Lynn v. Sekulow

Lynn v. Sekulow


Which Sotomayor Will We Get?

posted by Jay Sekulow

Barry, let me answer your questions.

 

First, Judge Sotomayor’s answer that Roe v. Wade is “settled law” is not necessarily “a bad thing” if she is explaining the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence.  Chief Justice Roberts, at his confirmation hearing, acknowledged that Roe “is settled as a precedent of the Court.”  Justices, when reviewing any case, must consider the principles of stare decisis, and nominees to the Supreme Court should show a respect for stare decisis.  However, the Supreme Court does revisit (and reverse) its own “settled law” decisions–look at Lawrence v. Texas, a 2003 decision that overturned the “settled law” from the 1986 Bowers v. Hardwick case upholding state sodomy laws.  What’s important to know is when a Supreme Court justice will be willing to revisit precedent.  Consider Judge Sotomayor’s views on the subject.  In response to questioning from Senator Cornyn, Judge Sotomayor said that due to “evolving social changes” and Congress passing new laws, “whatever was viewed as settled law previously will often get changed because Congress has changed something.” She further explained that “society evolves in terms of technology and other developments, and so the law is being applied to a new set of facts,” and she noted that

 

“There are new directions in the law in terms of the court. The court — Supreme Court is often looking at its precedents and considering whether, in certain circumstances whose precedent is owed deference for very important reasons, but the court takes a new direction. And those new directions rarely, if ever, come at the initiation of the court. They come because lawyers are encouraging the court to look at a situation in a new way, to consider it in a different way.”

Despite these statements, Judge Sotomayor, about an hour later that day, refused to directly answer a question for Senator Coburn, a medical doctor, as to whether advancements in technology with respect to viability of a fetus should have any “bearing as we look at the law.”  Her answers appear inconsistent to me.  She appears willing to revisit some “settled law,” but not necessarily Roe.

 

Second, I am not “fearful” of empathy as a human emotion; however, I am wary of judges who use empathy to decide cases.  Cases should be decided based on the law and the facts, not on the feelings or personal experiences of the judge.  Judge Sotomayor agrees, or so she said at her hearing.

 

I remain concerned about the obvious contradiction between Judge Sotomayor’s speeches and her statements at the hearing.  I don’t know which Judge Sotomayor we will get on the Supreme Court if she is confirmed. As observed by Senators on the Committee, Judge Sotomayor’s testimony sounded a lot like Chief Justice Roberts, the opposite of her writings and speeches.

 

Third and finally, I agree that Senators should have questioned Judge Sotomayor on other issues, including religious liberties.  I said as much in the letter the ACLJ submitted to the Judiciary Committee before the hearing began.

 

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

 



Advertisement
Comments read comments(21)
post a comment
GodsCountry

posted July 17, 2009 at 9:45 pm


The fact anyone feels the need to ask “which Sotomayor will we get?” justifies voting against her appointment. There can be no gambling involved with a life-long appointment to the Supreme Court of the United States.
Vote her down.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 17, 2009 at 10:32 pm


GodsCountry
July 17, 2009 9:45 PM
The fact anyone feels the need to ask “which Sotomayor will we get?” justifies voting against her appointment. There can be no gambling involved with a life-long appointment to the Supreme Court of the United States.
Vote her down.
——————————————————————–
Unfortunately, those with a sense to vote her down are not a majority, and that majority with such sense won’t come along again for about another year and a half when we get to correct what voters did to us last November.



report abuse
 

Boscoe

posted July 18, 2009 at 6:13 pm


Mr. Incredible,
You’re doing and writing the right and correct things, according to the Word, PRAISE THE LORD! Persecution either bounces off us, or it goes in, down and out with the other waste. Either way, it doesn’t have license over us.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 18, 2009 at 8:08 pm


So, it’s unclear which Maria “Dr. Jekyll/Mr. Hyde” Sotomayor we will get cuz she says one thing one day, and another thing the next.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted July 19, 2009 at 1:01 am


Sotomayor isn’t any different than other pro-abortionists such as George Bush, who’s responsible for murdering millions of babies, by signing every health services bill that came upon his desk.
Bush, Sotomayor, and definitely liberal justices, have no clue what Natural Law says, via the Constitution, as to when life begins.
Neocons and libs are both the same; ignorant of the Constitution, and Natural Law.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 19, 2009 at 5:05 pm


