Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Obama's Real-Life Justice


Obama and Sotomayor this morning. (AP)

In nominating U.S. Appeals Court Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court, President Obama is asserting his view that real justice is arrived at not through cold-hearted calculations made in a vacuum, but by applying the principles of the founding fathers to the real world.

Obama had already declared that the quality of empathy -- "of understanding and identifying with people's hopes and struggles," as he put it on May 1 -- would be a key litmus test for the nomination. (See my extensive May 13 post, The Empathy War.)

The president took some steps today to inoculate himself against the conservative attack on his empathy requirement. In his announcement, he went out of his way to state that it came in third -- after a "a rigorous intellect, a mastery of the law, an ability to hone in on the key issues and provide clear answers to complex legal questions" and a "recognition of the limits of the judicial role, an understanding that a judge's job is to interpret, not make law, to approach decisions without any particular ideology or agenda, but rather a commitment to impartial justice, a respect for precedent, and a determination to faithfully apply the law to the facts at hand."

Nevertheless, in his pick and his in his words, he made it clear that he is not backing away from his belief that justice is not an abstract concept, but is rooted in a full understanding of the American experience: "For as Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once said, the life of the law has not been logic, it has been experience; experience being tested by obstacles and barriers, by hardship and misfortune; experience insisting, persisting, and ultimately overcoming those barriers. It is experience that can give a person a common touch and a sense of compassion, an understanding of how the world works and how ordinary people live."

Sotomayor is a moving example of the American dream in action. She would be the first Hispanic on the court, and the third woman. Her remarks today focused on her inspiring rise from a public housing project in the South Bronx to become a respected appeals court judge -- and now a Supreme Court nominee.

As Obama explained in a C-SPAN interview on Friday: "I want a judge not only to be applying the law in front of them, but also to understand that, as a practical matter, a lot of times people have weak bargaining power. Now, in some ways it might cut the other way. I want a judge who has a sense of how regulations might affect the businesses in a practical way...What I want is not just ivory tower learning. I want somebody who has the intellectual fire power, but also a little bit of a common touch and has a practical sense of how the world works."

I don't do sports metaphors very often, but in Sotomayor, Obama has picked a judge who, as he noted, "saved baseball" by decisively ruling against the owners in favor of the players in ending the 1995 baseball strike. She's not, as Chief Justice John Roberts styled himself in his confirmation hearings, just an umpire.

After all, what did Roberts really mean by "umpire"? As Jeffrey Toobin recently wrote in the New Yorker, Roberts's record is "that of a doctrinaire conservative...[Roberts] reflects a view that the Court should almost always defer to the existing power relationships in society. In every major case since he became the nation's seventeenth Chief Justice, Roberts has sided with the prosecution over the defendant, the state over the condemned, the executive branch over the legislative, and the corporate defendant over the individual plaintiff."

Barring some sort of vetting catastrophe, Sotomayor's confirmation is considered extremely likely on account of her background, the large Democratic majority in the Senate and the fact that she is ideologically not very different from the man she would replace, Justice David Souter. But that is not to say some people won't be picking fights.

As Charlie Savage recently wrote in the New York Times: "While conservatives say they know they have little chance of defeating Mr. Obama’s choice because Democrats control the Senate, they say they hope to mount a fight that could help refill depleted coffers and galvanize a movement demoralized by Republican electoral defeats."

Tom Goldstein writes in Scotusblog: "The attacks are inevitable and tremendously regrettable, just as they were for Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito. A cottage industry – literally an industry, given the sums of money raised and spent – now exists in which the far left and right either brutalize or lionize the President’s nominees. Because the absence of controversy means bankruptcy, it has to be invented by both sides, whatever the cost to the nominee personally and to the integrity of the judiciary nationally."

Goldstein also takes apart the three major accusations made by Sotomayor's critics: The "first claim – likely stated obliquely and only on background – will be that Judge Sotomayor is not smart enough for the job. This is a critical ground for the White House to capture.... The objective evidence is that Sotomayor is in fact extremely intelligent.... Her opinions are thorough, well-reasoned, and clearly written. Nothing suggests she isn’t the match of the other Justices.

