principles of limited government, individual
opportunity, personal responsibility and strong families. The conservative
vision of faith, family and freedom hangs in the balance.
Congressman
Broun (R-GA) defends his introduction
of the Federal Marriage Protection Amendment in the U.S. House. Considering the all-out assault on marriage
going on in the states and the District of Columbia, a Constitutional amendment
protecting the traditional definition of marriage from unelected judges is
needed now more than ever.
World
Net Daily reports on this good news for the rights of religious leaders to
speak out on political issues. This is a
victory for religious freedom and free speech.
LifeNews reports. While Curt
Levey explains what the failure of Dawn Johnsen’s nomination means for the
kinds of judges Obama will or will not be able to get confirmed. Excerpt:
Dawn Johnsen’s troubled nomination is
emblematic of at least three obstacles that Obama’s High Court nominee will
encounter if she is as unabashedly supportive of judicial activism and liberal
causes as Johnsen…
Click
here to read Levey’s three reasons.
Jill Stanek
catalogues President Obama’s bad positions on pro-life issues, but also finds
encouragement from the fact that the President might be making pro-abortion
policies less popular with the American people.
The
Washington Post reports that President Obama is promising a so-called
compromise on the DC school voucher program.
Congress and Obama approved a budget which destroyed the popular and
successful DC Opportunity Scholarship which allowed low-income children in our
nation’s capital to attend the school of their choice. Obama is now saying he will allow the program
to continue for the currently enrolled students but will not allow new students
to apply for or enter the program.
The
president’s hypocrisy on this issue is galling.
If the voucher program is good for the current students, why does the
president not want more underprivileged DC residents to benefit from the school
choice program? Perhaps he just wants to
silence opposition.
Earlier
we linked to two of Thomas Sowell’s articles on judicial activism and Barack
Obama’s opportunity to appoint a new justice to the Supreme Court. Here are links to and excerpts from his next
two articles in the series. In light of
the importance of judicial nominations for the future of the nation, Sowell’s
advice should be heeded.
Empathy
vs. Law Part III. Excerpt:
It is all too easy to say "a president
has a right to appoint the kind of people he wants on the Supreme Court."
He does. But that does not mean that those who don't have the votes to stop
dangerous nominees from being confirmed are obliged to vote for them or to
stand mute.
Since Justice David Souter is likely to be
replaced by another liberal, it is all too easy to say that it is no big deal.
But with all the indications already as to how the Obama administration is
trying to remake America on many fronts, the time to begin alerting the public
to the dangers is now.
Given the age and health of other Supreme
Court justices, more replacements are likely during Obama's time in the White
House. Time is an opportunity to mobilize public opinion and perhaps change the
composition of the Senate that confirms judicial nominees.
But time by itself does nothing. It is what
we do with time that matters.
Empathy
vs. Law Part IV. Excerpt:
While President Barack Obama has, in one
sense, tipped his hand by saying that he wants judges with "empathy"
for certain groups, he has in a more fundamental sense concealed the real goal
-- getting judges who will ratify an ever-expanding scope of the power of the
federal government and an ever-declining restraint by the Constitution of the
United States.
The
AP reports. But, as The
Bulletin reports, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) is pressing Congress to
leave the decision of the council alone, thus instituting same-sex marriage in
DC by default.
Please
contact both
your senators today and urge them to oppose the hate crimes bill (S. 909)!
Dangerous
hate (thought) crimes legislation will soon be
considered in the Senate Judiciary and then the full Senate. Expanding hate crimes to include “actual or perceived
gender identity or sexual orientation” would allow the government to prosecute
people for their thoughts opening up dangerous threat to religious freedom,
free speech, and “equal justice under law.”
And
if that wasn’t bad enough, it appears that pedophilia and many
other disturbing practices could be considered “sexual orientations” protected
by hate crimes law.
Our
friends at FRC have a website where you can get involved to fight hate crimes.
Contact
your senators today!
 The brilliant economist and author Thomas Sowell talks about the proper role of judges in light of the impending opening on the US Supreme Court which President Obama will fill in a recent two-part column (read part one and part two here). Sowell warns of the dangers of “activist” judges who ignore the Constitution and make decisions based on personal bias and “empathy,” while promoting impartial judges who will understand their limited role and make decisions based on the law as written and not personal whims. Here are some excerpts:
From part 1:
In the American system of government, presidential term limits restrict how long any given resident of the White House can damage this country directly. But that does not limit how long, or how much, the people he appoints to the Supreme Court can continue to damage this country, for decades after the president who appointed them is long gone.
…
The biggest danger in appointing the wrong people to the Supreme Court is not just in how they might vote on some particular issues-- whether private property, abortion or whatever. The biggest danger is that they will undermine or destroy the very concept of the rule of law-- what has been called "a government of laws and not of men."
From part II:
"The criterion of constitutionality," he [Oliver Wendell Holmes] said, "is not whether we believe the law to be for the public good." That was for other people to decide. For judges, he said: "When we know what the source of the law has said it shall be, our authority is at an end."
NewsOn6 reports. While this potentially life-saving form of
ethical stem cell treatment is still rather expensive, couples can still choose
to donate their left-over umbilical cord stem cells for the benefit of others.
 NPR reports that liberal Supreme Court justice David Souter will soon retire giving President Obama his first opportunity to nominate a judge for the high court (The Atlantic also reports). In recent decades the courts have amassed unprecedented and unconstitutional power and often used that power to radically change American justice and social structure. Who a president appoints to the Supreme Court will affect our nation for years after that president leaves office.
Concerned citizens need to be watchful and be sure to voice their opinions on the proper role of judges (especially to both your senators, who will be tasked with approving or rejecting Obama’s nominations).
Ed Whelan and Wendy Long provide some initial thoughts on what to expect at the Bench Memos blog at National Review Online.
Check out the judicial nominations category for more information on this important issue.
|
|
|
| |