Sotomayor promises ‘fidelity to the law’

Every nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court vows “fidelity to the law,” and most nominees probably are sincere. Judge Sonia Sotomayor promised today to stick to what the Constitution says and to what Congress meant in the lower laws it has passed.

“In the past month, many Senators have asked me about my judicial philosophy. It is simple: fidelity to the law,” she said. “The task of a judge is not to make the law – it is to apply the law. And it is clear, I believe, that my record in two courts reflects my rigorous commitment to interpreting the Constitution according to its terms; interpreting statutes according to their terms and Congress’s intent; and hewing faithfully to precedents established by the Supreme Court and my Circuit Court. In each case I have heard, I have applied the law to the facts at hand.”

Just the facts. But we all know judges don’t consider only the facts and the law. If judicial rulings were so simple, we’d let computers decide court cases. At least when they have to make a close call, judges go to their personal views of human nature. It’s the “wiggle room” of law, and some judges take it to the point of “activism,” actually changing the law.

In Supreme Court confirmation hearings, we rarely hear how the nominee would rule in hypothetical cases or even how they would have ruled on cases gone by. What the senators might ask more about is each nominee’s view of human nature.

Frank Warner

Comments

[George]

How does siding for racial discrimination against white firefighters constitute "fidelity to the law?"

Like stereo systems, there is "hi-fi" and "lo-fi." Judge Sotomayor is lo-fi and the record she's playing has a big scratch in it.

[Frank Warner]

Well, apparently there was enough disagreement over what the law meant that the City of New Haven wanted to administer a new set of tests.

I think Sotomayor was wrong and the Supreme Court was right on Ricci, but the law has some complicated areas.

In this area, the question always will be, how far does a public or private employer have to go to be fair? How far isn't fair enough?

[jj mollo]

Most of the Supreme Court issues are caused by the inability or refusal of the various legislative bodies to spell out the appropriate legal consequences and recourses. In the end, somebody has to make these decisions and, if you're serious about justice, they're not easy decisions to make.