==Neocons and libs are both the same…==
On balance, however, Conservatives are preferable, and, given only those two alternatives, I’ll go with Conservatives every time.



report abuse
 

DSJulian

posted July 19, 2009 at 5:53 pm


The only Sotomayor you are going to get is the one with hundreds of decisions under her belt and on the record.
Mr Incredible: “On balance, however, Conservatives are preferable…”
Have you been asleep like Rip Van Winkle for the past eight years? Who do you think deregulated us down here into the economic cesspool we are in? Who got us to give away billions of unaccountable funds and no-bid contracts to war profiteers?



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 19, 2009 at 6:15 pm


DSJulian
July 19, 2009 5:53 PM
The only Sotomayor you are going to get is the one with hundreds of decisions under her belt and on the record.
———————————————————–
Yes, decisions polluted with “empathy.”
DSJulian
July 19, 2009 5:53 PM
Mr Incredible: “On balance, however, Conservatives are preferable…”
Have you been asleep like Rip Van Winkle for the past eight years? Who do you think deregulated us down here into the economic cesspool we are in?
——————————————————————–
You forget that, in the mid-90s, Clinton, Frank and Dodd rejected regulation of the mortgage-lending industry. That gave “license” to mortgage lenders to offer subprime loans that would come due someday to the point that people couldn’t afford them. Clinton, Frank and Dodd said at the time that everybody should be able to afford a house, and the “license” they gave these people did that.
In the early 2000s, George Bush warned that, cuz-a this unwillingness by the Democrats to regulate the mortgage-lending industry, a crisis loomed.
In 2003, John McCain offered legislation that would have regulated the mortgage-lending industry. Barney Frank said that the mortgage-lending industry is sound and that it doesn’t need regulation. That aggravated the problem.
Last November, YOU people elected the very same people who got us into this mess. The American People, finally, are beginning to realize the mistake they made last November. They see everything falling apart, and they see North Korea, al-Q and Iran, for three examples, taking more liberties in the face of perceived weakness.
A year from next November, WE will correct the mistake that was made last November. Then, WE will make a further correction in ’12.
Are Republicans perfect? Of course not. However, they are much better than Democrats, in any case.
See you in November, ’10.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 19, 2009 at 6:20 pm


DSJulian
July 19, 2009 5:53 PM
The only Sotomayor you are going to get is the one with hundreds of decisions under her belt and on the record.
———————————————————–
Yes, decisions polluted so much with “empathy” that somebody should’ve called in the EPA.



report abuse
 

Boscoe

posted July 19, 2009 at 6:24 pm


It’s true, as Mr. Incredible says, that the Democrats — primarily Clinton, Frank and Dodd — in rejecting regulation of the mortgage-lending industry, are the cause of the problems we’re having.
Then, around 2003, they aggravated the situation by rejecting McCain’s legislation that would have regulated the mortgage-lending industry, Frank saying that the mortgage-lending industry doesn’t need regulation. I remember that it was about that time that George Bush warned of the coming crisis that we’re in now.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 19, 2009 at 6:43 pm


DSJulian
July 19, 2009 5:53 PM
The only Sotomayor you are going to get is the one with hundreds of decisions under her belt and on the record.
———————————————————–
Did you say that during the confirmation hearings for Roberts and Alito? How ’bout Bork?



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 19, 2009 at 6:48 pm


Are we better off now than we were last eight years? No. We are far worse off now, and getting “worser” by the minute. Remember this in November, ’10, and in ’12.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 19, 2009 at 6:54 pm


==Cases should be decided based on the law and the facts, not on the feelings or personal experiences of the judge. ==
Nazi judges relied on “empathy”…for the Führer. Where the law might have saved the accused, this “empathy” convicted the accused.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 19, 2009 at 7:03 pm


DSJulian
July 19, 2009 5:53 PM
The only Sotomayor you are going to get is the one with hundreds of decisions under her belt and on the record.
———————————————————–
So, if a judge brings his personal feelings to a decision, it’s okay with you if those feelings overrule the law?
Is this the standard you used when Republicans nominated/appointed?



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 19, 2009 at 7:22 pm


So, how far should emotion go in warping the force of law?