"The second claim – and this one will be front and center – will be the classic resort to ideology: that Judge Sotomayor is a liberal ideologue and 'judicial activist.' ... There is no question that Sonia Sotomayor would be on the left of this Supreme Court, just not the radical left. Our surveys of her opinions put her in essentially the same ideological position as Justice Souter....

"The third claim... will be that Judge Sotomayor is unprincipled or dismissive of positions with which she disagrees.... There just isn’t any remotely persuasive evidence that Judge Sotomayor acts lawlessly or anything of the sort."

Here are the fighting words from the right: Wendy E. Long, counsel to the Judicial Confirmation Network called Sotomayor "a liberal judicial activist of the first order who thinks her own personal political agenda is more important that the law as written. She thinks that judges should dictate policy, and that one's sex, race, and ethnicity ought to affect the decisions one renders from the bench."

In reference to a case in which Sotomayor supported the City of New Haven's decision to throw out the results of a firefighter promotion exam because almost no minorities qualified for promotions, Long wrote: "She reads racial preferences and quotas into the Constitution, even to the point of dishonoring those who preserve our public safety. On September 11, America saw firsthand the vital role of America's firefighters in protecting our citizens. They put their lives on the line for her and the other citizens of New York and the nation. But Judge Sotomayor would sacrifice their claims to fair treatment in employment promotions to racial preferences and quotas. The Supreme Court is now reviewing that decision."

Charlie Savage (again) wrote in the New York Times earlier this month about a speech Sotomayor gave in 2001: "In her speech, Judge Sotomayor questioned the famous notion — often invoked by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and her retired Supreme Court colleague, Sandra Day O’Connor — that a wise old man and a wise old woman would reach the same conclusion when deciding cases.

"'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,' said Judge Sotomayor."

Here is Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer on Fox News this morning responding to her nomination: "She is a believer in identity politics to the extreme. As we heard in the quote...where she said that she would hope that a Latina woman would be more wise than a white male, it tells her [sic] what her attitude is to race and gender and these categories...Her job on the court is to be an impartial adjudicator. And if she is not, if her empathy and her concern for certain ethnicities overrides the idea of justice and equal justice, I think that is a troubling concern."

By Dan Froomkin  |  May 26, 2009; 12:25 PM ET
 
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Cartoon Watch
Next: On Photographs

Comments

Republicans are attacking "empathy" as a qualification for a judge. There is a strange point about this which others have brought up.

There is a definition for someone who lacks "empathy", they are called sociopaths.

What is it about sociopaths that makes them so attractive to Republicans as judges?

Posted by: BigTimePatriot | May 26, 2009 12:49 PM | Report abuse


Republicans can take credit for appointing the first "Hispanic" Supreme Court Justice, Benjamin N. Cardozo, a descendent of Portuguese Sephardic Jews who were, no doubt, refugees from Spain.

Cardozo, appointed by Herbert Hoover in 1932, was the cousin of Emma Lazarus who penned the famous lines on the Statue of Liberty.

Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law at Yeshiva University in Brooklyn is named for him.

Posted by: motorfriend | May 26, 2009 12:57 PM | Report abuse

In baseball, if you argue with the umpire, you get thrown out of the game.

Posted by: tailwagger | May 26, 2009 12:59 PM | Report abuse

Obama had already declared that the quality of empathy -- "of understanding and identifying with people's hopes and struggles," as he put it on May 1 -- would be a key litmus test for the nomination.
____
Yeah well what happened to the EMPATHY for the White firefighters who studied hard to pass the test for promotion??? They passed it fair and square yet were denied promotions for no other reason than the fact they were White. Even Chris Matthews didn't think that was fair.

Posted by: sovine08 | May 26, 2009 1:08 PM | Report abuse

Krauthammer's a vicious little sophist. He turns Sotomayor's statement--that life as a disadvantaged minority has provided her with a dimension of wisdom that others may not have--into something else: the thought that she has empathy only for her fellow minorities. Classic reasoning-in-bad-faith by that shill.

Posted by: whizbang9a | May 26, 2009 1:08 PM | Report abuse

@motorfriend: today's Republicans can't take legitimate credit for anything the party did before the 1960's. Their forefathers were Democrats who objected to the civil rights movement and changed parties, establishing the narrow-minded bigotry that defines the party to this day.

