iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

"Where Policy Is Made": Sotomayor's Court Comment Explained

First Posted: 06/26/09 06:12 AM ET Updated: 05/25/11 02:25 PM ET

The ubiquitous conservative attack on Judge Sonia Sotomayor stems from a statement she made at a conference at Duke University Law School in 2005, in which she described the role appellate justices have in forming policy.

"All of the legal defense funds out there, they are looking for people with court of appeals experience because the court of appeals is where policy is made," she said, laughing a bit through the next part: "And I know this is on tape and I should never say that because we don't make law. I know. Okay, I know. I'm not promoting it. I'm not advocating it. I know."

Here's video:

The remarks, four years later, have hit the central nerve of the conservative psyche. Figures within and outside the GOP have already announced -- even before Sotomayor was tapped to be Barack Obama's nominee for the Supreme Court -- that they would be painting her as an activist from the bench.

But for legal experts, there is nothing actually controversial to what Sotomayor said. Her political crime, if there were one in this case, was speaking the truth.

"She's not wrong," said Jeffrey Segal, a professor of law at Stony Brook University. "Of course they make policy... You can, on one hand, say Congress makes the law and the court interprets it. But on the other hand the law is not always clear. And in clarifying those laws, the courts make policy."

As Segal noted, one of the most recent cases heard by the Supreme Court -- itself a court of appeals -- involves the strip search of a 13-year-old who school officials believed was carrying ibuprofen. "There is no clear knowing statement whether officials can be sued for that sort of behavior," he noted. "So when justices come up with a decision on that, they would be making policy."

Eric Freedman, a law professor at Hofstra University, was equally dismissive of this emerging conservative talking point. "She was saying something which is the absolute judicial equivalent of saying the sun rises each morning. It is not a controversial proposition at all that the overwhelming quantity of law making work in the federal system is done by the court of appeals... It is thoroughly uncontroversial to anyone other than a determined demagogue."

Freedman, who was a classmate of Sotomayor's at Yale Law School, noted that while the Supreme Court will decide roughly 90 cases a year, the court of appeals will weigh in on "many thousands." They are, indeed, "the final stop for the most important decisions in the federal system." They also are the forums where vagaries and gray areas of the law go to be clarified.

"One element of judging, obviously, is issuing precedent," Freedman explained. "But if the thing were squarely disposed of by existing precedent they probably wouldn't go to the court of appeals for it. Their lawyers would say, forget it... So this is where you get clarification for cases without precedent."

"I would be surprised if you got a different opinion from a fair-minded observer in the legal world," he added.


Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter!


FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS

The ubiquitous conservative attack on Judge Sonia Sotomayor stems from a statement she made at a conference at Duke University Law School in 2005, in which she described the role appellate justices ha...
The ubiquitous conservative attack on Judge Sonia Sotomayor stems from a statement she made at a conference at Duke University Law School in 2005, in which she described the role appellate justices ha...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 1,022
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (15 total)
06:32 PM on 05/31/2009
Judges make policy. I understand that very well. But I do NOT want Sonia Sotomayor making policy on the US Supreme Court, and here's why:

I'm on The Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law's email list, and they sent me a PDF detailing some of her past cases. One was the case of a woman with Down's Syndrome who the police took from her home and forced into a mental institution, where she was forcibly drugged. Sotomayor ruled that what they did to her was "not unconstitutional". After reading that, I understood that Sotomayor is completely worthless to me--as a Supreme Court judge, she is not going to protect my rights.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Mover
Father, Husband, Ret 1SG
01:06 PM on 05/28/2009
I find it to be very telling that the author uses college professors to lend support to his defense of the nominee.

College professors with little or no real world experience as experts in any field is extraordinarily ill advised.

Let's not forget that the President himself has a law degree specializing in the US Constitution and yet he believes that it is the province of the federal government to extract money from the electorate to give to a list of special interest groups that senators and congressperson supporters have been hiding in their desk drawers for decades, knowing that they couldn't get the money passed out in an open a transparent way. On top of that, he comes out and says "we can't spend like this indefinitely" the day after he obligates 410 BILLION more hope dollars. He believes that he can just print money on a whim. Trillions of dollars that he has no hope of ever seeing paid back. In the mean time every poor person that you bleed for will have much higher expenses than ever imagined due to the devaluation of the US "Hope" dollar. Every autoworker that you want to have a job now works for the federal government. I wonder if El Presidente Chavez had nationalizing businesses this easily.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
rimofheaven
01:33 AM on 05/28/2009
What she said lacked tact and taste, but it was the truth.
10:24 PM on 05/27/2009
Sorry, we've got backtracking here and making light of the comment. If the laws are unclear, then it is because the "association" to which Ms. Sotomayor belongs writes them that way. Our Congress may write those bills, but lawyers who are supposed to be advising Congressional members or else what are we paying those ABA members for in the first place. Our courts are a mess because the lawyers who are involved in legislation aren't doing their jobs. Until that "associatiion" starts getting some oversight, a carryover from Great Britain and didn't even exist in this country until more and more "barristers" moved here, then our courts will remain a mess.

