Is Judge Sotomayor's Cheerleading for Obama Proper?
Ed Whelan has this very interesting post on whether Judge Sotomayor's public support for Obama's election as President was unduly partisan. Indeed, Whelan suggests the Sotomayor may have violated the canons of judicial ethics requiring judges to maintain the appearance of impartiality.
I have to say that, when I was a federal judge, I certainly would have been reluctant to wade into the merits of what happened during a Presidential election to the extent that Judge Sotomayor did.
Update: Sorry for the broken link to Whelan's post, which I just fixed.
By leaving out the date of her remarks, you twist her actions to make it seem like she campaigned for him. In fact, her speech was on April 17, 2009, and remarked on the historic aspects of the elections.
When you were a federal judge, did you care about making misleading and inaccurate statements? What about now?
I was wondering the same about "Cassell."
"One of the frustrations about being a trial court judge is that you never set broad principles of law; of course, that's reserved for the appellate courts. ...
http://volokh.com/posts/1195865907.shtml
Pretty weak attempt to, again, tarnish the judge.
...wade into the merits of what happened...
It is just a hair ambiguous, but that's nitpicking and likely inadvertent.
Fix the link, though!
Oh you mean like how Sandra Day O'Connor, appointed by Reagan, who expressed her discontent at Gore initially being declared the winner and then not recusing herself? Oh I forgot, she's not a real conservative, excuse me.
Huh, that's strange, the NRO seems to have her confused with a Buddhist.
And let's not forgot Scalia, also appointed by Reagan, refused to recuse himself and went on to rule in favor of his hunting partner.
That makes sense. But I'm not so sure she's "cheerleading the administration." From my reading of her quote, she's noting two things:
1. The diverse group of people who came together, despite differences, to vote for an African American, was "awe inspiring", and
2. Obama's message of service is "a clarion call we are obligated to heed"
I don't see #1 as "cheerleading". #2 might be. If I were a federal judge, and said Bush's message of resisting terrorists is a "clarion call we are obligated to heed", would I be cheerleading the previous administration?
GL:
Is it your position that sitting judges cannot comment on public affairs?
Check out Scalia's dissent in Boumediene.
There is the little matter of there being a difference between the office and the person holding it.
And I don't recall O'Connor, who I'm no fan of, making a public pronouncement of her discontent. She may well have made those comments but I don't believe that they were for public consumption. In addition, she shouldn't have made the comments even in a nonpublic forum.
I'll bite. What are the obvious reasons judicial canons are not applicable to Justices?
If so, Rosen was worse. Keep trying, though.
Also, the O'Connor story is third-hand cocktail party gossip. Sotomayor was speaking from a prepared text.
Just my opinion, of course.
I think after 9/11, there was a 99.9% consensus in favor of "resisting terrorists." For that matter, an opinion poll taken on 9/10 would've yielded a similar result.
So I don't think that's cheerleading, no.
O'Connor spoke while the election was close and did not recuse herself. Sotomayor's comments came 5 months after the election and she was not involved in any case during the election.
Further, O'Connor's comment was clearly partisan as she expressed her desire for a particular candidate because of who he was likely to nominate. Sotomayor's comments were of a general nature, commenting on the historic nature of the election.
I usta thing that righties' comments about how lefties were unable to stomach any criticism of "the one" were kinda out there, but the lefties are starting to bring me around.
Try reading the speech. Before a diversity audience, she's lauding the power of diversity groups to enact political change. This is partisan how?
I'm an AUH20 conservative.
I agree that this whole discussion is lame though, it's not like anyone was expecting obama to nominate a republican.
O'Connor also apparently made her comments at a private party, in casual conversation, to friends. She had no particular reason to expect her comments would be made public. Sotomayor's comments were made at a public forum, as part of a prepared speech. She fully knew and appreciated she was making public statements, and had every reason to think her comments would be republished.
(Also: O'Connor's party was watching a black-and-white television? In 2000?)
I did, sorry if I got to wrong. Ain't puttin' down the bottle though. :-).
Plenty of Republicans have made comments about the historic nature of the last election, all the wonderful things it supposedly says about us as a nation, etc., etc. It's a common sort of sentiment, and it doesn't seem to keep any of them from opposing the administration on all sorts of substantive issues.
Whelan's job is to sift through Sotomayor's past statements and endeavor to find The Biggest Outrage Ever as many times as he possibly can. This is no different from how the liberal groups treat Republican appointees, but it's equally tiresome in either case.
She seems a more than competent judge, I think Ricci in particular is an awful decision but a handful here and there isn't bad, let's have her hearing and give her a vote and get over it.
Besides, look on the bright side, Joe Biden no longer participates in the hearings.
Even so, I'm not sure that Sotomayor's quoted remarks are unethical. In my personal view, judges should try to be apolitical to the extent possible and avoid the sort of cheerleading that Judge Sotomayor did for Obama, but my personal view probably sets a higher bar than the ethical rules do.
