Friday Muppet Blogging
Homeward Bound

SCOTUS: Fundamentals Of Justice

The American Constitution Society recently held a discussion regarding SCOTUS nominee, Judge Sonia Sotomayor.  It was moderated by the wonderful Dahlia Lithwick of Slate, who had her hands full.

My favorite part of the back and forth was the discussion regarding real world, life experience versus, as Ed Whelan condescendingly describes it:

…indulging your experience in an improper way.

If ever there were a "pot, this is kettle" moment for the former Scalia law clerk, this is it.

Especially given his latest fit in a long line of piques.

You can watch the entire back and forth at the ACS website, as well as selected excerpts.

  Spotlight
35 Responses to "SCOTUS: Fundamentals Of Justice"
Christy Hardin Smith | Friday June 12, 2009 05:52 am 1

Morning all. Guess who is home?


RevDeb | Friday June 12, 2009 06:00 am 2

Glad you had time with the peanut. We did an intergenerational service May 3 using Alice and did everything topsy turvy—backwards followed by an Unbirthday Party pot luck. One of the most fun Sundays we’ve had in a long time. Found 3 lessons in the book—which wasn’t easy— 6 impossible things before breakfast, everything has a moral, and if you don’t know where you’re going you aren’t likely to get there.


Millineryman | Friday June 12, 2009 06:08 am 3

Welcome back Christy.


Christy Hardin Smith | Friday June 12, 2009 06:12 am 4
In response to RevDeb @ 2

That sounds like a lot of fun — I bet the kids had a blast with it with the adults. *g*

The Peanut and I had much fun. It was nice to get some time with her that wasn’t interrupted. She really thrived with it. Made a number of mental notes on how to rearrange my own schedule to make that happen more often through the summer while she’s home with me. I need to do it as much as she needs me to do so — it just gets hard because that gets so lot in the day to day frenzy sometimes.

How do folks with more than one child do it? Honestly?!?


Christy Hardin Smith | Friday June 12, 2009 06:12 am 5
In response to Millineryman @ 3

Good to be home. As much fun as we had, it was lovely to get back and sleep in my own bed last night, I have to say.


Millineryman | Friday June 12, 2009 06:15 am 6
In response to Christy Hardin Smith @ 5

For that’s the worse thing about traveling, not having my own bed along for the trip.


demi | Friday June 12, 2009 06:18 am 7

Yes, yes, welcome back.
While you were gone, guess who (finally) started working at the bookstore? Yup. It’s only part time, which is probably good because it’s kind of boring, I mean not all that exhilerating. And my feet hurt. *g*


Christy Hardin Smith | Friday June 12, 2009 06:20 am 8
In response to demi @ 7

Yay for you — and thank goodness the manager finally made up her mind. LOL


Christy Hardin Smith | Friday June 12, 2009 06:23 am 9
In response to Millineryman @ 6

Same here — I sleep okay away from home, but never quite as soundly or as comfortably. Weird how you get used to the feel of your own mattress and the comfort of your own surroundings, isn’t it?


Christy Hardin Smith | Friday June 12, 2009 06:25 am 10

So, what did I miss while I was away? Any news bits you think I ought to know about — or avoid entirely?


foothillsmike | Friday June 12, 2009 06:27 am 11

Morning Christy and welcome back.
With regard to Sonia Sotomayor, I believe that a person who hasn’t examined from where they came from and made the attempt to understand the implications on that which is before them is incapable of making a reliable and unbiased opinion.


Millineryman | Friday June 12, 2009 06:40 am 12
In response to Christy Hardin Smith @ 9

Yes it is. I love the romantic notion of back packing through a country or continent, yet I’m not sure I could do it. The longest I’ve been away was two weeks and that’s about the limit.


Christy Hardin Smith | Friday June 12, 2009 06:48 am 13
In response to foothillsmike @ 11

Absolutely — the quote from Socrates that “the unexamined life is not worth living” always springs to mind when people have a hissy fit about life experience factoring into any judicial decision making. How could it not be a factor? How could you completely divorce your consciousness from your own personal history?

And, if you were able to do so, how inhuman would you be in evaluating anything? We might as well head into Phillip K. Dick territory with the Minority Report-style justice system, I suppose.

I think the Ledbetter case is a classic example: Justice Ginsburg was the only one of the justices who had dealt with gender discrimination issues up close and personal, and her viewpoint on that case could not have been more clear. The real world experience that you bring to the bench has to shape how you see things — and having a diverse set of viewpoints rather than a uniform one helps because we all come at everything we do from our own, personal experiences in the end, don’t we?

I just don’t understand that “leave out the real world” sort of mindset in thought process. And don’t see how you could.

Especially not in cases where you have a set of business practices and/or behavioral norms in a particular setting — if you’ve praticed business law, you know where people have either cut corners or tried to use the rules to skirt what they were supposed to do or hide bad behavior, etc. How could you not bring that knowledge to the bench with you? Same with criminals or any other area of the law. There are always corners to be cut – the trick is to know where those corners are and watch for them.


