Lynn v. Sekulow

Lynn v. Sekulow


Sotomayor: Clearly Qualified

posted by Rev. Barry W. Lynn

Let me try to figure out your position on what Judge Sonia Sotomayor has said about a couple of issues. I have a few questions.

First, you noted in your last post that she said that Roe v. Wade was “settled law.”  Is this a bad thing? I thought conservatives were supposed to like the doctrine of stare decisis, the idea that absent extraordinarily compelling reasons, the Supreme Court does not overturn the basic reasoning of earlier cases — that precedent matters. 

As you know, Roe didn’t resolve all the questions regarding access to abortion or there would not have been a half dozen major subsequent cases on reproductive choice at the Supreme Court since that decision.  If the judge had said “Roe is ripe for reopening,” would you have said, “she had no respect for precedent and believes in judicial activism”?  Or with your strong anti-abortion beliefs, would you have said, “I applaud her willingness to re-open matters which were resolved in a way I didn’t like in the first place”?

Second, why are you fearful of “empathy”?  Some Senate Republicans seem to equate it with “prejudice,” a stretch of the language beyond recognition.  I assume you wouldn’t go that far.  “Empathy” is simply the capacity to feel the experiences of others.  It is not even “sympathy,” which generally means you want to change the conditions of others.  Do you believe that Justice Thomas has no “empathy” but that this is a good thing for a Supreme Court justice?

Third, you continue to say you want the Senate to learn her views on “important constitutional protections.”  So why don’t you ask the folks you know to ask questions about issues other than guns and abortion?  Specifically, where are the religious liberty questions?  (So far, only Democratic Sen. Ben Cardin has even broached the topic.)  Curiously, even our mutual friend, Dr. Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention came out against Judge Sotomayor because of her positions on guns and property rights but not because of anything she said about religion.  Isn’t this odd?

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



Advertisement
Comments read comments(21)
post a comment
Boris

posted July 16, 2009 at 3:46 pm


Lets go to the phones. We have Jim Bob on line 3: Hi Jay thanks for all yer doin to fight the lefty libs and atheistic congress. My question is if we can prove Sotomayor is the Harlot from Revelation and that Obama is the antichrist would that be grounds to impeach Obama and deny Sotomayor a seat on the bench? Jay: Well I don’t want to get into all the theological implications but yes of course….



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 16, 2009 at 11:50 pm


==why are you fearful of “empathy”? ==
I had empathy for Clarence Thomas. Did you?
If a justice said that he understands the clear language of the law, but that he has “empathy” for the accused, would that be appropriate in ruling in favor of the accused? Of course it wouldn’t.
The judicial order of operations is that judges are supposed to stop at the clear language of the law, and, if the language isn’t clear, they go to the intent of the legislature, and, if that isn’t clear, they go to legislative history. Nowhere in that order of operations is the subjective “empathy.”



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 17, 2009 at 1:04 am


Did your “empathy” clear Richard Nixon even though the facts showed otherwise?
How ’bout George Bush? Any empathy in there that vidicates him?



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 17, 2009 at 1:05 am


vidicates —-> vindicates



report abuse
 

N. Lindzee Lindholm

posted July 17, 2009 at 1:21 am


What your purporting, Rev. Lynn, is that judicial philosophy takes precedence over the degree of compellingness of an issue. I argue in the reverse, that the standard of scrutiny takes precedence over judicial philosophy. Here, the issue is human life of fetuses which should be held to the same strict scrutiny as that designated to the suspect class of ethnic and racial minorities.
You yourself do not even think Roe v. Wade is “settled law”, pointing out the numerous cases that have been decided on the Supreme Court level as an aftershock in the aftermath of Roe v. Wade.
For the record, I would have been completely satisfied if Judge Sotomayor said “Roe is unsettled law”, because clearly, as you have pointed out, the case is more like a tide in the ocean than the sediment underneath.



report abuse
 

Mary-Lee

posted July 17, 2009 at 12:15 pm


I had empathy for Clarence Thomas. Did you?
In fact, I did. I saw a man who had been so twisted by the effects of racism and so determined to prove his own worthiness to serve on the Supreme Court that he threw away any consideration of the very affirmative action laws that enabled him to rise to the point where he could be considered for that position.
Nevertheless, it was perfectly clear during his hearings that he still lacked the credentials that qualified him for the position. His subsequent opinions, such as they are, have proved that fact over and over again.
Nevertheless, we all are stuck with him now… until death do us part. Can we please move on?



report abuse
 

Mary-Lee

posted July 17, 2009 at 12:21 pm


Here, the issue is human life of fetuses which should be held to the same strict scrutiny as that designated to the suspect class of ethnic and racial minorities.
All you need to do is to bring a case before the Supreme Court in which the Justices are able to consider that point. Recall, please, that the Court cannot decide cases unless and until the case comes before it.
To date, the Court has determined that fetuses do not have the same rights as full human beings up to a point. Prove otherwise.
Good luck with that!



