If this is the best candidate the Libs can put up, then all those Trial Lawyers that finance the Libs must be really dumb. We'll see how dumb they really are if they keep financing an organization that will control the legal profession much like it has control of the banks, the auto industry, the health care, and the energy companies.
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Liberal Law Professors Against Sotomayor? [Ed Whelan]
At least one liberal law professor was “completely disgusted” by Judge Sotomayor’s testimony. In an online debate on the Federalist Society’s website, Georgetown law professor Mike Seidman writes:
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? …
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.
(See the link above for his full post.)
Anyone reading Sotomayor’s testimony today on foreign law should reach similar conclusions, albeit for very different reasons than Professor Seidman’s.
Without The Constitution, politics and "empathy" will be, if it's not already, the rule of law.
If Sotomayor is appointed to the Supreme Court, it's another success for Obama's Destroy America Policy.
Who needs the Rule of Law anyway? Government already selectively ignores it. Have you seen documents that support that Obama is a Constitutional president? 30+ Czars? Census from White House? Government Health Care? Industry ownership? etc.
No comments:
Post a Comment