Christy Hardin Smith | Friday June 12, 2009 06:50 am 14
In response to Millineryman @ 12

Yeah, same here. I love the notion of biking around Europe — but I’m not certain my knees would survive the biking at this point and, even if they did, if I’d enjoy the camping out of doors or tiny hostels instead of lovely hotels. I’m afraid my “roughing it” days may be long behind me at this point — and that is either a shame or entirely sensible, I’m just not certain which. *g*


demi | Friday June 12, 2009 06:53 am 15

20 hours over 4 days, and I get 30 percent discount. Gives me half a day to work out, work in garden, follow politics, or the ever popular — Nap!


oldgold | Friday June 12, 2009 06:54 am 16

This week the Supreme Court ruled in Caperton v. A. T. Massey Coal Co. It was a 5/4 decision. I was stunned by the intellectual dishonesty of Robert’s dissent.

The election of judges needs to end.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/…..ink-we-are

http://oxdown.firedoglake.com/diary/5659


demi | Friday June 12, 2009 06:57 am 17

ps, I was having trouble with the submit comment button for a bit. Could be just me, but you might want to have the backstage people take a peek. You know me, I’m tenacious and patient, but others may be having trouble as well, and just going away…


Christy Hardin Smith | Friday June 12, 2009 06:57 am 18
In response to oldgold @ 16

I haven’t had a chance to even look at that decision yet — but I’ll take a peek at the Roberts’ dissent when I get a chance. What struck you as the worst with it? Anything in particular — or the whole thing?


foothillsmike | Friday June 12, 2009 07:06 am 19
In response to oldgold @ 16

Whether they are elected or appointed the potential for intellectual dishonesty and influence peddling exists.


foothillsmike | Friday June 12, 2009 07:13 am 20
In response to oldgold @ 16

I think that there is a particular institutional dishonesty when this case is taken in conjunction with the Don Seigleman case.


RevBev | Friday June 12, 2009 07:14 am 21

I have not read the opinion, but that whole topic should be a no-brainer. We have had a terrible stench of the problem in TX where our Judges are elected. Surprised?

OT: Did others see the young son of the guard who was killed? Such young, gentle innocence. His life will never be the same. The shooter in the hospital….I do wonder if his conscience still has a voice. Anti Black and Anti Jew talk must be exposed…hateful, sinful, cruel. The Holocaust museum is holy ground.


foothillsmike | Friday June 12, 2009 07:22 am 22
In response to RevBev @ 21

Would you be better off if your governor appointed them?


oldgold | Friday June 12, 2009 07:23 am 23
In response to foothillsmike @ 20

Foothillmike, Yes, but the appointment process, if properly done, as it is in Iowa, is much better. In the West Virginia case, one of the litigants, contributed $3,000,000
to the Justices election campaign!

Christy, I was disgusted with the entire Robert’s dissent. He is not growing on the job, but shrinking. His top-down world view informs all of his opinions and is extremely troubling.


drouse | Friday June 12, 2009 08:18 am 24
In response to Christy Hardin Smith @ 4

Selective deafness. Two or more children are almost always in conflict and the trick is knowing what to hear.


cbl2 | Friday June 12, 2009 08:31 am 25
In response to Christy Hardin Smith @ 4

How do folks with more than one child do it? Honestly?!?

our experience with 5, (yes, I said 5) was that it was easier to manage when all 5 were together – they hooked up like race cars in a draft – much, much easier than when it was just 2 who would simply mess with one another all the live long day

Welcome Home Christy


msmolly | Friday June 12, 2009 08:43 am 26
In response to oldgold @ 23

In the West Virginia case, one of the litigants, contributed $3,000,000

I am desperately trying to remember a book I read in the last year or two about a consortium that was formed to elect a judge who would rule in favor of a big commercial interest. It was Grisham or someone, I think, and I was struck by the parallel. I wonder if it is based on the Massey Coal case? I’m sure someone with a better memory than mine can remember the book. It was “fiction” but barely.


jayt | Friday June 12, 2009 08:45 am 27
In response to drouse @ 24

Selective deafness.

a/k/a Parental Survival Skill. *g*


jayt | Friday June 12, 2009 08:49 am 28
In response to jayt @ 27

or in my case – Parent/Uncle Survival Skill….


drouse | Friday June 12, 2009 08:49 am 29
In response to jayt @ 27

Yeah, it’s either that or go insane.


drouse | Friday June 12, 2009 08:59 am 30

There is just a little bit of truth behind the truism that insanity is inherited, you get it fron your kids.


Christy Hardin Smith | Friday June 12, 2009 09:02 am 31
In response to msmolly @ 26

It was a Grisham book, and it was supposed to be loosely based on the Massey case, if I remember correctly what I read in an interview with Grisham about the book.


Christy Hardin Smith | Friday June 12, 2009 09:03 am 32
In response to drouse @ 24

LOL I have difficulty with selective deafness — clearly I need to cultivate the skill. *g*


oldgold | Friday June 12, 2009 03:54 pm 33
In response to msmolly @ 26

The prevailing culture was dramatically portrayed in John Grisham’s 2008 bestseller The Appeal. A multinational corporate tycoon manages to unseat an anti-business judge, with his handpicked candidate, so the Mississippi Supreme Court can overturn a $41 million dollar toxic waste judgment against his chemical company.


oldgold | Friday June 12, 2009 03:54 pm 34

When Lauer asked Grisham if the plot was “far-fetched,” Grisham replied, “It’s already happened. It happened a few years ago in West Virginia.


RevBev | Friday June 12, 2009 04:06 pm 35
In response to demi @ 7

Good luck, Demi, and keep us up to date….I had been wondering about you.


Sorry but the comments are closed on this post
Homeward Bound
Friday Muppet Blogging

Close