If the laws were reviewed for Constitutionality before getting to the floor, then we wouldn't be paying all these judges in the first place. This is about job retention. And now Congress is not even reading bills before they are voted.

Lawyers are the largest campaign donors, bar none, to both political parties either personally, professionally or through their lobbying efforts on behalf of their corporate clientele. And dominant all three branches of government, when all lawyers are actually inherently members of the judicial branch and should thus be precluded from lobbying or serving due to inherent conflicts of interest.

Her excuses still don't wash, without addressing the problem that create activists judges in the first place, and that is legislators and their legal staffs who aren't doing THEIR jobs, yet collecting those massive salaries and benefits.
07:50 PM on 05/27/2009
For the bigots, David Duke would be more qualified than any minority, no matter how unqualified David Duke is to be the Supreme Court Justice. They are angry that, under Obama, the 99.99%White quota in federal judicial appointments will be rejected, because, it's not all about White people. Though I would have preferred Sears, specifically because of race (I make no bones about it and she is very! qualified), but I am satisfied and happy for Sotomayor. We have enough Whites in every aspect of the judiciary; and, contrary to media hype, most of them did not get there because of objective qualifications! Rather, they got there because of race and money. For all those who claim that Sotomayor is not an intellectual heavy-weight, please, place her qualifications side-by-side with any of the Justices currently sitting there, and let's see how they match up. Start with how each one of them got there, i.e., what part did he or she take to get your appointment. Did he or she know a politician and well-connected or was he or she get picked out because of pure merits. Sotomayor wins hand-down!
03:57 PM on 05/27/2009
Are any of you bothered/angered/deeply disappointed/saddened/hurting for our daughters that this appointment will most certainly result in Roe v. Wade being overturned.
I really would like to know...
Thank you
Kali
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Kohimama
04:19 PM on 05/27/2009
What on earth are you talking about?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
LeftRight
TANSTAAFL
04:20 PM on 05/27/2009
Explain how you think that this woman will overturn Roe v Wade.....
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
CherokeeGirl
one pissed off Indian.
03:17 PM on 05/27/2009
This clip is exactly the reason I would have chosen Wood over Sotomayor.

This clip is very damning and I can't understand why Obama thinks that's okay.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
regellner
Writer of politics etc.
01:49 PM on 05/27/2009
The republicans know that the appellate courts are where laws are analyzed the most throughly and due to this policy can be made there. This applies to all judges, whether they are democrat, republican, independent, libertatian, etcetera. That is one of the duties of the appellate courts.
The republicans are doing what they do best: they take a non-issue and play on false fears in order to attack their opponents. The unfortunate thing is that the American people buy it all too often.

Raymond Gellner - Charlotte Liberal Examiner
http://www.examiner.com/x-11326-Charlotte-Liberal-Examiner

http://www.examiner.com/x-11326-Charlotte-Liberal-Examiner~y2009m5d26-Sotomayor-selected-as-Supreme-Court-nominee-partisan-battle-lines-drawn-in-Senate

http://www.examiner.com/x-11326-Charlotte-Liberal-Examiner~y2009m5d26-Empathy-is-positive-to-the-Sotomayor-Supreme-Court-selection
photo
sepiasiren
writer animator lover
01:46 PM on 05/27/2009
Anyone who thinks ANY judges background will not influence how they look at a case is suffering from serious delusion. A white male is not apt to see a case that deals with women's rights the same way a woman would. Judges are human and will be able to identify with certain issues personally. There is also the idea that one should temper justice with mercy. Following the rule of law is important. At the same time, we have been admonished to temper justice with mercy. This is why we have aggravating and mitigating factors on the law books. If gives Judges room to impose sentences based on individual situations. For instance, a poor, starving woman who steals baby food for a dying baby should not get the same sentences as a armed robber. A blind rule of law would.

Justice is not rigid and a judge shouldn't be either.

