Sessions Goes Off-Message, Admits That Supreme Court Justices Write The Constitution
Sessions Goes Off-Message, Admits That Supreme Court Justices Write The Constitution
One of conservatives’ biggest problems with Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor is over a remark she made in 2005, stating that the Court of Appeals “is where policy is made.” The right-wing Judicial Confirmation Network has called her “a liberal judicial activist of the first order” who “thinks that judges should dictate policy.” Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) called her 2005 comment a “problem.” Similarly, this morning, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) went on NBC’s Today Show and said it was “troubling”:
LAUER: Sen. Sessions, I go back to something you said: “We must determine if Ms. Sotomayor understands that the proper role of a judge is to act as a neutral umpire of the law.” I assume you’re specifically referring to what she said in 2005 on tape at Duke University, where she said, “The Court of Appeals is where policy is made.” Not laws are interpreted. Policies made. Is that a disqualifier, in your opinion?
SESSIONS: Well, we need to inquire into that and give her a fair opportunity to explain it. But on its face, that’s very troubling. A judge must submit themselves to the law and be faithful to the law and to serve under the law. They are not above the law.
Yesterday, however, Sessions appeared on MSNBC and undercut this talking point, admitting that the Supreme Court “sets the law for America.” He went even further on Fox News last night, telling Greta Van Susteren that Supreme Court justices basically write the Constitution:
VAN SUSTEREN: In terms of the qualifications or what the Judiciary Committee looks for in sending someone to the floor, is it different what you look for for the United States Supreme Court as opposed to the United States Court of Appeals?
SESSIONS: I think a little bit. I’m not sure I could articulate the difference. There’s certainly a difference in the district court and the Supreme Court. But I do think there’s a greater power on a Supreme Court Justice to declare the Constitution says this or the Constitution says that. And it’s almost the same — it, indeed, virtually is the same — as writing the Constitution itself.
Watch it:
While he may not want to undermine his conservative colleagues — and himself — Sessions is onto something. Jeffrey Segal, a professor of law at Stony Brook University, told the Huffington Post that when courts clarify laws made by Congress, they are making policy. Eric Freedman, a law professor at Hofstra University, said that Sotomayor “was saying something which is the absolute judicial equivalent of saying the sun rises each morning. … It is thoroughly uncontroversial to anyone other than a determined demagogue.”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Little Jeffy is one neuron short of a synapse . . . one tree short of a hammock . . . one fry short of a Happy Meal.
The moron must have someone help him get dressed in the morning.
May 27th, 2009 at 1:25 pmDetermined Demagogue…I like that.
May 27th, 2009 at 1:26 pmWhen a ruling is made, precedence is set.
Rulings are the definitive voice in the application of laws.
Therefore, the interpretations made by the courts define the Constitution.
May 27th, 2009 at 1:28 pmDuring his confirmation hearings in 2005, Chief Justice John Roberts introduced the sound bite that is now the predictable companion to Republican outrage over “judicial activism.” “Judges are like umpires,” Roberts analogized, adding, “Umpires don’t make the rules; they apply them.” Now as Senate Republicans seek to derail President Obama’s nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court, the GOP’s judge-as-umpire canard is back. Of course, that tired analogy is just as untrue – and damaging – as it was when John Roberts uttered it four years ago.
For the details, see:
May 27th, 2009 at 1:34 pm“Justices, Not Umpires.”
GOP on “judicial activism”:
Conservative judicial activism good
Liberal judicial activism bad, indeeed, VERY BAD
GOP: It’s not judicial activism when WE do it.
May 27th, 2009 at 1:44 pmIOKIYAR
Poor Jeff. It’s hard to keep the competing voices in his head straight.
PEACE
May 27th, 2009 at 1:46 pmIn one respect, the justices are above the law when they can vote as a majority to strike or uphold a law. They can also collectively rule on their interpretation of an upheld law.
Going back to Brown vs. BOE, conservatives use that as so-called precedent that “liberal activism” runs rampant in the courts, but just where is “separate but equal” in the constitution?
May 27th, 2009 at 1:49 pmI expect the determined demagogues will target Sotomayors 60% reversal by the SCOTUS and I have already seen articles talking about that. It does seem rather high until one looks at the rate of reversals of the SCOTUS for 2004, 2005 and 2006:
http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/archives/FinalOT04CircuitScorecard.pdf
May 27th, 2009 at 1:53 pmhttp://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/archives/CircuitsFinal.pdf
http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/archives/MemoOT06.pdf
Jeff Sessions is full of both “yee” and “haw”
May 27th, 2009 at 1:55 pmThis is a no-brainer & I don’t understand why it’s even an issue. Of course the Supreme Court, & to a lesser extent, lower courts, set policy. Every time they interpret a law, they say what the other branches can & can’t do. The Supremes, because they’re the last word on the law, are actually more powerful than the other branches.