Posted by: BigTunaTim | May 26, 2009 1:11 PM | Report abuse

Yeah well what happened to the EMPATHY for the White firefighters who studied hard to pass the test for promotion??? They
----------
It's a little but more complex, isn't it, but please, the self-pity is wondrous to behold.

Nothing prettier than the stupid and the self-pitying -- anyway, it's called competition, even asymmetric competition, something those tards were never good at in the first place -- push yourself to be smarter, find another way, then...

Posted by: thegreatpotatospamof2003 | May 26, 2009 1:13 PM | Report abuse

Anything that 'troubles' Charlie Krauthammer is fine by me

Posted by: dmls2000 | May 26, 2009 1:52 PM | Report abuse

Furthermore, concerning the firefighters' case, there's quite a bit of the story that isn't told in the blurb. Specifically, was there an affirmative-action statute which the city had to account for? How many minorities even took the test? There are some basic facts those of you who want to accuse her of such incompetence might want to learn first.

Lest you sound, you know, incompetent.

Posted by: whizbang9a | May 26, 2009 1:53 PM | Report abuse

Judge Sotomayor will be handily confirmed by the Senate and will be on the Supreme Court bench by October. The Republicans can try to slow it down with all kinds of misrepresentations--and it appears those have already started--but they don't have the firepower to do any more than that. Obama has the numbers and he knows it.

The *real* test would be if Kennedy, Thomas, Scalia, Alito or Roberts had to be replaced. That would see the Republicans pull out every weapon in their shrunken and underpowered arsenal--and it'd be a riot watching them try to insist on a "conservative" claim to the seat.

Posted by: dbitt | May 26, 2009 2:01 PM | Report abuse

What is it about sociopaths that makes them so attractive to Republicans as judges?

Posted by: BigTimePatriot

==

Sociopaths already have their own party. They're called libertarians

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 26, 2009 2:10 PM | Report abuse

Robert's record is exactly why we need a radical shift in the opposite direction. I hope the kooks raise holy hell. Let them spend millions in opposition.
Obama should stick to his guns. Let them filibuster to the point of shutting down the government.
This is a great chance to get rid of the disease of neocon christian conservativism once and for all.
"Granpa, what was a republican?"..

Posted by: TOMHERE | May 26, 2009 2:12 PM | Report abuse

The problem with "empathy" from the bench is it interferes with "impartiality". It is also indistiguishable from "favoritism".

We are a nation ruled by laws, not people. If we don't like the result, we can write a new law that the judes must apply. Allowing the judge to base his or her decision on an emotional connection to the plaintiff or to the defendant is to open the door to abuse. When people are in conflict, who should the judge feel empathy for? The cute defendant? The plaintiff with a good-smelling cologne? The one who has a siilar life story to the judge? The one with the "right" skin color, religion, gender, or sexual orientation?

"Empathy" from the bench is the same as "bias" form the bench, it just means that the judge votes in favor of whoever is cutest.

Posted by: ZZim | May 26, 2009 2:40 PM | Report abuse

She is far more qualified and has a breath and depth of experience that Clarance Thomas could only envy.

Posted by: MerrillFrank | May 26, 2009 2:48 PM | Report abuse

Furthermore, concerning the firefighters' case, there's quite a bit of the story that isn't told in the blurb.
Posted by: whizbang9a
____
And I would hope people do try to find out more because the more you read about the case the more you realize how these White fighters were discriminated against...

Specifically, was there an affirmative-action statute which the city had to account for?
Posted by: whizbang9a
_______
Well if there was it should be about equal opportunity NOT equal results?? If not that by itself should be over turned with this case...

How many minorities even took the test?
____
I've yet to see a number but what difference would that make? If you want to argue a test was biased then show what questions in the test were biased. You can't wait for the results and then when the numbers aren't to your liking say.. well the test must be biased. These fire fighters studed for and took this test in good conscience. You can't just throw out the results because you don't like who passed it.

There are some basic facts those of you who want to accuse her of such incompetence might want to learn first.
Posted by: whizbang9a
_______
Here's a basic fact.. it's up to the city of New Haven to PROVE this test was racially biased. And if it was then they have to explain why it given in the first place. It's not up to the fire fighters to prove the test wasn't biased...
Posted by: whizbang9a

Lest you sound, you know, incompetent.
Posted by: whizbang9a
______
I know what I'm talking about. Chris Matthews, hardly a Conservative, knows what he's talking about.. these white firefighters were discriminated against and the Surpreme Court will by all we know overturn her decision. She is the one who has to go before Congress and you know.. explain how she after that decision is competent.

