Sonia Sotomayor’s fundamental honesty and intellect are now being questioned across the political spectrum. In this online debate excerpt, Georgetown Law professor Louis Michael Seidman concludes with “complete disgust” that Sotomayor’s Senate testimony marks her as “unqualifed” for the Supreme Court either because she has outright perjured herself or because she lacks the necessary intellectual horsepower:
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 careers?
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.
The entire debate — very informative — can be accessed here.
Changing channels slightly, 2nd Amendment advocates (NRA members?) will enjoy this heartwarming clip of Sotomayor stating with a straight face that the 2nd Amendment is not effective against state governments:
Intellectually or morally qualifed for the Court? You be the judge.
{ 6 comments… read them below or add one }
This video tells only part of the story about Sotomayor’s ignorance. On tapes played today, she repeatedly used the wrong word. Does she not know the difference between “province” and “providence” or the impressive series of other malapropisms she committed?
Does it matter? Of course it does. Words mean things; they represent concepts. There is a vast difference between “province” and “providence.”
If her understanding of English is as abysmal as it appears to be, how can she possibly understand the law, the Constitution or her responsibilities as a judge?
So much for the “Wise Latina.”
But wait! Maybe we have a need on the court for an Ignorant Latina.
And what do you say about the performance of Al Franken, and his Senatorial Soft question about the Perry Mason show. Relevant, Al … we are so proud of you. We shoulda known you had it in you!
Sage: So glad you appreciate our boy Al. We and our ACORN allies elected him (Yeah, with the help of a little fraud, but what the hey) to the U. S. Senate because it needed comic relief. He does not disappoint.
No, I. I could not agree more. Franken and Sotomayor: what a team. They deserve each other. Maybe something could be arranged.
How does anyone, i.e, Sotomayor, write Supreme Court decisions without recognizing differences between similar-sounding words, much less actual homonymns — identical in sound or spelling, but different in meaning? The possibilities for mischief are intriguing.
Is there such a thing as a book titled, “Decision-Writing for Dummies” or maybe judicial spell-check?
That’s what law clerks are for.