The Constant Weader at http://www.RealityChex.com
May 27th, 2009 at 1:56 pmMegaloptera McWars Says:
Going back to Brown vs. BOE…
Every time Conservatives go off about judicial “activism” I think, “Do you really want to go back to the civil rights era and argue on behalf of Jim Crow all over again? Really?”
May 27th, 2009 at 1:57 pmBingo! He just described the Republicans.
May 27th, 2009 at 1:59 pmActually he was saying that it is troubling that an activist judge can essentially change the constitution, which of course is against our constitution and speratation of powers. So no he did not admit the supreme court writes the constituion. Nice try thinkprogress. Here is another interesting thing with this horrible appointment. She has been overturned by the supreme court 60% of the time! She clearly is an activist judge that tries to make the law up as she goes.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/27/60-reversal-of-sotomayor-rulings-gives-fodder-to-f/
May 27th, 2009 at 1:59 pmTommy can you see me?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Yee and haw?
And here I thought Sessions was full of s-h-i-t.
May 27th, 2009 at 2:00 pmThe ReichWinger Pissants will complain about anybody Obama nominates, period.
Fcuk the Republic Fascist Party
May 27th, 2009 at 2:00 pm“It is thoroughly uncontroversial to anyone other than a determined demagogue.”
Or biased, party-over-country, ignorant Republicans.
May 27th, 2009 at 2:00 pmSince being elected to Congress has no requirement for understanding the law, it only makes sense that the Supreme Court, the judicial branch of the government, is required to evaluate the work of the legislative branch. Supposedly they are selected for their understanding of the law. They don’t write laws, just decide if the laws that are written are in accordance with the Constitution.
It is called Checks and Balances. Something we have sort of forgotten in recent years. No single branch of the government is ‘in control’.
May 27th, 2009 at 2:01 pmIsn’t that how the torture policy came about: poor interpretation of the law?
Just like I hadn’t seen an example of an ‘activist judge’ until I read some of Alito’s dissenting opinions, what ‘conservatives’ say they fear most comes from judges that they wholeheartedly support.
This is just another debate about semantics that really doesn’t address how the candidate is or is not qualified.
May 27th, 2009 at 2:02 pmThe most practical GOP definition of an “activist judge” is a judge who makes a ruling they don’t like.
May 27th, 2009 at 2:06 pmJohnM, you ignorant coward
If her record is 60%, then she beats the AVERAGE by 13%
You really should learn to investigate your talking points, moron
May 27th, 2009 at 2:08 pm
Dumb Question: If the law and public policy do not include an element of personal experience, can we stop the inane commercials about a candidate having “heartland values”, etc. ?
May 27th, 2009 at 2:08 pmCan you point to me any changes in the constitution by any court since the “liberal judicial activist” took effect, JohnM?
Don’t expect that if you go over the top in your criticism that you won’t be questioned. Again, it’s the court’s job to set the interpretation of the law and consider existing law against the constitution.
The problem with appointees in Scalito and Roberts, is that their application of the law is uber restrictive, out of the mainstream — you have to be in the right place at the right time with the right amount of money and the right network and cloud for the law to work for you.
May 27th, 2009 at 2:08 pmerr, 15%
damned typos
May 27th, 2009 at 2:09 pmHere’s how this confidence trick works:
The Supreme Court interprets the Constitution. When conservatives don’t like the interpretation–i.e., when it is liberal–they call it “changing” the Constitution.
It’s the Right’s usual trick of renaming things to suit themselves–as when they call fetuses “babies.”
Da Banksta
May 27th, 2009 at 2:10 pmSee post number 8…and I’ll have a beer instead of a coke. Thx.
May 27th, 2009 at 2:18 pmHeres a question JohnM how many federalist judges do we have?
May 27th, 2009 at 2:19 pmOh Noes JohnM, the activism, the horror of it all!!!
Really, though, I think that no judge should be involved in any activist group as it rips the blind off of justice. I also think the supreme court justices should be limited to 8 maybe 12 year terms.
May 27th, 2009 at 2:27 pmJohnM Says:
Actually he was saying that it is troubling that an activist judge can essentially change the constitution, which of course is against our constitution and speratation of powers.
May 27th, 2009 at 1:59 pm
_____________
Wrong, fingerchopper. It is the job of the Supreme Court to INTERPRET the Constitution and ensure that the law conforms with the Constitution as THEY INTERPRET IT.