Posted by: sovine08 | May 26, 2009 3:01 PM | Report abuse

Wait a minute, Krauthammer.....on Fox? Who'd a thunk it?

Posted by: noel1963 | May 26, 2009 3:17 PM | Report abuse

The problem with "empathy" from the bench is it interferes with "impartiality". It is also indistiguishable from "favoritism".

-----------

Scalia, Roberts and Thomas express "justice" as a measure of their skewed, frustrated infantile emotions.

Emotion is only indicated by empathy?

You're kidding, right?

And speaking of Krauthammer, (as someone did above), why does he feel such a need to defend torture?

An absence of "emotion?"

Well, no, first thing you do is look at his fear -- ...

Posted by: thegreatpotatospamof2003 | May 26, 2009 3:30 PM | Report abuse

I'm glad you singled out Krauthammer for a taste of the right-wing reaction, but I can assure you that this odious man will soon come up with accusations far more startling, cleverly designed to get all those bald white middle-aged rural Limbaugh-listening males frothing at the lips. We can never forget what happened in 2000 when the court put Bush in the White House and left citizens votes uncounted. If Obama holds office long enough to change the character of the court it will be a great thing for this country.

Posted by: gposner | May 26, 2009 3:37 PM | Report abuse

Krauthammer doesn't have a leg to stand on.

Posted by: OctoberLanguage | May 26, 2009 3:42 PM | Report abuse

Obama had already declared that the quality of empathy -- "of understanding and identifying with people's hopes and struggles," as he put it on May 1 -- would be a key litmus test for the nomination.
*********

are we supposed to take from this whole "empathy" slogan that john roberts, sam alito, etc. have no empathy and are cold hearted b@stards?

thats seems to be the implication from obama and aside from being a ridiculous charge, it is quite a stunning insult from the head of one branch to the head of another.

Posted by: dummypants | May 26, 2009 4:24 PM | Report abuse

One thing the coverage hasn't mentioned much is what a savvy political move this is for Obama. Hispanics are the fastest-growing demographic in the country and key to any future Republican comeback. Obama is inviting the GOP to dig itself a further electoral hole by loudly oppsing the first Hispanic Supreme Court nominee. And while they're at it, oh yeah, tee off women by opposing a second female on the Court. My guess is that we'll see further evidence of a fundamental GOP split on this one: the hard-right faction will loudly oppose the nomination, but others will be much more muted in their criticism, treading carefully due to potential political consequences. Barring some crazy revelation about her past, she'll be confirmed easily, with almost all the Dems and a handful of Republican votes.

Posted by: bco20001 | May 26, 2009 5:02 PM | Report abuse

are we supposed to take from this whole "empathy" slogan that john roberts, sam alito, etc. have no empathy and are cold hearted b@stards?

thats seems to be the implication from obama and aside from being a ridiculous charge, it is quite a stunning insult from the head of one branch to the head of another.

Posted by: dummypants | May 26, 2009 4:24 PM | Report abuse
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
No, Obama isn't calling anyone cold-hearted. Judicial empathy is simply the process of discarding impartiality in order to benefit favored classes of people. So if a case were fairly close and one side were a member of a favored class, the judge would shade her opinion in that direction in order to benefit the favored person.

It's really that simple.

For people like myself, who do not believe in "race" or "class", this sort of thinking is nonsensical. But as the Democrats have pointed out, they won the election, so they get to do whatever they want and the rest of us have to shut up and submit to their will.

Posted by: ZZim | May 26, 2009 5:02 PM | Report abuse

Wendy E. Long once clerked for Justice Clarence Thomas. Why would one expect anything other than right-wing vitriol from someone who was once Clarence Thomas' beyotch.