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 17, 2009 at 1:13 pm


==To date, the Court has determined that fetuses do not have the same rights as full human beings up to a point. ==
That’s only cuz the issue of personhood for the unborn, as a matter of law, has yet to be brought before SCOTUS. Justice Blackmun, in roe, itself, said that, had it been before the Court, the Court would have had to rule the other way.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 17, 2009 at 1:19 pm


==”I had empathy for Clarence Thomas. Did you?”
In fact, I did. I saw a man who had been so twisted by the effects of racism and so determined to prove his own worthiness to serve on the Supreme Court that he threw away any consideration of the very affirmative action laws that enabled him to rise to the point where he could be considered for that position.==
Except that you didn’t have the empathy Sotomayor indicates, that of allowing empathy rule over legal sense. Your “empathy” didn’t wave him through. Sotomayor wants empathy to wave through people, regardless of the law.
==…it was perfectly clear during his hearings that he still lacked the credentials that qualified him for the position.==
That’s cuz you are against him. So, your perception is clouded.
==His subsequent opinions, such as they are, have proved that fact over and over again. ==
That’s cuz you don’t agree with his opinions. He isn’t acting Black enough for you.
==Can we please move on?==
No. I didn’t bring up this subject.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 17, 2009 at 1:28 pm


Sotomayor wants her “empathy” to translate into action in favor of somebody, bumping law down to less consideration.
Mary-Lee has “empathy” for Clarence Thomas but it stops there;she doesn’t support him with that “empathy.”



report abuse
 

Rich

posted July 17, 2009 at 2:32 pm


Re: “empathy for Clarence Thomas”
I think not. I am old enough to have been a witness to the confirmation hearings for Clarence Thomas. I recall them all too well. Not for the circus that surrounded Anita Hill but rather for the bald-faced lie told my this pathetic example of a justice.
When asked if he had thought about the abortion issue, Thomas literally said he had not. Obviously, this was a lie. Every thinking American had pondered the issue at one time or another. The topic was then and is now in the news frequently enough that it is beyond any reasonable belief that he had never thought about it. The fact that a nominee to the Supreme Court would blantantly lie in order to advance his conservative agenda is bad but becomes even worse when his lies were tolerated by the Republican majority at that time.
Because of this, it is hard to have any empathy for such a dishonest individual.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 17, 2009 at 4:03 pm


==Re: “empathy for Clarence Thomas”
I think not.==
So, then, you believe Sotomayor is wrong to elevate empathy above law, thta it is inappropriate to use her feelings so that the law is not imposed on the accused. We get it.
== I am old enough to have been a witness to the confirmation hearings for Clarence Thomas. I recall them all too well. Not for the circus that surrounded Anita Hill but rather for the bald-faced lie told my this pathetic example of a justice.==
That’s cuz you blindly accepted Hill’s story. You are compelled to be against Thomas.
==When asked if he had thought about the abortion issue, Thomas literally said he had not. Obviously, this was a lie.==
“Obviously”?? How do you know?? Were you in his head?
== Every thinking American had pondered the issue at one time or another.==
How do YOU know this??
== The topic was then and is now in the news frequently enough that it is beyond any reasonable belief that he had never thought about it.==
“Reasonable” in whose eyes? What’s “reasonable” to you isn’t “reasonable” to others.
== The fact that a nominee to the Supreme Court would blantantly lie…==
You assume he lied.
==Because of this, it is hard to have any empathy for such a dishonest individual.==
So, you disagree with Sotomayor and agree with her detractors who say that empathy should not slither into judicial decisions. We get it.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 17, 2009 at 4:05 pm


==Re: “empathy for Clarence Thomas”
I think not.==
That is clear.
Anywho…
You empathize only with those who agree with you. We get that, too.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 17, 2009 at 4:09 pm


== Every thinking American had pondered the issue at one time or another.==
You criticize him for being, essentially, not-thinking. So, if he said he hadn’t thought about it, and you say he doesn’t think, you don’t have a beef.



report abuse
 

Rich

posted July 17, 2009 at 4:25 pm


Hey there Mr. Incredible,
You are right. It is ridiculous to expect that a grown adult and jurist seeking to be on the Supreme Court would have ever pondered the most divisive social issue of the time.
Hey, you maybe interested in buying the Brooklyn Bridge? I can let you have it for a steal!



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 17, 2009 at 4:58 pm


==It is ridiculous to expect that a grown adult and jurist seeking to be on the Supreme Court would have ever pondered the most divisive social issue of the time.==
YOU say he is non-thinking. That’s cuz he doesn’t agree with you.
Then, you say that trhere’s no doubt he thought about it.
Well, if he can’t think, how did he think about it???
Make up your mind.



report abuse
 

Rich

posted July 17, 2009 at 7:08 pm


Mr. Incredible,
Did you decide about that Brooklyn Bridge thing? It could be a good investment for your cult.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 19, 2009 at 5:11 pm


==… your cult. ==
What “cult”? Cults don’t lift up Jesus Christ. Christianity lifts up Jesus Christ. Scoffers don’t know the difference. No wonder; they’re blind.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 19, 2009 at 5:14 pm


Boris advised Rich to ignore me.
Rich did not take Boris’ advice and continued, ignoring Boris.
Now Boris is ignoring his own advice.
What’s wrong with this picture?



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted July 20, 2009 at 1:13 pm


Rev Lynn asks if “settled law ” is such “bad thing”? Well, I guess it depends on which side of that “settled law” you are on, doesn’t it? I’m not an attorney, but am I wrong in asserting that any law must be based on some authority which either has power of enforcement, or some inscrutably perfect source of right and wrong? My challenge, sir, is… which of these is behind Roe v. Wade? Can you show that abortion is right or wrong? Oh – I understand, it depends on who you ask. Isn’t it true that the decision in Roe was “settled” based on who has the power to enforce their position on society?
My point is, only an externally perfect source of judgement (God?) has the power to say what is “settled law”. Why are human beings so arrogant?



report abuse
 

Matt

posted July 22, 2009 at 1:52 pm


It’s sad to see Rev. Lynn perpetuate a myth that Richard Land didn’t raise concerns of religion/liberty about Sotomayor.
The ERLC referenced 3 specific cases on the subject in a fact sheet. (Attached link). Moreover, it’s troubling that Lynn doesn’t think property rights is a concern for people of faith. If the federal gov’t can take any property they want and give it to others, this includes churches.
See also Sotomayor, the ERLC, Parham and the Facts.



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.