That’s not CHANGING the Constitution. You need an Amendment to do that. “Interpreting” means parsing the written words of the document and trying to determine what the founding fathers meant by them, and what these words mean in a modern context.
You seem to think law is just a black and white issue completely divorced from human reality. If that were the case, we wouldn’t need judges – all trials could be adjudicated and decided by robots.
Idiot.
May 27th, 2009 at 2:27 pmJohnM Says:
Actually he was saying that it is troubling that an activist judge can essentially change the constitution, which of course is against our constitution and speratation of powers.
All an activist judge can do is say, Hey bozos in Congress, you wrote a stupid law! Then it is up to Congress to do something about it.
May 27th, 2009 at 2:32 pmJohnM Says:
Actually he was saying that it is troubling that an activist judge can essentially change the constitution, which of course is against our constitution and speratation of powers. So no he did not admit the supreme court writes the constituion. Nice try thinkprogress. Here is another interesting thing with this horrible appointment. She has been overturned by the supreme court 60% of the time! She clearly is an activist judge that tries to make the law up as she goes.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/27/60-reversal-of-sotomayor-rulings-gives-fodder-to-f/
***
fixed your link.
washington times?
unification church?
moonies?
:)
thanks john.
:::
May 27th, 2009 at 2:38 pm…
ps -
got any more?
:)
May 27th, 2009 at 2:40 pmAnyone who’s taken high school social studies classes knows that the judiciary as a branch of government is part of the policymaking process, whether it’s original jurisdiction or judicial review. Lawmakers cite Supreme Court decisions when introducing and writing bills, and presidents have the executive authority to enforce and execute Supreme Court decisions.
As for “judicial activism” or “judicial restraint” in general, those are the most meaningless political buzz words in politics. The right would applaud a court striking down a gun control law, while the left would applaud a court striking down an anti-abortion law. What it comes down to is, “We don’t like it when the courts rule against what we support.”
May 27th, 2009 at 2:40 pmProud of blah blah blah blah.
Please stop embarrassing yourself, dolt.
May 27th, 2009 at 2:40 pmProud Says:
Why are you all freaking out over this nomination. She will get thru the confirmation process, dems have all the votes they need. You should all be happy to have another lib on the SCOTUS. Everyone knows she is not the most qualfied, she is a Latina Woman Lib that is why Obama nominated her, not for her qualifications. I wonder if she has paid her taxes, if she has, it will be a first for an Obama nominee, that will be something to celebrate.
***
feeling lonely?
well this sunday get out your walker
and go to church. you’ll feel better.
:)
:<)
May 27th, 2009 at 2:42 pmProud Says:
Why are you all freaking out over this nomination. She will get thru the confirmation process, dems have all the votes they need. You should all be happy to have another lib on the SCOTUS. Everyone knows she is not the most qualfied, she is a Latina Woman Lib that is why Obama nominated her, not for her qualifications. I wonder if she has paid her taxes, if she has, it will be a first for an Obama nominee, that will be something to celebrate.
***
“Why are you all freaking out over this nomination.”
you know what would go really well here?
a question mark (?).
give it a try!
;0
May 27th, 2009 at 2:45 pmProud babbles:
Everyone knows she is not the most qualfied, she is a Latina Woman Lib that is why Obama nominated her, not for her qualifications.
A summa cum laude Princeton graduate and editor of the Yale law school journal is not qualified? And this “everyone” you speak of, are they the voices in your head?
Careful, Proud, your racism & bigotry are showing….
May 27th, 2009 at 2:49 pmThere could be no better self-defining title than Dittoheads.
Morons dumber than my pet parrot, parroting whatever sounds good to them without care or thought as to the meaning.
And equally obnoxious when performing.
May 27th, 2009 at 2:58 pmBut I do think there’s a greater power on a Supreme Court Justice to declare the Constitution says this or the Constitution says that. And it’s almost the same — it, indeed, virtually is the same — as writing the Constitution itself.
So then what he SAID is NOT what he said? You are pathetic. Who we gonna believe YOU or our lyin eyes? Oh please the Moonie Times stop wasting our time with your biased nonsense. The Moonie Times is a joke. Cough up decent sources or just STFU. Reasonable people understand it is an insult to fish to wrap them in the Moonie Times
May 27th, 2009 at 3:00 pmProudMORON
What everyone knows is that YOU are an ignorant brainwashed moron and nothing you have to say is taken seriously. You are stupid so why dont you do everyone a favor and just STFU
May 27th, 2009 at 3:06 pmRantingTommy Says:
——————————————————————————–
JohnM, you ignorant coward
If her record is 60%, then she beats the AVERAGE by 13%
You really should learn to investigate your talking points, moron
Xisithrus Says:
I expect the determined demagogues will target Sotomayors 60% reversal by the SCOTUS and I have already seen articles talking about that. It does seem rather high until one looks at the rate of reversals of the SCOTUS for 2004, 2005 and 2006:
Supreme Court reversed 75.3 percent of the cases they considered on their merits. The pattern holds true for the 2004 and 2005 terms as well, when the Supremes had overall reversal rates of 76.8 percent and 75.6 percent, respectively.
http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/archives/FinalOT04CircuitScorecard.pdf
http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/archives/CircuitsFinal.pdf
http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/archives/MemoOT06.pdf
Since there are bad judges, we should give her a pass? Nice try.
