Now on ScienceBlogs: Alright, Neutrinos, The Jig Is Up!

ScienceBlogs Book Club: Inside the Outbreaks

Dispatches from the Creation Wars

Thoughts From the Interface of Science, Religion, Law and Culture

Profile

brayton_headshot_wre_1443.jpg Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of Michigan Citizens for Science and co-founder of The Panda's Thumb. He has written for such publications as The Bard, Skeptic and Reports of the National Center for Science Education, spoken in front of many organizations and conferences, and appeared on nationally syndicated radio shows and on C-SPAN. Ed is also a Fellow with the Center for Independent Media and the host of Declaring Independence, a one hour weekly political talk show on WPRR in Grand Rapids, Michigan.(static)

Search

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Blogroll


Science Blogs Legal Blogs Political Blogs Random Smart and Interesting People Evolution Resources

Archives

Other Information

Ed Brayton also blogs at Positive Liberty and The Panda's Thumb



Ed Brayton is a participant in the Center for Independent Media New Journalism Program. However, all of the statements, opinions, policies, and views expressed on this site are solely Ed Brayton's. This web site is not a production of the Center, and the Center does not support or endorse any of the contents on this site.

Ed's Audio and Video

Declaring Independence podcast feed

YearlyKos 2007

Video of speech on Dover and the Future of the Anti-Evolution Movement

Audio of Greg Raymer Interview

E-mail Policy

Any and all emails that I receive may be reprinted, in part or in full, on this blog with attribution. If this is not acceptable to you, do not send me e-mail - especially if you're going to end up being embarrassed when it's printed publicly for all to see.

Read the Bills Act Coalition

My Ecosystem Details



My Amazon.com Wish List

« The Politics of the Sotomayor Pick | Main | Sotomayor and Judges Making "Policy" »

Samuel Alito: Empathetic Judge

Posted on: May 28, 2009 9:02 AM, by Ed Brayton

While the conservatives are throwing a fit about President Obama thinking that Judge Sotomayor's rise from humble beginnings might make her more empathetic toward the plight of the less fortunate, Glenn Greenwald digs up proof of their total hypocrisy from the confirmation hearing of Samuel Alito, who made much of his own unprivileged background and how that would make him more sympathetic to the suffering of the downtrodden:

U.S. SENATOR TOM COBURN (R-OK): Can you comment just about Sam Alito, and what he cares about, and let us see a little bit of your heart and what's important to you in life?

ALITO: Senator, I tried to in my opening statement, I tried to provide a little picture of who I am as a human being and how my background and my experiences have shaped me and brought me to this point.

ALITO: I don't come from an affluent background or a privileged background. My parents were both quite poor when they were growing up.

And I know about their experiences and I didn't experience those things. I don't take credit for anything that they did or anything that they overcame.

But I think that children learn a lot from their parents and they learn from what the parents say. But I think they learn a lot more from what the parents do and from what they take from the stories of their parents lives.

And that's why I went into that in my opening statement. Because when a case comes before me involving, let's say, someone who is an immigrant -- and we get an awful lot of immigration cases and naturalization cases -- I can't help but think of my own ancestors, because it wasn't that long ago when they were in that position.

And so it's my job to apply the law. It's not my job to change the law or to bend the law to achieve any result.

But when I look at those cases, I have to say to myself, and I do say to myself, "You know, this could be your grandfather, this could be your grandmother. They were not citizens at one time, and they were people who came to this country."

When I have cases involving children, I can't help but think of my own children and think about my children being treated in the way that children may be treated in the case that's before me.

And that goes down the line. When I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or because of gender. And I do take that into account. When I have a case involving someone who's been subjected to discrimination because of disability, I have to think of people who I've known and admire very greatly who've had disabilities, and I've watched them struggle to overcome the barriers that society puts up often just because it doesn't think of what it's doing -- the barriers that it puts up to them.

So those are some of the experiences that have shaped me as a person.

COBURN: Thank you.

Isn't that amazing? Four years ago, conservative Sen. Tom Coburn was all about finding out what was in the "heart" of Justice Alito and Alito was waxing eloquent about how his own poor upbringing would make him more empathetic to those who have suffered discrimination. And that was a point in his favor. Now suddenly, empathy makes a judge a radical judicial activist who ignores the law. Must be different when a white guy says it. Maybe because everyone knows they don't really mean it?

Share on Facebook
Share on StumbleUpon
Share on Facebook
Find more posts in: Politics

Comments

1

Good find, Ed. You should write for the Daily Show! =)

Let's see if this makes it into enough of the public sphere to show the true colors of the hypocritical wingnuts.