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 19, 2009 at 7:27 pm


After all, there are those claiming to be Christian who warp God’s law to meet their, say, for example, their homosexual desires. So, maybe, THAT’s where they’re coming from, a kinda precedent of mangling law for fit choices of personal, subjective requirements and choices of needs, sted the other way around. There’s plenty-a that goin’ around nowadays.



report abuse
 

Mary-Lee

posted July 20, 2009 at 8:39 am


Unfortunately, those with a sense to vote her down are not a majority, and that majority with such sense won’t come along again for about another year and a half when we get to correct what voters did to us last November.
What do you mean “what voters did to us”? Don’t you vote? Or are you saying that Christians are a minority who are getting beaten up by the irreligious majority of voters?
In the United States of America, majority rules as long as that majority does not trample on the minority rights. Your rights have not been trampled upon. You are free to attend the church of your choice; you are free to refuse an abortion; you are free to not be a practicing homosexual. In what ways have your rights been ignored?
As for the mortgages, the Community Reinvestment Act (which I can assume is the thorn in your side) only applies to banks and thrifts that are federally-insured. This means that the independent mortgage brokers, who are responsible for half of all the nation’s sub-prime lending–and who have been writing such loans at more than twice the rate of banks and thrifts–aren’t even covered by the law.
And make no mistake, it was the hand of the mortgage broker, more than any other, that precipitated the housing bubble. These are folks who were writing “stated income” loans (which means you don’t have to prove your income, you can just tell them a number and get the OK), not caring about whether the borrower might default, since they were going to turn around and dump the loan at a profit, onto the secondary market, by pawning it off to investors who were gobbling up debt, betting on the further expansion of home values. In this scenario, neither the original broker nor the investor who bought up the debt was concerned about what would happen to the borrower who took out the initial loan. After all, if a borrower defaulted, but the housing market was still going up in value, they could swoop in, foreclose and sell the house again at a profit.
On neither end of this equation were poor people to blame. The persons getting stated income loans were overwhelmingly middle class, perhaps hoping to keep up with the richer folks down the block, but certainly not the poor. Most poor folks are still renters, or just hoping to get a modest home. And let it suffice to say that none of the vultures snapping up the mortgage debt on the secondary market were poor. These were affluent white people, willing to gamble on the potential misfortune of others.



report abuse
 

RJohnson

posted July 20, 2009 at 9:29 am


It’s wonderful to see that so many commenters here, including Jay, are receiving the GOP talking points updates on Ms. Sotomayor. Well done! I am sure your GOP handlers would be proud.



report abuse
 

John Lofton, Recovering Republican...

posted July 22, 2009 at 5:54 pm


It is a shockingly ignorant statement by Jay Sekulow that Sotomayor’s assertion that Roe v. Wade is “settled law” is not necessarily “a bad thing,” blah, blah, blah. And Sekulow’s reaction is shocking because COURTS DO NOT MAKE LAW!! Thus, Roe cannot be “settled law”? Roe is simply as opinion, a ruling. It should be ignored. Only legislatures make law and then what they make is law only if it conforms to, or does not contradict, God’s Law.
John Lofton, Editor, TheAmericanView.com
Communications Director, Institute On The Constitution
Host, “The American View” Radio Show
Recovering Republican
JLof@aol.com
“Accursed is that peace of which revolt from God is the bond, and blessed are those contentions by which it is necessary to maintain the kingdom of Christ.” — John Calvin.



report abuse
 

Boris

posted July 22, 2009 at 8:27 pm


John Calvin believed the earth was flat. Legislatures have made laws that make abortion legal. Recovering Republican now dangerous religious fanatic who thinks he and his retarded religious beliefs are above the law.



report abuse
 

N. Lindzee Lindholm

posted July 22, 2009 at 11:10 pm


If Judge Sotomayor is confirmed, I am also skeptical, like Dr. Jay, that Sotomayor’s judicial philosophy will not take on the new transformation that we saw during the hearing. She contradicted herself in regards to settled law, which was clearly dependent and empathic to the topic that was being discussed. Moreover, previous judicial actions from her past history, hence practical judicial philosophy in action, do not match what she said her approach to deciding a case was in the hearing. If Sotomayor is confirmed, I think we shall see a split personality in terms of talk and walk of judicial philosophy, for sure, fluctuating with various issues.



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.