If you didn’t know that the head of the Catholic League was an old softie at heart, then his email exchange with Steve Waldman will change your mind. Responding to a question from Steve, Bill wrote:
“I like the fact that she is not brandishing her religion. I do not want Catholic judges to rule as Catholics but as judges. I am all for Catholic legislators having a Catholic-informed opinion, but a judge has a different charge. Unless something pops that we don’t know about, I am not going to oppose her. Indeed, the experiences I had working with the Puerto Rican community lead me to quietly root for her.”
That’s not so surprising, really, as Donohue noted in his first reaction release that he spent four years in the 1970s teaching in a Catholic elementary school in Spanish Harlem. “I loved working with the Puerto Rican people. Indeed, I feel some of the pride that Puerto Ricans rightly feel today. Good for them–this is their special day.”
Good for Bill. But it does smack of that notorious quality, “empathy,” which is shaping up as a battleground buzzword. Ironically.
Sotomayor’s “temperment” is also attracting the attention of conservative strategists. Did they worry about Antonin Scalia’s temper? Or is it something about a woman, and a Latina at that, speaking up? Bill D could empathize on the temperment question too, methinks.
posted May 29, 2009 at 11:21 am
With regard to Sotomayor as “sharp-tongued”…I wondered the same thing on my blog last night [some cross-posting here].
Why are only women described as “sharp-tongued?”
Notice that, in the piece, the comparison is to Justice Scalia, but the language, to describe him, changes to “ascerbic,” without the Homeric overtones.
And why, in her case, is this indicative of a “temperment” problem? (“She’s whacked, that’s why!” Oh, I see. Not.)
As the article unfolds, it turns out that other, more careful observers, say her questioning pattern is no different than her male colleagues. But this qualification does not appear until you’ve read halfway into the article (and, of course, the damning phrase is in the big font).
posted May 31, 2009 at 6:56 pm
Should this be raised at this time?
The First cannon of judicial ethics says:
A JUDGE SHALL UPHOLD THE INDEPENDENCE AND INTEGRITY OF THE JUDICIARY, SHALL PERFORM THE DUTIES OF THE OFFICE IMPARTIALLY, AND SHALL AVOID IMPROPRIETY AND THE APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY IN ALL OF THE JUDGE’S ACTIVITIES .
RULE 1.01: PROMOTING CONFIDENCE IN THE JUDICIARY
A judge shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the independence,* integrity,* and impartiality* of the judiciary.
I do not find any fault in the current nominee to the United States Supreme Court for being a woman, a Latino, for having made remarks on her qualifications as superior to the qualifications of any Caucasian. But I do find fault with her appointment violating the spirit of the first cannon of Judicial Ethics, that a judge should appear impartial. Litigants will be hesitant to turn to courts where the Justices appear stacked against them and this undermines the rule of law. Judge Sonia Sotomayor would become the sixth Roman Catholic justice on the Supreme Court. There are only nine of them, so that would mean that two thirds of the Justices, 66+%, would be Roman Catholic in a country where less that 25% of the population practices that religion. That religion predisposes its members, by life long training, faith, and in some cases, rule, to take certain positions that are likely to come up for hearing before the court. Any Appointee will not commit before they go onto the bench what position they may take in a case, but the appearance is there, however they may deny this will influence their rulings. The very appearance of six Roman Catholic Justices on the court gives the appearance to all litigants that if they appear on one side of those issues, be if choice, school prayer, school vouchers or other issues, they will not get a fair hearing. Of course, with the church’s and Popes stand on capital punishment, some might be inclined to support such a person in hopes of abolishing the death penalty. Only one Roman Catholic Justice on some of these issues has taken a position not supported by the church. I believe this is a far more important consideration than any other and should bar Judge Sotomayor from being confirmed by the Senate, no matter how good of a Judge she has been and how worthy of the position she may otherwise be. In fact, I believe it should have prompted her to decline the nomination at this time and should prompt her to withdraw. It is just not the appropriate time to appoint one more Roman Catholic to the court and preserve the diversity of the court in representing the religious views of this country. It appears to threaten the first amendment’s freedom of religion that is so much a bedrock of our society. I know these remarks are politically incorrect but feel they must be made. If you share these sentiments, please pass them on as I believe the general medial is wired not to touch this with a ten foot poll until finally forced to do so by the people.
Ed Campbell
.