Besides, all these supposed Christian conservatives are forgetting that the most beloved and wise judges and kings in the bible were both intelligent, studied and merciful--they had empathy.
11:56 AM on 05/27/2009
What experience? She attended private schools, she has worked as a lawyer, and never been married How does any of this relate to the everyday experience of common people? Get over the hard luck story; because there really isn't one there. Sounds to me like she had a loving devoted mother; she went to a private Catholic school where she got great grades and went to the most prestigious schools in the country. Later she worked as a Manhatten DA where she built up her resume and got a plum job as a corporate attorney. Some blue nose Republican appointed her to a guaranteed job for life and now she is headed for the Supreme Court. My God! The Struggle Against the Odds!
12:47 PM on 05/27/2009
So, are you saying that unless you have been married you are not qualified for the Supreme Court?
Guess that why the Chief Justice hastily got married and adopted 2 kids so he could meet your qualifications.
Now exactly where in the Constitution does it say marriage is a requirement to become a Justice on the Supreme Court?
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
graceland9
...and talk in the past and not the present tense.
01:31 PM on 05/27/2009
Whereas Alito spent his childhood beating off bears with a notebook as he trudged five miles to a one-room schoolhouse, uphill both ways.
11:43 AM on 05/27/2009
Of course appeal judges make policy. And that is exactly why it is important that we know what their judicial philosophy is. Joe Biden started this nonsense with Robert Bork, who Warren Burger said was one ot the greatest appointments to the bench he had ever seen. Still, Bork was denied a seat because of his judicial philosophy. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. Republicans are only continuing a tradition begun by Democrats: Smear the Judge
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
graceland9
...and talk in the past and not the present tense.
01:32 PM on 05/27/2009
Biden said that Bork was a great judge, but he viewed the Constitution as written in stone instead of as a living, breathing document. Guess the argument went pretty well, since Reagan ended up agreeing with Joe and admitting defeat in the Bork nomination.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
Bronxdude
Integrity has no need of rules
11:27 AM on 05/27/2009
Carl Rove has repeatedly stated that Judge Sonia Sotomayor lacks the intellectual ability to sit on the Supreme Court. What makes Carl Rove (high school graduate and Bush’s minion/hand puppet) competent to critique Judge Sotomayor’s intellectual attributes? Let’s review the facts. After graduating valedictorian from New York’s prestigious Cardinal Spellman High School, Judge Sotomayor went on to graduate summa cum laude from Princeton, and later received a law degree from Yale, where she was also elected Editor of the influential Yale Law Journal. In comparison, Bush was a legacy admission to Yale and graduated “thank-you-laude” with a paltry C average. Why is it that every minority candidate (Thurgood Marshall, Clarence Thomas, and Sonia Sotomayor) nominated to the Supreme Court has been criticized by White (male) pundits as being intellectually incompetent? Even though Judge Alito was affiliated with a racist organization (he denied knowing the group was racist) while at Princeton and had an unremarkable tenure as a student while attending law school at Yale, no one ever questioned his intellectual ability before and during his confirmation hearing.
01:47 PM on 05/27/2009
Realize that our country is emerging from a period in history where ignorance was celebrated and experience was marginalized. Think of the key players involved in the Bush administration- Rove never went to college, Bush/Cheney never served in any war yet acted as if they were soldiers. While Colin Powell who is a decorated war hero was used and marginalized by the GOP.
Rumsfeld peppered his reports to the the president with scripture. Brown was head of some equestrian society before his complete failure in running FEMA. Gonzales was in Cheney's pocket as AG.

We are in the process of restoring common sense, thoughtful justice and credibilty to ourselves. The best arguement that the conservatives can toss out at Sotomayor is basically saying she is too educated to understand common struggles?

Are they serious? They're position is ridiculous and shameful.
photo
ohiomark
Rush Geek
11:25 AM on 05/27/2009
When she said it, she was laughing about it with "nod and a wink".

If she was truly against "making policy" from the bench, there would be tapes of her saying that in a serious forum. Instead, we hear her joking about it.

Legislating from the bench does go on and it's wrong. That is NOT the job of a judge. She should be doing everything possible to put an end to the practice, not laugh about it.
09:31 AM on 05/27/2009
I bet the neo-cons are using sound bites of her speech.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
AGarcia
02:42 AM on 05/27/2009
It's going to be all about that stupid New Haven case, mark my words... "reverse discrimination" lol.
08:38 AM on 05/27/2009
was she "empathetic" to those firemen?
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
Bronxdude
Integrity has no need of rules
11:29 AM on 05/27/2009
One fireman, not those firemen.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
09:41 AM on 05/27/2009
are you stating your belief that ethnicity should play a role in the decision to hire or not hire someone?