Posted by: FastLane | May 28, 2009 9:38 AM

2
Must be different when a white guy says it. Maybe because everyone knows they don't really mean it?
Well, everyone knows we white guys don't have soul.

Posted by: James Hanley | May 28, 2009 10:01 AM

3

Sotomayor should use the very same words -- with the minimum possible changes to fit her situation -- in her prepared statement and keep a copy of this transcript to shove under Coburn's nose when he gets silly.

Posted by: CJColucci | May 28, 2009 10:46 AM

4

Then there's also George HW, referring to Clarence Thomas on the occasion of his nomination to SCOTUS:

I have followed this man's career for some time. He is a delightful and warm, intelligent person who has great empathy and a wonderful sense of humor

Posted by: Spidergrackle | May 28, 2009 10:59 AM

5

Spidergrackle:

You gotta admit that Thomas's one liners about the pubic hair on the coke can and the hearing being a "high tech lynching" were much better than anything Dennis Miller's done in years.

Posted by: democommie | May 28, 2009 2:12 PM

6

I thought the complaints about empathy was just standard contrarianism. If Obama had stated, "We don't need an axe murderer on the Supreme Court," somebody would have demanded one be nominated.

Posted by: Gray Falcon | May 28, 2009 6:07 PM

7

I thought the conservative ideal was the whole "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" thing, but I guess they're not in the business of confusing ideals with what passes for GOP "principles" these days (and self-empowerment is what makes someone "uppity" in the minds of some). It's like the GOP's re-invented itself with a mix of only the worst characteristics of both the Rockefeller and conservative wings from party history.

Posted by: Jon Lester | May 28, 2009 7:23 PM

8

The New York Times is reporting (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/29/us/politics/29judge.html?em) that Sotomayor "has a blunt and even testy side." They describe her sharp questioning and the article title suggests this characteristic calls into question her temperament.

Maybe her backers should start calling her "the administration's answer to Scalia" when anyone suggests that her temper might make her a poor pick for the SC.

Posted by: Gerry L | May 28, 2009 11:39 PM

9

I think this line from the interview really punctuates the difference between Alito and Sotomayor:

"And so it's my job to apply the law. It's not my job to change the law or to bend the law to achieve any result."

What Alito was saying is that it's his job to adjudicate fairly regardless of his background. Sotomayor, on the other hand, has a proven record of using the bench to create policy based on her own beliefs. Admitting that you have a bias is only human. The key is to judge fairly according to the law despite your personal bias, and Sotamayor simply doesn't have the record to prove she can do that as far as I've seen.

Posted by: Rob Tyree | May 29, 2009 1:20 AM

10

Rob Tyree-

Except that Sotomayor - again - said almost the exact same thing in the very same speech that the one infamous quote that is being taken out of context. She said that while no one can entirely escape their own experiences, it is incumbent on judges to “transcend their personal sympathies and prejudices and aspire to achieve a greater degree of fairness and integrity based on the reason of law.” And at the very end of her speech she said:

“I am reminded each day that I render decisions that affect people concretely and that I owe them constant and complete vigilance in checking my assumptions, presumptions and perspectives and ensuring that to the extent that my limited abilities and capabilities permit me, that I reevaluate them and change as circumstances and cases before me requires. I can and do aspire to be greater than the sum total of my experiences but I accept my limitations. I willingly accept that we who judge must not deny the differences resulting from experience and heritage but attempt, as the Supreme Court suggests, continuously to judge when those opinions, sympathies and prejudices are appropriate.”

That speech was far more reasonable than the right wing demagogues are intent on portraying it.

As for this alleged track record of Sotomayor "using the bench to create policy based on her beliefs" I'd like to see some actual citations. Because I've cited several cases that clearly contradict that claim, several cases in which her political inclinations are likely to support claims of discrimination and yet she voted to dismiss those claims because they didn't meet the law. And several cases in which she supported anti-abortion groups over her own doubtless pro-choice beliefs because the law supported that conclusion.

Posted by: Ed Brayton | May 29, 2009 2:21 AM

Post a Comment

(Email is required for authentication purposes only. On some blogs, comments are moderated for spam, so your comment may not appear immediately.)





ScienceBlogs

Search ScienceBlogs:

Go to:

Advertisement
Follow ScienceBlogs on Twitter

© 2006-2011 ScienceBlogs LLC. ScienceBlogs is a registered trademark of ScienceBlogs LLC. All rights reserved.