From Part II of the Federalist Society's "Originally Speaking" Debate on the Sotomayor nomination:
Speaking only for myself (I guess that's obvious), 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? First year law students understand within a month that many areas of the law are open textured and indeterminate—that the legal material frequently (actually, I would say always) must be supplemented by contestable presuppositions, empirical assumptions, and moral judgments. To claim otherwise—to claim that fidelity to uncontested legal principles dictates results—is to claim that whenever Justices disagree among themselves, someone is either a fool or acting in bad faith. What does it say about our legal system that in order to get confirmed Judge Sotomayor must tell the lies that she told today? That judges and justices must live these lies throughout their professional carers?
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.
These are strong words for Sotomayor. So who wrote them? Ed Whelan? Wendy Long? No. Georgetown law professor Louis Michael Seidman.
UPDATE: Eva Rodriguez also comments on "Sotomayor's Unconvincing Backpedaling."
I've also just noticed Randy and I posted on Seidman's comments near simultaneously. Go figure. I suppose that just underscores how significant his comments are.
Related Posts (on one page):
- More from Seidman on Sotomayor:
- Strong Words on Sotomayor: