Supreme Court Nominations
Few Quotable Quotes in Sotomayor Opinions; Was Ambition the Reason?
Posted May 27, 2009 7:42 AM CST
By Debra Cassens Weiss
U.S. Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor is known for elaborately detailed opinions—with a couple curious exceptions.
In two hot-button cases involving gun rights and firefighters charging reverse discrimination, the New York-based appeals judge joined in short unsigned opinions, Politico reports.
In one of the cases now pending before the U.S. Supreme Court, a three-judge panel of the New York City-based 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that included Sotomayor issued a “remarkably cursory” unsigned opinion, the New York Times reports in a story highlighting one of the two opinions. Only one paragraph was devoted to reasoning.
In another unsigned opinion, Sotomayor joined with a panel that rejected a Second Amendment challenge to a New York law prohibiting the possession of a martial arts weapon, nunchuks, Politico says. The panel said the U.S. Supreme Court had not made clear in District of Columbia v. Heller whether the individual right to bear arms applied to the states.
Sotomayor’s other opinions, on the other hand, are more detailed, the Times says. They are “marked by diligence, depth and unflashy competence. If they are not always a pleasure to read, they are usually models of modern judicial craftsmanship, which prizes careful attention to the facts in the record and a methodical application of layers of legal principles,” according to the newspaper.
“But they reveal no larger vision, seldom appeal to history and consistently avoid quotable language. Judge Sotomayor’s decisions are, instead, almost always technical, incremental and exhaustive, considering all of the relevant precedents and supporting even completely uncontroversial propositions with elaborate footnotes.”
The Rev. Barry Lynn told Politico he has had trouble learning about Sotomayor’s stance on church-state issues by reading her opinions. He questioned whether the elusiveness is intentional.
“You have to think about your public record and the public trail if you’re going to move up in the judiciary," he told Politico. "And I think she’s savvy enough to have done so. It is a self-preservation pattern.” He added: “In this contentious era of every nomination becoming a political campaign I can understand why someone would choose to do that.”
The Associated Press has published excerpts from rulings and dissents by Sotomayor, including a ruling that says the government can withhold public funds as a way to favor the anti-abortion position. In a dissent, Sotomayor took a First Amendment position in a police firing case, the Times adds. Sotomayor argued a police officer’s alleged anonymous racist comments were hateful and insulting, but he should be allowed to pursue a suit claiming his firing was unconstitutional.

Comments
Just Me
May 27, 2009 8:10 AM CST
She said the appeals court is the branch of government that makes the law. What else do you need to know about her that shows she has no idea what a real judge does and only is a judge so she can advance her partisan political agenda.
Flag this comment
T.R.
May 27, 2009 9:14 AM CST
@Just Me:
I think she actually said that the appellate courts make policy. Moreover, I think the idea she was getting is most case law comes out the appellate/Circuit courts rather than from SCOTUS—which makes sense given the comparative loads of cases each handles. This is really academic, though, as she was originally nominated to the bench by George H.W. Bush and confirmed twice already by a Republican Senate—so she’s pretty much in, barring some catastrophe.
Flag this comment
AndytheLawyer
May 27, 2009 9:45 AM CST
Justme is wrong. What Sotomayor said, is that appellate courts make law—in the sense that when Congress makes law that doesn’t cover the situation raised by the dispute before a court, someone’s got to state what the law is. Then, if Congress doesn’t lagree it’s free to enact a new statute reversing the decision. Either way, the law becomes more precise and clear.
Good luck with trashing Sotomayor for pointing this out in an occasional speech.
Flag this comment
JR
May 27, 2009 10:53 AM CST
To add to T.R.,‘s post, Judge Sotomayor answered a question whether a new lawyer should clerk for a district court or a court of appeals with the statement that the Court of Appeals makes policy. In contrast to a district court, an appellate court deals with legal issues, rather than facts and evidence. True enough.
Similarly, true racists distort her statement about a Latina woman reaching a wiser decision than a white man. Rather than imply racial superiority, it reflects the fact that people with wider experience in the world can understand better the situations litigants confront, especially the poor and downtrodden. I have in mind the case in which the Supreme Court held that when a judge gave the wrong date for filing, the litigant had to suffer. Only those who grew up in an ivory tower could come up with such a cruel result.
The fact that right wingers have to resort to taking anippets of speeches out of context shows their desperation.
Flag this comment
J.D.
May 27, 2009 11:43 AM CST
The fact that she wrote ONE PARAGRAPH to dismiss a constitutional issue speaks to incompetence and a narrow intellect. I don’t care how you come out on the issue, but if you’re a judge, a constitutional issue deserves much more thought than that.
As for “quotable quotes,” the winner by far is this: “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”
And here’s the context of her quote in LA RAZA (the Race) Journal at UC Berkeley as reported by National Journal legal analyst Stuart Taylor: “Sotomayor also referred to the cardinal duty of judges to be impartial as a mere ‘aspiration because it denies the fact that we are by our experiences making different choices than others.’ And she suggested that ‘inherent physiological or cultural differences’ may help explain why ‘our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging.’”
That sounds pretty racist to me. But at least she “read Nancy Drew as a young child” according to Obama. So that certainly qualifies her…. How embarrassing.
Flag this comment
Tim
May 27, 2009 11:43 AM CST
She is a catholic so she will vote to end the murder of unborn children by planned abortion factories on tax payer dimes.
Flag this comment
B. McLeod
May 28, 2009 12:22 AM CST
JD seems to be an authority on incompetence and narrow intellect.
Flag this comment
AndytheLawyer
May 29, 2009 8:36 AM CST
JD—If you want to live in a country whose judiciary never makes law from the bench to fill in the interstercises left by the legislature, then move to France or any other country with a Napoleanic Code-based legal system. But here, as Justice Scalia has repeatedly stated (and Judge Sotomayor has accurately echoed) we have a judiciary charged with creating common law as needed when the statutory law doesn’t unambiguously apply to the dispute at hand.
At best, Sotomayor can be charged with telling the truth about how the appellate judiciary functions in a common law judicial system. Does that disqualify her form a seat on the USSC? I think not—just as it did not disqualify Justice Scalia form his seat.
Flag this comment
Add a Comment
We welcome your comments, but please adhere to our comment policy.
Commenting has expired on this post.