Lynn v. Sekulow

Lynn v. Sekulow


Supreme Court Nominee Named

posted by Jay Sekulow

Barry, today’s nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor  to replace Justice David Souter on the Supreme Court of the United States will generate serious debate about the issue of judicial activism on the nation’s highest court.

As we learn about Judge Sotomayor’s background and judicial philosophy in the days and weeks ahead, it is important to determine how she views the Constitution and the rule of law. For example, will she embrace her past statement that the “court of appeals is where policy is made?” This nomination raises the issue of legislating from the bench and the appropriate role of a Supreme Court Justice.  We will learn more about her judicial temperament and philosophy in the days ahead.

I’m hopeful that the members of the Senate will ask tough questions about her judicial philosophy and temperament when the confirmation hearings get underway this summer.  The American people deserve to fully understand what kind of Justice Sonia Sotomayor would be on the nation’s highest court for decades to come.

To subscribe to “Lynn v. Sekulow” click here.



Advertisement
Comments read comments(10)
post a comment
kelly

posted May 26, 2009 at 12:35 pm


Here is the full 2 min video of Sotomayor’s comments on policy. Watch the whole thing and judge for yourself. Don’t take other peoples opinions as your own.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ug-qUvI6WFo&NR=1



report abuse
 

LindaJoy

posted May 26, 2009 at 3:29 pm


Hello Jay! I am sure that any conversations about “judicial activism” on the part of the conservatives will include a discussion of “Bush v. Gore”- right?! :)



report abuse
 

Chris in MI

posted May 26, 2009 at 4:30 pm


Jay,
I agree with you.
Also, I watched the announcement this morning. He gave at least 3 principles to select a nominee. The 2nd was that the court should interpret law, not make it. I almost fell out of my chair! He does not practice this.. Since his next criterion – life experience – seems to imply the over-riding principle that: any change can be justified if her opinion of current standards or needs are good for the country… this can be good, it can be very bad.
As the President stated his position – How can #2 ever be more important than his #3?



report abuse
 

Rich

posted May 26, 2009 at 10:56 pm


Jay,
I would expect more fairness from you. Maybe I shouldn’t given your previous blatant partisanship but I was just hoping…
Your quite incomplete quote that you use speak volumes. Even the conservative nattering nabobs were running a tape that contained her complete statement. Quite innocuous really yet you use it anyway. Quite shameful on your part.
She may be a rotten judge for all I know. It might be wise to see what is really out there. I don’t think you need to make stuff up.
For a guy pushing the supposed value of Christianity, I sure ain’t getting a real good feel from you about what Christians are.



report abuse
 

Kristian Schonberg

posted May 27, 2009 at 9:55 am


I certainly agree, Jay. We do not need another Supreme Court Justice who legislates from the bench. The Supreme Court is required to judge based on our Constitution and nothing else. To have a group of appointed for life justices who are accountable to no one would be disaster for our United States and the destruction of our 3 branches of government and its carefully crafted balance!



report abuse
 

Gwyddion9

posted May 27, 2009 at 12:59 pm


I find the whole GOP uproar amusing.
Judge Sonia Sotomayor will do fine on the U.S. Supreme Court and will help balance the “activist judges” put there during the Bush Administration.
What I find amusing/disgusting about the GOP is they did exactly what they are telling President Obama not to do. They have no room to point fingers at anyone.
The Judges appointed during the Bush Administration were chosen to up hold the conservative agenda in this country, mainly the GOP & of course the RR’s agenda.
They’ve, the GOP and the RR, have made their beds. It’s now time to sleep in them!