Posted by: angelos_peter | May 26, 2009 5:13 PM | Report abuse

bco20001--Finally, an intelligent comment! Who are all these right-wing intractable folks holding back any kind of change with both hands? And why do they keep shooting themselves in the foot? Haven't thy figured out we're heading AWAY from the politics of fear, and toward the much more sensible policy of getting along? Republicans swung their pendulum as far as they could to the right, bringing us a cataclysmic attack, two wars with countries that had nothing to do with it, torture of random detainees whom no one can prove have done anything wrong, the loss of our most cherished civil liberties, and the bankruptcy of our country. Republican policies and principles have impoverished our country and brought misery to our people. They swung the pendulum as far as they could to the right, and now the pendulum is swinging the other way. The sooner the GOP gets used to the new reality, and joins in to help form it instead of dragging their heels against any change, the happier they'll be and the better off America will be.

Posted by: shaman7214 | May 26, 2009 5:42 PM | Report abuse

The conservative, republican attack is totally dishonest. What they want are justices who are so called conservative activists who will apply the principles of what essentially is fascism to the US democracy. Just look at the rulings from Roberts, Scalia, and Alito. Then there is the disgrace of the unqualified Clarence Thomas - which was all about playing the race card. Why can't the republicans be honest with the US and just state what they really want? Oh right. The same thing Bin Laden wants.

Posted by: db11232 | May 26, 2009 5:49 PM | Report abuse

So...

Is Sotomayor the best possible choice?

And was President Obama honest in stating his ranked selection criteria?

Posted by: jhorstma | May 26, 2009 5:53 PM | Report abuse

For one thing, sovine08, Sotomayor's role in the three-judge court's decision (later affirmed by an appeals court, but recommended to the Supreme Court for review) isn't known. So if you're attacking her over that verdict, the simple fact is, you don't know for what.

Secondly, Equal Opportunity Employment law states that an employer, even in applying identical, standardized policies across the board, may need to justify in court when its policies produce extremely disparate hiring or promotion ratios for women and minorities. Whether you approve or disapprove of the basic premise of affirmative action, isn't relevant here: the principle of affirmative action wasn't the legal question in this case. Application of EOE law to a specific series of events, was. Even the information available to us is only summary in nature.

That's the kind of information I was talking about. Not more commentary and metacommentary. Keep driving yourself nuts with that if it makes you feel good.

Posted by: whizbang9a | May 26, 2009 6:12 PM | Report abuse

Übersturmbahnführer Krauthammer is an angry, little man who favors radical answers to the complicated problems of our society – problems that do not have clean, simple answers. In that regard, he is a fascist. Fascists are anti-modernists who feel threatened by the rapid changes of contemporary life. Women and minorities are no longer in “their place.” Power bastions like the country club are being invaded, and numerous other institutions of the old regime are “under attack.” These are the sorts of irritations that led to the rise of the Nazis and they are the same irritations that distinguish today’s Republican Party. In that regard, Krauthammer plays the same role for the GOP as did Robert Ley or Putzi Hanfstaengel for Hitler – he is a pseudo-intellectual who produces propaganda for his political masters.

Posted by: hmeagher | May 26, 2009 8:11 PM | Report abuse

She is a kook and her opinions dictate bigotry. She has the intelligence but lacks the maturity and or or discipline to be qualified as a profound judge of our Constitution. Please pack her little radical self absorbed self up and send her home

Posted by: DD163 | May 26, 2009 8:22 PM | Report abuse

zzim--for you not to "believe in race or class", is to say, that you're willfully blind to much of history. So slavery had no roots and no aftereffects. So moneyed interests do nothing whatsoever to maintain their position. Or perhaps you acknowledge differences which race and class have created in history, but you try to regard all people equally (which I applaud).

But the fact is, the US now has many anti-discrimination laws, set up in light of the historical disadvantages which some segments of the population have. Of course the laws and the systems aren't perfect. But they do exist, and this New Haven case was a very clear example of a hiring/promotion practice, though uniformly applied, creating a big disparity in promotions. And by law, that's subject to litigation.

Think that's ridiculous? The same reasoning is behind the Georgia supreme court disallowing the $10 ID card for voting--which would have made it disproportionately difficult for poor blacks to vote.

Posted by: whizbang9a | May 26, 2009 8:59 PM | Report abuse

Obama says: "I want somebody who has the intellectual fire power, but also a little bit of a common touch and has a practical sense of how the world works." He is, of course, describing his own traits.

