President Obama Nominates Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court

  Today the president made his first nomination to the Supreme Court and he selected Justice Sonia Sotomayor. There really isn’t much to say about his choice, we all know where the president stands– he is the most liberal president in history– so we should expect that he would nominate liberal judges to the supreme court. It is to be expected.

  I am not going to sit here and pretend that I know a whole lot about Sonia Sotomayor, but I do know one thing about her; her view on the role of justices. And it is this view that I have a major problem with. She has not pulled any punches on her view of what role the court is to play, below are her words on the issue.

“court of appeals is where policy is made, and I know — I know this is on tape, and I should never say that because we don’t make law. I know. O.K. I know. I’m not promoting it. I’m not advocating it. I’m — you know.”

  That sentence alone should disqualify her as a Supreme Court justice. The biggest problem that I have with justices is when they legislate from the bench, when they go from interpreting law to creating law. There is supposed to be a separation of powers, there is a branch of government to create laws and it isn’t the judicial branch. But here she is quoted as admitting that the court of appeals (which she served on) is where policy is created. But the second part of that statement is even more telling to me. If she was ignorant of the proper role of the courts that would be one thing, but she continues on (as if she had just remembered that she was being recorded) to say that she shouldn’t say on tape that the appeals courts create policy because the courts don’t do that. I don’t believe that she would ever have made the awkward backtrack on her initial statement if she didn’t remember that she was being recorded. She meant what she said about the role of the appeals courts.

   This is an admission that she knows the courts are not supposed to create laws; a clear attempt to backtrack on her first statement. As if she realized that she made a mistake by her admission. To me this is more egregious; if she knows that the courts are not supposed to create policy but she does it anyway because she feels it is more fair than what the constitution lays out for the role of judges she has no business serving on the Supreme Court, or any court for that matter.

  It is no secret that there are many judges that legislate from the bench instead of keeping themselves confined to their proper role, but it is rare if ever that a judge has admitted to creating policy. This is s a brazen flaunting of her judicial philosophy, she knows that it is not the role of the courts to create policy but still she admits that she is doing it anyway. If she is willing to admit that she will overstep the courts boundaries how far will she go in implementing her radical belief on the role of the court?

  In the end this one appointee will not change the make up of the court but it provides us with clear insight of the type of judges that this president will appoint to the Supreme Court. He will be looking at justices who do not feel bound or constrained by the constitution. And that is what I worry about most with his potential future nominees as well.

  She will probably breeze through her confirmation hearings and this will embolden the president even more when his next nominee to the Supreme Court is made. The senate needs to pressure her on her belief of the role of the courts, she cannot be given a free pass on this issue just because conservatives are afraid to look mean. This is a legitimate concern and needs to be brought to light.