report abuse
 

A Tennessee farmer

posted May 27, 2009 at 4:45 pm


Supreme Court
Where in the Constitution [ART, III et seq] is the power to make policy granted to SCOTUS?Does such an admitted act constitute “good behavior” or is it judicial misconduct, abuse of judicial authority such as to call for the resignation of a judge?
Where in the Constitution is a SCt justice granted the power to “control the direction of society” [Kennedy}?
Where in the Constitution , Bill of Rights , are…” the penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees”..? Point them out to me and references to them in Madison’s notes.
Where in the Constitution [ ART. II] is the power granted to POTUS to fire an officer of a private corporation?
Where in the Constitution is the power granted to the executive, legislative or judicial branches to seize the assests of any private corporation [AIG], own,establish or sieze any private corporation and run it,to establish any health care program?
Where in the Constitution is the power granted to the fedearal government to give away tax revenues to private corporations, private citizens or “community organizing entities?
Where in the Constitution is the power granted to SCOTUS to:
The Supreme Court has failed to “break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the constitution”
The Warren court was insufficiently radical
The courts have failed to enforce redistributive change
The legislature is the more effective forum for bringing about economic justice and the redistribution of wealth.
The American Constitution is outdated and flawed
The courts have failed to enforce politically correct thought processes and economic equalization on the populace, and therefore the government must do so through legislation.
quoting OBAMA
Is it now time to follow the words of Lincoln [the real Lincoln not Obama Lincoln]:
Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln. Volume 1.
Lincoln, Abraham, 1809-1865.
Speech in United States House of Representatives: The War with Mexico [1]
At pages 439 and440
Mr. Chairman: January 12, 1848
Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable,—a most sacred right—a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government, may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may revolutionize, and make their own, of so much of the teritory as they inhabit. More than this, a majority of any portion of such people may revolutionize, putting down a minority, intermingled with, or near about them, who may oppose their movement. Such minority, was precisely the case, of the tories of our own revolution. It is a quality of revolutions not to go by old lines, or old laws; but to break up both, and make new ones.
????



report abuse
 

Mary-Lee

posted May 28, 2009 at 8:36 am


For example, will she embrace her past statement that the “court of appeals is where policy is made?”
Why don’t you use the entire quote, Jay? At least put it in context.



report abuse
 

N. Lindzee Lindholm

posted May 31, 2009 at 3:32 pm


Hi Mr. Rich,
In reply to your comment, I would expect more fairness from you Sir. When referencing what Dr. Sekulow stated, you don’t even refer to the quote as to what was said; more specifically, what you disagree with, leaving the reader in complete oblivion. Instead, you partake in the elementary process of name calling, which is quite shameful on your part.
For your information, Dr. Sekulow quoted Judge Sotomayor as saying:
“…Court of Appeals is where policy is made.”
Quite frankly, the fact is that what she says after this statement (infra):
“And I know, and I know, that this is on tape, and I should never say that. Because we don’t ‘make law,’ I know. [Laughter from audience] Okay, I know. I know. I’m not promoting it, and I’m not advocating it. I’m, you know. [More laughter] Having said that, the Court of Appeals is where, before the Supreme Court makes the final decision, the law is percolating. Its interpretation, its application.”
…really does not matter much since if she didn’t believe there was an ounce of truth in her original statement, she would not have taken the risk of verbalizing it. Is this not true, Mr. Rich?
P.S. Next time you have a point to argue, make sure you back it up with the truth and nothing but the truth instead of these straw arguments and accusations.



report abuse
 

Bernie

posted May 31, 2009 at 4:11 pm


Rich: “For a guy pushing the supposed value of Christianity, I sure ain’t getting a real good feel from you about what Christians are.”
Yeah Rich, but you’re getting a very accurate one.



report abuse
 



Previous Posts

Another Blog To Enjoy!!!
Thank you for visiting LynnvSekulow. This blog is no longer being updated. Please enjoy the archives. Here is another blog you may also enjoy: Jay Sekulow: Faith and Justice  Happy Reading!

posted 11:26:38am Aug. 16, 2012 | read full post »

Another blog to enjoy!!!
Thank you for visiting Lynn V. Sekulow. This blog is no longer being updated. Please enjoy the archives. Here is another blog you may also enjoy: Jay Sekulow's Faith and Justice Happy Reading!!!

posted 10:36:04am Jul. 06, 2012 | read full post »

More to Come
Barry,   It's hard to believe that we've been debating these constitutional issues for more than two years now in this space.  I have tremendous respect for you and wish you all the best in your new endeavors.   My friend, I'm sure we will continue to square off in other forums - on n

posted 4:52:22pm Dec. 02, 2010 | read full post »

Thanks for the Memories
Well Jay, the time has come for me to say goodbye. Note to people who are really happy about this: I'm not leaving the planet, just this blog.As I noted in a personal email, after much thought, I have decided to end my participation and contribution to Lynn v. Sekulow and will be doing some blogging

posted 12:24:43pm Nov. 21, 2010 | read full post »

President Obama: Does He Get It?
Barry,   I would not use that label to identify the President.  I will say, however, that President Obama continues to embrace and promote pro-abortion policies that many Americans strongly disagree with.   Take the outcome of the election - an unmistakable repudiation of the Preside

posted 11:46:49am Nov. 05, 2010 | read full post »




Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.