May 26, 2009
ANTICIPATING ONE OF THE TALKING POINTS.... We're still about 15 minutes away from the formal introduction of Judge Sonia Sotomayor as the president's nominee for the Supreme Court, but one of the central criticisms against her in recent weeks is likely to come up again and again during the confirmation process.
There's a video of Sotomayor speaking at Duke University Law School four years ago, in which the judge said appeals courts are "where policy is made." Conservative activists and Republican senators have seized on those four words as evidence of "judicial activism." After all, they argue, "policy" shouldn't be "made" in the courts; it should come from the legislative process. To do otherwise, the theory goes, is to "legislate from the bench."
Reiterating a post from a few weeks ago, it's worth knocking this down. A.L. did a nice job explaining why the argument is misguided.
The entire video clip can be found here. The context, as Orin Kerr helpfully explains in this post, is that Sotomayor was explaining the differences between clerking at the District Court level and clerking at the Court of Appeals level. Her point, which is unquestionably true as a descriptive matter, is that judicial decision making at the Court of Appeals level is more about setting policy, whereas judging at the District Court level is a more about deciding individual cases and disputes. And the reason for this is obvious. Decisions at the Court of Appeals level don't just determine the fates of individual litigants; they serve as controlling precedent for all District Court judges within that circuit. Thus any decision by a Court of Appeals becomes the policy of that circuit, at least until it's overruled by the Supreme Court (which is rare).
There is nothing remotely controversial about this. Cases get appealed to the Circuit Court level for one reason: because the answer to the question being litigated is not clear.... But in Simplistic Republican World, none of this actually happens. Good conservative judges don't "make policy," they simply enforce the law. The law is apparently always clear. Indeed it's a wonder that lawyers even bother to appeal cases in the Fourth Circuit. After all, they should know that the conservative jurists in that circuit will simply "enforce the law" (because they wouldn't dream of "making policy"), so the outcome should be very predictable.
Sotomayor will no doubt face all kinds of criticisms, and some may be more persuasive than others. This one is just silly.
—Steve Benen 10:00 AM
Permalink
| Trackbacks
| Comments (11)
"Good conservative judges don't "make policy," they simply enforce the law"
That is incorrect. Conservatives do not, nor does anyone, assume that the judiciary is part of the executive. enforcement of the law is part of the executive branch. The judiciary adjudicates law, an entirely different proposition.
Posted by: Chris on May 26, 2009 at 10:04 AM | PERMALINK
"Sotomayor will no doubt face all kinds of criticisms, and some may be more persuasive than others. This one is just silly."
This may be a silly criticism, but we will make it work! When it comes to attacking The Chosen One, we do not have need of context. All we need is to pick a set of words and we will provide the interpretation.
After all, this is what she said!
Posted by: RepublicanPointOfView on May 26, 2009 at 10:20 AM | PERMALINK
Cases get appealed to the Circuit Court level for one reason: because the answer to the question being litigated is not clear
To be fair, most cases are appealed because hope springs eternal, and it's only a $450 filing fee, so why not appeal if you're the loser at the District level?
I can assure you that almost every single criminal case is appealed, and almost every single appeal is rejected. It's part of a defense attorney's job in representing her client to the best of her ability, and when a defendant is represented by a public defender or CJA attorney, the cost of the appeal is paid for by the public. (Cert petitions and appeals to the Supreme Court are generally not paid for by the public.)
Posted by: Brock on May 26, 2009 at 10:22 AM | PERMALINK
Let the (media) circus begin. This will be a defining moment to see who has a better propaganda operation: Obama's administration or the Rethug echo chamber.
Bets anyone?
Posted by: rrk1 on May 26, 2009 at 10:28 AM | PERMALINK
I can sound like a broken record (er, re&re-loading youtube, whatever - BTW, why is YouTube skipping and reloading so much lately? It sucks and spoils really cool dance-rock vids like "Shake" by Metro Station) about this, but: The Ninth Amendment refers to unenumerated rights. That means that judges have to create law by asking if a UR (such as privacy) may be involved. "Policy" may indeed come from such decisions. Furthermore, the meaning of "policy" refers to the context for each particular activity or subject anyway.
Posted by: Neil B ♪ on May 26, 2009 at 10:38 AM | PERMALINK
Someone should truly sponsor a contest to add some levity to this event. Instead of guessing the number of jelly beans in a jar, a prize should be awarded to the person who can best predict the number of times the phrase "activist judge is used."
Let there be no doubt, drinking games associated with this should be avoided, it will likely be suicide.
Posted by: ashton on May 26, 2009 at 10:42 AM | PERMALINK
Thanks for linking to that piece, Steve. I read it yesterday and thought it was going to be a good way to fight back against any of the nonsense coming from the right. The only missing piece was a wider viewing, something you helped with.
Posted by: Brian J on May 26, 2009 at 10:44 AM | PERMALINK
Let's be honest, a significant majority of the people who still call themselves Republicans(as opposed to those who have become disenchanted with the course the GOP has taken) don't believe that there should be courts. If someone is arrested by the police, they assume that means they are guilty. Moreover, they believe that many of these people should be summarily executed while the rest should be imprisoned for life. It's a very simple worldview that seems complete to them.
It really is that simple, by and large. Happily, there are a few Republicans left who describe this for what it is; unhappily, they rarely speak up.
Cheers,
Alan Tomlinson
Posted by: Alan Tomlinson on May 26, 2009 at 10:44 AM | PERMALINK
"This may be a silly criticism, but we will make it work!"
Wow, not only do you admit it is silly but go with it anyway, but you then speak for others of the same mindset. How many are included in this 'we' exactly?
Posted by: ashton on May 26, 2009 at 10:44 AM | PERMALINK
Chuck Todd just said that Judge Sotomayor believed that appellate judges "legislate from the bench" in reference to her comment about setting policy.
Posted by: JeffPDX on May 26, 2009 at 10:49 AM | PERMALINK
Chuck Todd just said "It all began in a 5000 watt station in Fresno". Chuckie is the Ted Baxter of reporting.
Ah, RepuG judges, Mr Tomlinson. Once listened to a Reagan appointee to the LA Muni Court system. He taught criminal law and said, "Doesn't matter if a person is really not guilty of the particular facts in a case because I believe most people commit infractions and are never caught. My job is bring "Justice" to the court".
Posted by: berttheclock on May 26, 2009 at 11:09 AM | PERMALINK