Ha! His preface of
reminds me of Sotomayor's "ok ok I'm not supposed to say that, judges don't make policy."
You mean this quote:
Oh, wait, that was Mr. Cassell speaking -
http://volokh.com/posts/1195865907.shtml
Because having opinions means you're not going to rule on the law!
Well said, and good one-handed typing as well.
The last President nominated his own personal lawyer and White House Counsel to the Supreme Court, and although conservatives lodged any number of objections, I don't recall "she won't be impartial" as one of them. But some random comments by Sotomayor are a dealbreaker?
Well, Obama is taller than Hitler, isn't he?
Is this the end of VC as we knew it?
Incidentally, where was Whelan when Roberts, knowing he was under serious consideration for the Supreme Court, nonetheless sat on the Hamdan panel? His associate, Mark Levin offered a tendentious defense of Roberts, but it's hard to see how hearing an important case under those circumstances was just fine, but making a speech expressing support for the President isn't.
Obama is also a "lightworker
".
You are the best Governor ever---deserving of great respect!
-Harriet
And yes, I do think that judges are allowed to have lives--and that includes having friends who might be part of the other branches of government.
As for Judge Sotomayor, this probably wasn't the smartest thing for her to say (nor were her many "wise Latina woman" comments, either). But I have yet to see anything disqualifying--and absent anything disqualifying, she should be confirmed (even though she obviously would not have been my choice if I were President).
obviously folks are throwing up partisan spaghetti and seeing what sticks to the wall, but that is true for both sides. The chips on shoulder are evident in the early griping about the temporal clarity of Cassell's post -- which to any thinking person is quite clear. And given that I credit the partisans of both stripes here as having better than a third grade reading level that attempted impeachment seems a nonstarter.
I second Malvolio. That stuff was creepy. This is especially clear if, as Whelan posed, Roberts had said the same things about Bush. I would have been wondering if we were dealing with the typical case of American blind justice, i.e. don't ask, don't tell.
The wise latina thing, for instance, was quickly explained away, but the focus on the remark -- perhaps overblown if it proved to be isolated -- was rewarded by the unearthing of a pattern of such statements.
I don't necessarily take any of this to be disqualifying, but if the nominee is confirmed, as most observers expect absent real Manchurian
CandidateNominee evidence, the discourse sets a context for criticism of her tenure.Scalia is the obvious example, where comment on the intellect he brings to the table is generally cabined by criticism of his more conservative ideology. I don't think this particularly unfair and I would expect Sotomayer's votes and written work for the court to be reported against the expectations raised by her adulatory comments on Obama and more esp. Latina women.
For those who find this a grand opportunity to criticize O'Connor's indiscretion, if only Sotomayer has said:
She would have been right in line with the moderate judicial 'mainstream.
Brian
Wh
Similarly, there is the little matter of there being a difference between the status of "first non-white President" and the person who happens to hold it. Obama's success likely made her reflect on her own struggle to succeed in a white male dominated world.
The existence of such duds as Harding, Carter, and W. makes it hard to argue that two centuries of white male Presidents merely shows meritocracy in action.
And I'm fairly certain that, as a twofer, Sotomayor would have led the cheers for our first woman President, had Hillary managed to earn that title.
You mean if Roberts had said, "Once again, white people got together to support a white candidate."? Wouldn't that fit into the "Dog Bites Man" category?
She will always be biased as the Portorican students i taught in a New jersey High School. These students refused to speak English. English as second language was taught to these students.
Where's the birth certificate!
I refuse to believe that was a serious comment. Therefore, I believe the commenter is trying to give Sarcastro a run for his money.
r
Gore was not "declared the winner" by anybody except the left-wing hacks in the media. Declaring the winner of a Presidential election is just one of the many roles they think they have which they do not have.
It is a disgrace that every American, whether Democrat or Republican, did not express "discontent" with the media behavior in Florida in 2000. It was a blatant attempt to steal an election for their side.
It would, if there was some evidence that white people engaged in racial voting. Since there is not, it does not.
Given that Whelan has placed himself outside the realm of civilized discourse, perhaps you should break it again.
Any evidence that white people engaged in racial voting is swamped out by the large number of votes white people cast for white candidates.
If you have a comment about spelling, typos, or format errors, please e-mail the poster directly rather than posting a comment.
Comment Policy: We reserve the right to edit or delete comments, and in extreme cases to ban commenters, at our discretion. Comments must be relevant and civil (and, especially, free of name-calling). We think of comment threads like dinner parties at our homes. If you make the party unpleasant for us or for others, we'd rather you went elsewhere. We're happy to see a wide range of viewpoints, but we want all of them to be expressed as politely as possible.
We realize that such a comment policy can never be evenly enforced, because we can't possibly monitor every comment equally well. Hundreds of comments are posted every day here, and we don't read them all. Those we read, we read with different degrees of attention, and in different moods. We try to be fair, but we make no promises.
And remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.