May 27th, 2009 at 3:27 pmYou betray a fundamental misunderstanding of the federal judicial system. This is not a surprise, as your posts are rife with misunderstandings of all kinds.
The Supreme Court chooses which cases it will hear. In other words, it doesn’t review every case that’s submitted.
It will select the cases it deems most critical, most interesting, most in need of redress… thus, the fact that it reverses 73% of all cases it decides should come as no surprise to thinking people. (We realize you’re not in this group, which is why we’re taking the time to explain it to you.)
Your assumption that having a decision reversed by the Supreme Court means one is a “bad judge” is a stupid one. Again, to be expected, given your body of work.
By the way, the federal bench is manned by far more judges appointed by Republicans than by Democrats. Judge Sotomayor is one of those.
May 27th, 2009 at 3:55 pmJohnM Says:
Since there are bad judges, we should give her a pass? Nice try.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Well yours wasnt even a good TRY. It was stupid. YOU are stupid so stupid you dont even understand how bad you are embarassing yourself.
May 27th, 2009 at 4:02 pmJohnM Says:
Actually he was saying that it is troubling that an activist judge can essentially change the constitution, which of course is against our constitution and speratation of powers.
Brilliant legal analysis, idiot. The SCOTUS determines what the Constitution says. There is no higher authority. If they wanted to, they could rule that the Constitution contains the lyrics to “The Reflex” by Duran Duran, and that would be the law. That’s just a fact. That is in fact exactly what the Constitution does say. If you disagree that the SCOTUS has unlimited power to interpret the Constitution, I invite you to ponder just who under the Constitution would rule on such a question…
.
JohnM Says:
Since there are bad judges, we should give her a pass? Nice try.
No, it’s that the SCOTUS tends to take up cases that it’s likely to reverse. If they agree with the case as ruled and don’t think there are any open legal questions, they don’t accept the case.
Only five of her rulings have been taken up by them. They reversed three of those. All the other cases she decided they didn’t accept, which means that they felt all of those cases were decided thoroughly and correctly, with no loose ends or open questions.
She has decided over 400 cases while on the 2nd circuit. Therefore, it is more accurate to say that the SCOTUS has overturned less than 0.75% of her rulings.
May 27th, 2009 at 4:10 pmShe’ll only have one vote. If her rulings have an impact, it will only be because four others have ruled with her. I honestly don’t understand all this hysteria. I suppose they would be happy if Obama appointed a right-winger, but why would he do that? Who in their right mind would expect him to do that? I’m thinking Sotomayor is a pragmatist, like Obama, and not the least bit radical.
May 27th, 2009 at 6:43 pmwiley Says:
I’m thinking Sotomayor is a pragmatist, like Obama, and not the least bit radical.
Actually, all of the conservatives who have looked at her judicial record say it’s pretty centrist. Even the “dead babies” crowd can’t come up with anything bad to say about it. Absolutely none of these attacks are based on her record whatsoever. Just her race.
May 27th, 2009 at 7:27 pmThank you…
seslisohbet seslichat sesli sohbet sesli chat
May 27th, 2009 at 9:21 pmRoberts, Scalia, and Alito are complete right-wing robots. Conservatives have a lot of chutzpah.
May 28th, 2009 at 5:35 amTo the ultra right wing republican party members , who are probably still seething that Obama is the President of the USA, having Sonia Sotomayor appointed to the Supreme court must be just too much to bear. The old boy white male is supreme, which they would only say in the privacy of their hate mongering friends, attitude is becoming unraveled with true freedom for all and equal rights for all. Carl Rove , Dick Channey, GWB and friends are just as backward thinking as the Muslim extremeists who they wanted so badly to battle on the world stage. But their thinking and regressive attitudes only make things worse for everyone. Themselves included but they are too closed minded to accept the truth.
May 28th, 2009 at 6:46 pmInterpreting the constitution is not as old as interpreting the bible but the selfish hatemongering regressive republican right wingers are as close to the facist party as you will find anywhere in the world.
May 28th, 2009 at 6:57 pm