Posted by: gbo6 | May 26, 2009 10:04 PM | Report abuse

"In every major case since he became the nation's seventeenth Chief Justice,Roberts has sided with the prosecution over the defendant, the state over the condemned, the executive branch over the legislative, and the corporate defendant over the individual plaintiff."

And anybody who has read the Psalms and the prophets knows how very, very Biblical THAT approach is.

Not.

The hypocrisy (or the invincible ignorance) of the Religious Right continues to dumbfound me.

Posted by: herzliebster | May 26, 2009 11:28 PM | Report abuse

"The problem with "empathy" from the bench is it interferes with "impartiality". It is also indistiguishable from "favoritism"."

Overly simplistic. One man's impartiality is another man's favoritism. Each of the nine justices has empathy. None is totally impartial. Each displays favoritism. The best we can hope for is to maintain a reasonable balance so that the Court, as a whole, can maintain the trust of a majority of the people.

What Obama says he wants is someone whose empathy leans toward "understanding and identifying with people's hopes and struggles," which is a far cry from four of the current justices whose empathy seems to lie with "the prosecution over the defendant, the state over the condemned, the executive branch over the legislative, and the corporate defendant over the individual plaintiff."

As a replacement for Justice Souter, Sotomayor is a minimal change to the balance on the Court but is a major change in the public's perception of the Court.

Posted by: schuberm | May 27, 2009 12:30 AM | Report abuse

Is Judge Sotomayor Catholic, and if so, is she Catholic in the same sense and to the same degree as the four Catholics currently entrenched on the U.S. Supreme Court, Justice Roberts, Justice Scalia, Justice Alito and Justice Thomas????

If she is, then American women, especially those who are pregnant, can kiss Pro-Choice goodbye because the ruling in Roe v. Wade will be reversed.

Which I believe is why Judge Sotomayor was chosen, and since no one yet apparently has said or whispered the word "abortion" in reference to Judge Sotomayor, then I can only assume that she was selected specifically to join with the other four Catholics on the Supreme Court right now and fulfill what the hardcore, ultra-orthodox religious Republicans and Catholics (like James Dobson) have been pushing for for over thirty years...the repeal of Roe v. Wade.

Thus, when she was vetted and questioned-in-person by President Obama (and probably Rahm Emanuel), was one of the questions posed to her about her views on abortion...literally duplicating one of the first questions asked by Republican administrations in their vetting and questioning of their Supreme Court candidates of the past? I bet she was. How did she respond? We know how Justice Roberts, Alito, Scalia and Thomas responded, so how did Supreme Court candidate Judge Sotomayor respond? Freedom-loving women of America deserve to know.

Posted by: wizard2000 | May 27, 2009 2:01 AM | Report abuse

zzim--for you not to "believe in race or class", is to say, that you're willfully blind to much of history. So slavery had no roots and no aftereffects. So moneyed interests do nothing whatsoever to maintain their position. Or perhaps you acknowledge differences which race and class have created in history, but you try to regard all people equally (which I applaud).
Posted by: whizbang9a | May 26, 2009 8:59 PM | Report abuse
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
I know there are people who believe in these things and act on those beliefs. That’s what causes the negative affects we have to oppose. But race and class are not real. They are no more real than the flat earth or the boogeyman. Yet there exists a Flat Earth Society and some folks are afraid to sleep with the light off.

We need to understand these things so we can relate to sad superstitious people. In the same way, we need to be able to understand the sad ideologies that swirl around the imaginary concepts of race and class.

Posted by: ZZim | May 27, 2009 8:46 AM | Report abuse

"The problem with "empathy" from the bench is it interferes with "impartiality". It is also indistiguishable from "favoritism"."

Overly simplistic. One man's impartiality is another man's favoritism. Each of the nine justices has empathy. None is totally impartial. Each displays favoritism. The best we can hope for is to maintain a reasonable balance so that the Court, as a whole, can maintain the trust of a majority of the people.

Posted by: schuberm | May 27, 2009 12:30 AM | Report abuse
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-==-
I see. So your position is that the Court is already corrupt and that President Obama’s task is to find someone whose particular brand of corruption will “balance” the corruption of the Court, thus making it no longer corrupt. And if he were to nominate someone who ISN’T corrupt, he would be doing a disservice to the country. Got it.

I reject your position.

Posted by: ZZim | May 27, 2009 8:51 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company